^^S OF PHIiVc^ 
 
 /; 
 
 AUG 28 1957 
 ^OGiGALSi^ 
 
 BV 600 .B23 1868 v. 2 
 Bannerman, James, 1807-1868 
 The church of Christ 
 
THE CHURCH OF CHRI^fe^ 
 
 I 
 
 TREATISE ON THE NATURE, POWERS, ORDINANCES. 
 
 DISCIPLINE, AND GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 
 
 BY THE LATE 
 
 JAMES^BANNERMAN, D.D., 
 
 PROFESSOR OF APOLOGETICS AND PASTORAL THEOLOGY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH ; 
 
 ATTTHOR OF "INSPIRATION : THE INFALLIBLE TRUTH AND DIVINE 
 
 AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES." 
 
 EDITED B V HIS SON. 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. 
 
 LONDON : HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO. DUBLIN : JOHN EOBERTSON & CO. 
 MDCCCLXVIIL 
 
MURRAY AND GIEB, EDINBURGH, 
 PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE. 
 

 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PART III.— MATTERS IN REGARD TO WHICH CHURCH POWER 
 IS EXERCISED. 
 
 Div. II.— Church Power exercised in regard to Ordinances. 
 
 SuBDiv. IV. — Positive Divine Institutions in addition to the 
 Ordinary Public Worship of the Lord's Day, or the 
 Sacraments. 
 
 I'AOE 
 
 Chap. I. The Sacraments in General, 1 
 
 Sec. I. Nature and Efficacy of the Sacraments of the New Testa- 
 ment, and Difference between them and Non-Sacramental 
 
 Ordinances, ......... 5 
 
 II. Unscriptural or Defective Views of the Sacraments, . 20 
 
 Chap. II. The Sacrament of Baptism, 41 
 
 Sec. I. Nature of the Ordinance, 41 
 
 II. The Subjects of Baptism as regards Adults, ... 53 
 
 III. Infant Baptism, ........ 65 
 
 IV. Objections to Infant Baptism, ..... 93 
 V. Efficacy of Infant Baptism, 106 
 
 VI. The Modes of Baptism, 121 
 
 Chap. III. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, 128 
 
 Sec. I. Nature of the Ordinance, 130 
 
 II. Transubstantiation, 141 
 
 III. The Doctrine of the Real Presence and the Priestly Theoiy, 156 
 
 IV. The Sacrifice of the Mass, and other forms of the Sacrificial 
 Theory, 170 
 
VI CONTENTS. 
 
 Div. III.— Church Power exercised in regard to Discipline. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Chap. I. Nature, Design, and Limits of the Discipline of the Christian 
 
 Church, 186 
 
 PART IV.— PARTIES IN WHOM THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE 
 CHURCH POWER IS VESTED. 
 
 Chap. I. Divine Appointment of a Fonn of Church Government, . . 201 
 
 II. The Extraordinary Office-Bearers of the Christian Church, . 214 
 
 Sec. I. Office of Apostles, 217 
 
 II. Offices of Prophets and Evangelists, .... 228 
 
 Chap. III. The Popish System of Church Polity, 245 
 
 Chap. IV. The Prelatic System of Church Polity as opposed to the 
 
 Presbyterian, 260 
 
 Sec. I. No Evidence in Scripture, but the reverse, for the 
 Appointment by our Lord or His Apostles of an Order of 
 
 Bishops as distinct from Presbyters, 265 
 
 Sec. II. No Evidence in Scripture, but the reverse, of the Exercise 
 of the Powers of a Diocesan Bishop by any distinct and per- 
 manent Order of Office-Bearers, apart from that of Presby- 
 ters, 278 
 
 Chap. V. The Independent System of Chm-ch Polity as opposed to the 
 
 Presbyterian, 296 
 
 Sec. I. The Congregational Prmciple as opposed to Presby- 
 
 terianism, .......... 300 
 
 Sec. II. The Independent Principle as opposed to Presbyte- 
 
 rianism, .......... 314 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 A. Bearing of Scripture Principles on the Lawfulness and Duty of Union 
 
 between separate Churches, 338 
 
CONTENTS. vii 
 
 PAOK 
 
 B. Doctrine of the Confession of Faith as to Eecognition and Endowment 
 
 of the Church by the State ; Articles of Agreement and Distinctive 
 Articles of the Churches now Negotiating for Union in Scotland, 
 
 with respect to the Civil Magistrate, ...... 345 
 
 C. Note on the History of Voluntaryism, ...... 354 
 
 D. Practical Aspects of the Relation between Church and State, . . 361 
 
 E. Relative Obligation of Scripture Precept, Example, and Principle, . 404 
 
 F. Scripture Consequences, 409 
 
 G. The Book of Common Order, 414 
 
 H. The Imposition of Hands in Ordination, 421 
 
 I. Notes on the liiterature of the Subject of this Treatise, . . . 425 
 
THE CHUECH OF CHEIST. 
 
 PAET III.— MATTERS IN EEGARD TO WHICH 
 CHURCH POWER IS EXERCISED. 
 
 DIVISION II. 
 CHUECH POWER EXEECISEH IN REGARD TO ORDINANCES. 
 
 SUBDIVISION IV. 
 
 POSITIVE DIVINE INSTITUTIONS IN ADDITION TO THE ORDINARY 
 PUBLIC WORSHIP OF THE LORD'S DAY : OR THE SACRAMENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 FOR some time past we have been occupied with the subject 
 of the ordinances of the Christian Church. We have 
 discussed the questions connected with the pubHc worship 
 appointed in the Church, the special time set apart and sanctified 
 for worship, and the ministry by means of which the worship 
 of the Church is conducted. All these are outward ordinances 
 which Christ has established in His Church, as parts of that 
 external provision which He has made for the spiritual benefit 
 and advancement of His people, and which He specially makes 
 effectual to that end by the presence and power of Plis Spirit. 
 All of these ordinances are in themselves, perhaps, and naturally 
 adapted by their inherent character and influence to promote the 
 edification of Christians ; but above and beyond this natural or 
 moral efficacy for that end, there is a spiritual blessing connected 
 with them in consequence of the positive appointment of Christ, 
 and the positive promise of His Spirit fulfilled in the right use of 
 them. There may be a natural or moral efficacy in the ordi- 
 
 VOL. II. A 
 
2 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 nances of the Church considered in themselves, so that, apart from 
 any other influence, they would, to a certain extent, be beneficial 
 and advantageous in the case of those who used them. But in 
 addition to this, there is a spiritual efficacy in the ordinances of 
 the Church, distinct from the natural, and which is derived from 
 the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them who 
 by faith make use of them as He has appointed. What this 
 spiritual and supernatural efficacy of outward ordinance exactly 
 is, — what is tlie measure or amount of the inward benefit to the 
 believer, — in what way and to what extent grace is connected 
 with the external observance, — how beyond the sphere of this 
 natural or moral influence the positive institutions of the Church 
 have a blessing not natively their own, — these are questions which 
 it is impossible for us distinctly to answer. The only wise and 
 fitting reply to such questions is, that we have now reached the 
 region of the supernatural, and that there we have no data to 
 guide us beyond what has been revealed. We know, from reve- 
 lation, that there is a promise of grace annexed to outward ordi- 
 nances when rightly used ; we know that in the external obser- 
 vances Christ meets with His people to bless them and to do them 
 good ; — but beyond this we do not know. The character, the 
 measure, the amount of the blessing promised, — how it stands 
 connected with the outward ordinance, and what is the extent 
 and efficacy of the supernatural grace over and above the natural 
 efficacy of the ordinance, — of all this we know nothing, because 
 we have been told nothing. We can distinctly understand, from 
 the analogy of other cases, how the preaching of the Word, 
 viewed as a system of human teaching of truth, and no more, 
 may have a natural tendency to benefit the understanding and 
 the heart. But we do not understand the supernatural efficacy 
 which, over and above the natural, is imparted to it by the 
 presence and the power of the Spirit in the ordinance. 
 
 In passing, as we do at this stage, from the non-sacramental 
 to the sacramental ordinances appointed by Christ in His Church, 
 it is of great importance to carry this general principle along with 
 us. A supernatural grace is not peculiar to the Sacraments, 
 although it may be found in them in larger measure than in 
 other ordinances. It is common to all the ordinances which 
 Christ has appointed in His Church. Whatever mystery there 
 may be in the connection which by the promise of Christ has 
 
Div. II. lY. Cii. I.] THE SACRAaiEXTS. 3 
 
 been established between the outward act and the inward blessing, 
 — between the external observance rightly used and the internal 
 grace divinely bestowed, — it is a mystery not belonging to Sacra- 
 ments alone, but belonging to them in common with all Church 
 ordinances. There is the mpernatimd element in them all. There 
 is that supernatural element connected in some manner with the 
 outward act of the believer in the use of ordinances. There is a 
 mystery in respect to any ordinance, not less than in respect of 
 sacramental ordinances, which we cannot explain. It is, in short, 
 the mystery of the Spirit of God, promised to dwell in the 
 Church, and making every ordinance of the Churcli, whether 
 sacramental or not, the channel for the conveyance of super- 
 natural grace. If we would rid ourselves of this mystery, we 
 can only do so by denying that the Spirit is present in ordinances 
 at all. " As the wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest 
 the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and 
 whither it goeth," — so is every ordinance, as well as each person, 
 touched and sanctified of the Holy Ghost. There can be no 
 natural explanation of the supernatural.^ 
 
 What, then, is the character of those special ordinances 
 instituted by Christ in His Church, which are usually denomi- 
 nated sacramental ordinances ; and in what respect are they to be 
 distinguished from the other ordinances of the Christian Church, 
 not sacramental ? In administering Sacraments, what is the 
 peculiar nature or character of the Church's act ; and in what 
 manner does the administration differ from that of common 
 ordinances ? 
 
 The term Sacrament, by which these peculiar ordinances are 
 known, is not of scriptural, but of ecclesiastical origin ; and there 
 is some doubt as to the manner in which it came to be applied 
 to these special solemnities of the Church, and to be restricted 
 to the peculiar meaning in which it is now almost universally 
 employed. In classical use, the word " sacramentum'' is almost 
 always, if not invariably, employed to signify an oath, — more 
 especially the military oath by which a soldier bound himself to 
 obey the officer placed over him. And it has been conjectured 
 that from its classical use it was transferred into the service of 
 I the Church, as significant of the obligation which the Christian 
 
 1 [Bannerman, Inspiration: The infallible Truth and Divine Authority of the 
 Holy Scriptures, Edin. 1865, pp. 217-228, 472 f.] 
 
4 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 comes under, in voluntarily participating in the Sacraments, to 
 serve Christ as the Captain of his salvation, — these Sacraments 
 being the characteristic badges or symbols by which the Christian 
 is distinguished from other men. There is a second explanation, 
 advocated by not a few, of the way in which the Latin term 
 Sacrament came to be appropriated to its present ecclesiastical 
 sense. It is the ordinary translation of the Greek word fjbvarrjpLov 
 among the ecclesiastical writers of the early ages, and more espe- 
 cially in the Vulgate and other old Latin translations of the Bible. 
 The term Sacrament, according to this supposition, came to.be 
 employed to signify the "mysteries" of Christianity, — whether 
 " mystery " is employed to denote a doctrine unknown until it 
 was revealed, or a type or emblem bearing a hidden and secret 
 meaning.^ There is some reason to believe that both the Greek 
 term fMvarrjpiov and the Latin translation of it — sacramentum 
 came at an early period to be applied by the primitive Christians 
 to those special solemnities of their faith, which, although mad 
 up of outward and sensible signs or actions, bore in them a secret 
 and spiritual meaning. Li one or other of these ways, or perhap 
 in both, the term " Sacrament " soon came to be restricted in its 
 meaning and application, by ecclesiastical practice, to those outward 
 ordinances of Christianity which signify and seal its most precious 
 and momentous truths. But as the term itself is of Church 
 origin, and not found in Scripture, we must look not to it, but to 
 the descriptions and intimations given in Scripture in regard to 
 the ordinances themselves, for an explanation of their true nature ' 
 and import." In what respects, then, do the Scriptures represent 
 the Sacraments of the Church as differing from its other ordi- 
 
 1 Turrettin, Opera, loc. xix. qu. i. 1-6. Halley, The Sacraments, Lond. 
 1844, pp. 7-14. 
 
 2 ["The Apostle calleth the vocation of the Gentiles a mystery (Eph. iii. 
 4-6); the conjunction quhilk is begun here betwixt us and Christ is called 
 a mystery (Eph. v. 32), and the Latin Interpreters call it a Sacrament ; and, 
 to be short, ye will not find in the Book of God a word mair frequent nor 
 the word mystery. . . . Alwayis, the word Sacrament is very ambiguous in 
 itself, and there raise about the ambiguity of this word many tragedeis quhilk 
 are not yet ceased, nor will cease while the warld lasts ; quher otherwise, 
 gif they had keeped the Apostle's words, and called them, as the Apostle calls 
 them, signs and seals, all this digladiatioim, strife, and contention appearandly 
 had not fallen out. But quher men wUl be wiser than God, and give names 
 to things beside God, upon the wit of man, quhilk is but mere folly, all this 
 cummer falls out. . . . The ancient theologues took the word Sacrament in a 
 fourfold manner. Sometimes they took it for the hail action, that is, for the 
 hail ministrie of the elements. Sometimes they took it, not for the hail 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. I.] THE SACRAMENTS. 5 
 
 nances which arc not sacramental ? What, according to Scrip- 
 ture, must we regard as the true nature and design of a Sacra- 
 ment? To this general question we shall direct our attention 
 in the first place, postponing for the present the special con- 
 sideration of the Sacraments individually. And in endeavouring 
 to ascertain the real nature and design of the Sacraments of the 
 New Testament, we shall be enabled to understand at the same 
 time, and by means of the same inquiry, in what respects they 
 differ from other ordinances not sacramental. 
 
 SECTION I. — NATURE AND EFFICACY OF THE SACRAMENTS OF 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT, AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM 
 AND NON-SACRAMENTAL ORDINANCES. 
 
 I. The Sacraments of the New Testament are Divine institu- 
 tions appointed by Christ. 
 
 It is the positive institution by Christ that sets these ordi- 
 nances apart to the religious purpose for which they are intended, 
 that makes them significant of spiritual things, and connects them 
 with the virtue or blessing which they are made instrumental 
 to impart. An express Divine appointment is necessary to con- 
 stitute a Sacrament. In this respect they are similar to the 
 other ordinances which form part of Church worship. Like 
 them, they can claim Divine authority for their institution ; and 
 without this authority they would not be Sacraments at all. No 
 observance not ordained by God can properly form any part of 
 His service ; far less can any observance not instituted by Him 
 become a sign of His spiritual grace, or a pledge of a blessing 
 which it depends upon His pleasure to give or to withhold. Hence, 
 
 action, but for the outward tilings that are used in the action of Baptism and 
 of the Supper ; as they took it for the water and sprinkling of it, for the 
 bread and wine, breaking, distributing, and eating thereof. Again, they 
 took it, not for the hail outward things that are used in the action, but only 
 for the material and earthly things, — the elements ; as for bread and wane in 
 the Supper, and water in Baptism. After this sort sayeth Augustine : ' Tlie 
 wicked eats the body of our Lord concerning the Sacrament only ; ' that is, 
 concerning the elements only. (Aug. in Joann. Tract xxvi. 18). Last of all, 
 they took it not only for the elements, but for the tilings signified by the 
 elements. And after this manner, Ireiiceus saith, ' that a Sacrament stands of 
 twa things, — the ane earthly, the other heavenly.' (.Ir/r. Hxres. lib. iv. cap. 
 18.) The ancients, then, taking the word after thir sorts, na question all thir 
 ways they took it rightly." — Robert Biiuce, Sermons on the Sacraments, p. 6, 
 Wodrow Soc. ed. Ediu. 1818.] 
 
6 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part IH. 
 
 that any outward institution may answer to our idea of a Sacra- 
 ment, it must be a positive appointment of God, and made both a 
 sign and a pledge of spiritual blessings, in consequence of His 
 promise and command. Without this, it would be a mere human 
 ordinance, not only destitute of all real religious significance and 
 efficacy, but profanely mimicking the form and character of a 
 Divine ordinance in the Church. This is the first element that 
 goes to make up a Sacrament, and which it has in common with all 
 other ordinances, really forming a lawful or proper part of DivuK 
 worship, — namely, that it be of positive appointment by Christ. 
 
 II. The Sacraments of the New Testament are sensible signs 
 of spiritual blessings, teaching and representing by outward actions 
 Gospel truths. 
 
 The word or promise of God is an appeal to the understanding 
 only ; the Sacraments, embodying the same word or promise in 
 outward and sensible signs, form a twofold appeal, first^ to the 
 senses, and secondly, to the understanding. There is Christ in 
 the Word preached ; and in the preaching of the Word, Christ is 
 jDresented directly to the understanding and heart, and the truth 
 addressed singly to the spiritual nature of man. But Christ is 
 also in the Sacrament administered ; and, in the administration 
 of the Sacrament, over and above the same truth taught to 
 the understanding and spiritual nature of man, there is the truth 
 taught to the senses, and impressed by sensible signs 'upon them. 
 There is a striking similarity between the method God has em- 
 ployed in the Sacraments of the New Testament to embody the 
 Word and promises of Christ, and of a past salvation, to the vie^^ 
 of His people since His departure, and the method that He em 
 ployed before Christ's coming to embody the Word and promises 
 of a future salvation. Under the Old Testament Church, ther^ 
 were, from the very first, two lines of promise and prediction,— 
 both pointing forward to the coming of the Redeemer, runniu. 
 parallel with each other, and throwing mutual light upon eac.i 
 other s announcements. There was the line of promise embodied 
 in verbal revelation, and there was the line of promise embodied 
 in outward representation or type. 
 
 These two revelations ran parallel with each other since the 
 first hour that a revelation was given to man in Paradise con- 
 cerning the future coming of a Saviour. At that time there was a 
 promise embodied in words, that " the woman's seed should bruise 
 
Div. 11. IV. Cir. I.] THE SACRAMENTS. 7 
 
 the serpent's head, wliile His own heel was to be bruised ; " and 
 side by side with that verbal announcement, there was the same 
 promise embodied in type through means of the ordinance of 
 sacrifice then appointed. There was Christ in the word of promise, 
 and Christ in the sign of promise. When the promise was re- 
 newed to Noah, the second father of the human family, we have 
 again the revelation by word, and the revelation by sensible sign; 
 
 , the covenant was repeated in another form, and the bow was set 
 in the cloud as the outward representation of it. Once more: 
 A' hen Abraham was selected by God to be the depositary of a 
 
 , new development of the promise, we have again that promise 
 embodied in words, and also in outward action ; we have the 
 .soecial covenant with Abraham revealed in words, and revealed 
 Side by side with the word in the external sign of circumcision ; 
 and — to mention no further examples of a practice which must be 
 familiar to every reader of the Old Testament — the whole of the 
 Jewish economy was an exemplification of the two parallel lines 
 
 , that run through every economy of God, — the promise in word 
 and the promise in sign revealed together, and throwing mutual 
 light on each other. The typology of the Old Testament shows 
 us God embodying His promises in signs ; the revelation of the 
 Old Testament shows us God embodying the same promises in 
 words ; and the Sacraments of the New Testament afford, under 
 the Gospel economy, an exemplification of the same great principle. 
 The connection between the outward action in the Sacraments 
 and the spiritual blessings to which they stand related is not a 
 
 , mere arbitrary one, arising from positive institutioii : there is a 
 natural analogy or resemblance between the external signs and 
 the things represented ; so that, in the Sacraments of the New 
 
 , Testament, as in the types of the Old, our senses are made to 
 minister to our spiritual advantage, and the outward action 
 becomes the image of inward grace. In the Word, Christ is 
 
 .impressed on the understanding; in the Sacraments, Christ is 
 impressed both on the understanding and the senses. They 
 
 ^become teaching signs, fitted and designed to address to the 
 believer the very same truths as are addressed to him in the 
 Word ; but having this peculiarity, that they speak at the same 
 
 . time and alike to the outward senses and to the inward thought. 
 In this respect the Sacraments differ from other ordinances of 
 the New Testament Church. Prayer and preaching and praise 
 
8 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 are ordinances that address themselves to the intellectual and 
 spiritual nature of man alone. They are the expressions and 
 utterances of his intellectual and spiritual being in holding inter- 
 course with God ; or they are the means fitted to speak to that 
 nature, and that only, in impressing Divine truth upon men. But 
 in those significant and teaching signs, which we call the Sacra- 
 ments, Christ is embodied in the ordinance in such a manner as 
 to appeal to the twofold being of man, as made up of body and 
 soul, to minister both to the senses and the understanding ; and to 
 speak at once to the outward and inward nature of the believer. 
 In addition to Christ in the Word, we have Christ also in the 
 sign, taught as really in the latter way as in the former, and 
 taught with the advantage of being submitted to the eye, and 
 pictured to the outward senses. This, then, is one important 
 difference between the sacramental ordinances of the New Tes- 
 tament Church and those which are not sacramental. 
 
 III. The Sacraments of the New Testament are federal acts 
 affording a seal or confirmation of the covenant between God 
 and His people. 
 
 This is the main and primary characteristic of sacramental 
 ordinances. They constitute a formal testimony to an engage- 
 ment entered into by two parties through means, not of words, 
 but of speaking and significant actions, — these actions being the 
 visible witnesses to the engagement, and the outward confirma- 
 tions of its validity. In other words, they become, according to 
 the expression of the apostle in his Epistle to the Romans, 
 when speaking of one of the Sacraments of the Old Testament, 
 visible " seals " of the covenant, and of the blessings contained 
 in it.^ 
 
 There are not a few examples to be found in the Old Testa- 
 ment Scriptures of covenants between man and man ratified by 
 some outward monument, framed or chosen to attest and confirm 
 the transaction. When Jacob parted from his father-in-law 
 Laban, they made a covenant together, and raised a heap of 
 stones and a pillar, to be a memorial of the transaction, and to 
 serve as a witness on both sides to attest their fidelity to the terms 
 of the covenant. " This heap be a witness, and this pillar be a 
 witness, that I will not pass over this heap to thee, and that thou 
 shalt not pass over this heap and this pillar to me, for harm." ^ 
 ^ Rom. iv. 11. 2 Gen. xxxi. 52. 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. I.] TPIE SACRAMENTS. 9 
 
 The outward monument or memorial of the covenant entered 
 into between Jacob and Laban was a witness of the engagement, 
 serving to bind the obligation of it more strongly on both parties, 
 and to ratify and confirm, in a formal and significant manner, its 
 validity. And what we find in patriarchal times, we also find, in 
 one shape or other, in every stage of society, some outward sign 
 or significant action being made use of between men to confirm 
 and attest their plighted faith. In addition to the spoken pro- 
 mise or oath, there has been — if not the stone of the times of 
 Jacob — at least the formal signature and solemn deed, and seal 
 attached to tlie deed, to remain after the verbal engagement, as 
 the witness and ratification of the transaction. Such outward 
 monuments or significant solemnities are intended for the satis- 
 faction of both parties, and to give additional certainty and con- 
 firmation to the agreement. And the practice in this respect, 
 which has obtained universally among men, we find to be made 
 use of also by God. There are repeated examples in the Old 
 Testament Scriptures of God ratifying His engagements or cove- 
 nants with men by means of appropriate signs or solemnities, and 
 making use of these solemnities for the very same purpose that a 
 signed and sealed deed is employed for in the present day, when 
 it attests or confirms a previous engagement, and gives additional 
 security to both parties for the fulfilment of it. That in such a 
 sense the rainbow in the cloud was employed by God, when it 
 became the sign of His covenant with Noah, is very expressly 
 stated by Himself : " And the bow shall be in the cloud ; and 
 I Avill look upon it, that 1 may remember the everlasting cove- 
 nant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is 
 upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token 
 of the covenant, which I have established between me and all 
 flesh that is upon the earth." ^ In this point of view the bow 
 was a seal, giving validity and additional security to the covenant 
 then made, and serving as a standing witness for the truth of it. 
 In a precisely similar manner, the rite of circumcision was ap- 
 pointed to Abraham for a voucher of the covenant between God 
 and him. The terms of the institution of the rite would them- 
 selves lead us to this conclusion, even had they not been inter- 
 preted by the inspired commentary of the Apostle Paul in that 
 sense. " And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my 
 1 Gen. ix. 16, 17. 
 
10 
 
 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH TOWER DEALS. [Part III, 
 
 covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their genera- 
 tions. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me 
 and you, and tliy seed after thee. Every man-child among you 
 shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your 
 foreskin ; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and 
 you." And in reference to this transaction, the Apostle Paul 
 expressly says of Abraham : " And he received the sign of circum- 
 cision, a seal oftlie righteousness of the faith which he had yet being 
 uncircumcised." ^ The outward act of circumcision, then, was a 
 witness or a seal of the covenant transaction between God and 
 the patriarch, and thus .became a voucher to ratify and confirm 
 the validity of it. 
 
 In exact accordance with the practice, universal in one shape 
 or other among men, and expressly sanctioned by the example of 
 God Himself in the Old Testament Church, we affirm that the 
 Sacraments of the New Testament are parts of a federal trans- 
 action between the believer and Christ, and visible and outward 
 attestations or vouchers of the covenant entered into between 
 them. In addition to being signs to represent the blessings of the 
 covenant of grace, they are also seals to vouch and ratify and 
 confirm its validity. That the Sacraments of the Christian 
 Church are thus seals of the covenant, appears to be very ex- 
 plicitly asserted, in so far at least as regards the Lord's Supper, 
 in the words of the institution themselves : " This cup," said our 
 Lord, " is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you"'^ — 
 language which seems undoubtedly intended to convey the idea 
 that the element used in the Supper was to be the witness of the 
 new covenant, — a visible seal or security to ratify and vouch for it. 
 No doubt that covenant in itself is sufficiently secure without any 
 such confirmation, resting as it does on the word of God. That 
 word alone, and without any further guarantee, is enough. But 
 in condescension to the weakness of our faith, and adapting Him- 
 self to the feelings and customs of men, God has done more than 
 give a promise. He has also given a guarantee for the promise, — 
 has vouchsafed to bestow an outward confirmation of His word 
 in the shape of. a visible sign, appealing to our senses, and wit- 
 nessing to the certainty and truth of the covenant. In the case 
 of the Sacraments, God has proceeded on the same principle as is 
 announced by the Apostle Paul in reference to His oath : " God, 
 
 ^ Gen. xvii. 9-11 ; Rom. iv. 11. - Luke xxii. 20. 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. I.] THE SACRAMENTS. 11 
 
 willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the 
 immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath ; that by 
 two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, 
 we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to 
 lay hold upon the hope set before us."^ The word of promise was 
 itself enough to warrant and demand the belief of God's people. 
 But more than enough was granted : He has not only said it, but 
 also sworn it. By two immutable things — His word and His oath 
 — is the faith of the believer confirmed. The oath is the guarantee 
 for His word. And more than this still : In the visible seal of 
 the Sacraments God would add another and a third witness, — that 
 at the mouth, not of two, but of three witnesses. His covenant 
 may be established. He has not only given us the guarantee of 
 His word, and confirmed that word by an oath, but also added to 
 both the seal of visible ordinances. There is the word preached 
 to declare the truth of the covenant to the unbelieving heart. 
 !More than that, — there is the oath sworn to guarantee it. More 
 than that still, — there is the sign administered in order to vouch 
 for all. Christ in the word, unseen but heard, is ours, if we will 
 receive that Avord with the hearing ear and the understanding 
 heart. Over and above this, Christ, both seen and heard in the 
 Sacrament, is oars, if we will see with the eye or hear with the 
 ear.^ 
 
 The Sacraments are the outward and sensible testimony and 
 
 1 Heb. vi. 17, 18. 
 
 2 [" What mister (need) is there that thir Sacraments and seals siild be 
 annexed to the Word ? Seeing we get ua new thing in the Sacrament but the 
 same thing quliilk we gat in the simple Word, quherefore is the Sacrament 
 appointed to be hung to the Word ? It is true certainly, we get na new thing 
 in the Sacrament, nor we get na other thing in the Sacrament nor we gat in 
 the Word ; for quliat mair ivalde thou crave nor to get the Son of God, gif thou 
 get Him weil ? Thy heart cannot wish nor imagine a greater gift nor to 
 have the Son of God, quha is King of heaven and earth. And therefore I 
 say, quhat new thing walde thou have ? For gif thou get Him, thou gettest 
 all things with Him. Quherefore, then, is the Sacrament appointed ? Not to 
 get thee a new thing. I say it is appointed to get thee that same thing better 
 nor thou gat it in the Word. The Sacrament is appointed that we may get a 
 better grip of Christ nor we gat in the simple Word ; that we may possess 
 Christ in our hearts and minds mair fully and largely nor we did of before in 
 the simple Word ; that Christ might have a larger space to make residence in 
 our narrow hearts nor we could have by the hearing of the simple Word. 
 And to possess Christ mair fully it is a better thing ; for suppose Christ be ae 
 thing in HimseU, yet the better grip thou have of Him thou art the surer of 
 His promise." — Bkuce, Sermons on the Sacraments, Wodi'ow Soc. ed. Edin. 
 18^3, p. 28.] 
 
12 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 seal of the covenant, added to tlie word that declares it. This is 
 the grand peculiarity of sacramental ordinances, separating them 
 by a very marked line from ordinances not sacramental. They 
 are federal acts, — seals and vouchers of the covenant between God 
 and the believer. They presuppose and imply a covenant trans- 
 action between the man who partakes of them and God ; and 
 they are the attestations to and confirmations of that transaction, 
 pledging God by a visible act to fulfil His share of the covenant, 
 and engaging the individual by the same visible act to perform 
 his part in it. Other ordinances, such as the preaching of the 
 Word, presuppose and attest no such personal engagement or 
 federal transaction between the individual and God. Christ in 
 the Word is preached to all, and all are called upon to receive 
 Him ; but there is no personal act on the part of the hearer that 
 singles him out as giving or receiving a voucher of his covenant 
 with his Saviour. But when the same individual partakes of the 
 Sacraments, his own personal deed is an act of covenanting with 
 God; and Christ in the ordinance is made his individually, and he 
 is made Christ's by the very action of partaking of the ordinance. 
 He is singled out by his own voluntary act, if he rightly partakes 
 of the ordinance, as giving a voucher for his engagement with 
 Christ ; and Christ Himself gives a voucher of His engagement 
 to the individual ; and the visible Sacrament is the seal to the per- 
 sonal and mutual engagement. In this respect, as not only signs 
 but seals of the covenant of grace to the individual who in faith 
 partakes of them, the Sacraments are very markedly distinguished 
 from ordinances not sacramental. 
 
 IV. The Sacraments of the New Testament are made means of 
 grace to the individual who rightly partakes of them. 
 
 It is carefully to be noted that they presuppose or imply the 
 possession of grace in the case of those who partake of them ; but 
 they are also made the means of adding to that grace. They are 
 seals of a covenant already made betvveen the soul and Christ, — 
 attestations of a federal transaction before completed, — confirma- 
 tions, visible and outward, of engagement between the sinner and 
 his Saviour previously entered into on both sides. They presup- 
 pose the existence of grace, else they could not be called seals 
 of it. Just as the signature and seal of some human covenant 
 necessarily presuppose that the covenant exists before they can 
 become vouchers for it, so the seal of God's covenant, affirmed 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. I.] THE SACRAMENTS. 13 
 
 by means of sacramental ordinances, presupposes the existence of 
 that covenant as aU'cady subsisting between God and the right- 
 ful participator in the ordinance. But althougli grace exists in 
 the soul before, the Sacraments are made to those who rightly 
 receive them the means of increasing that grace, and communi- 
 cating yet more of spiritual blessing. They serve to strengthen 
 the faith of those who already believe, and add to the grace of 
 those who previously possessed grace. They become effectual 
 means of imparting saving blessings in addition to those enjoyed 
 before.^ In this respect they are similar to the other ordinances 
 which Christ has appointed in His Church, and which by His 
 power and Spirit are made instrumental in advancing the inter- 
 ests of His people. But from the very peculiarity that attaches 
 to their distinctive character, as seals of a personal covenant be- 
 tween God and the believer. Sacraments may reasonably be sup- 
 posed to be more effectual than non-sacramental ordinances in 
 imparting spiritual blessings. The spiritual virtue of Sacraments 
 is more and greater than other ordinances, just because, from their 
 very nature, they imply more of a personal dealing between the 
 sinner and his Saviour than non-sacramental ordinances neces- 
 sarily involve. 
 
 ^ [" The Church has always seen in the Sacraments," says Mr. Liddou in 
 his recent very vahiable work on the Divinity of our Lord, " not mere outward 
 signs addressed to the taste or imagination, nor even signs, as Calvinism asserts, 
 which are tokens of grace received independently of them, but signs which, 
 through the power of the promise and "Word of Christ, effect what they signify." 
 For this very defective statement of the Calvinistic doctrine of the Sacraments 
 the only authority ^Ir. Liddon gives is a single secondhand quotation from 
 Cartwright. He then proceeds to contrast with this supposed Calvinistic view 
 the words of the 25th Article : " The Sacraments are effectual signs of grace 
 and God's goodwill toward us, by which He doth work invisibly in\is ;" ami the 
 definition of the Church Catechism : "A Sacrament is an outward and visible 
 sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ Him- 
 self as a means ivherebjj we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof." 
 Bampton Lectures, 1866, p. 721. A very slight reference to the symbolical 
 books or the leading theologians of some of the Calvinistic Churches would 
 of course have shown that all these phrases have been constantly used by them 
 with respect to the Sacraments. The isolated sentence from Cartwright 
 adduced by Hooker, from whom ]\Ir. Liddon takes it, refers to a particular 
 aspect of a particular Sacrament'; it was never designed to be a full definition 
 of the efficacy of these ordinances in a typical case. Moreover, the passage in 
 question is just a translation of Calvin, Tnst. iv. xv. 22. It might as well, 
 therefore, have been brought forward as expressive of his whole doctrine on 
 the subject. But Mr. Liddon must surely be aware that Calvm constantly 
 speaks of the Sacraments both of the Old and New Testaments as " effectual 
 means of grace," "'efficacious instruments," "signs iu which God (/ives what He 
 
14 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 What is the nature and extent of the supernatural grace im- 
 parted in Sacraments, — in what manner they work so as to 
 impart spiritual benefit to the soul, it is not possible for us to 
 define. As visible seals of God's promises and covenant, we can 
 understand how they are naturally fitted, in the same way as the 
 vouchers of any human engagement or covenant are naturally 
 fitted, to attest and confirm them. But beyond this, all is un- 
 known. The blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in 
 Sacraments we cannot understand, any more than we can under- 
 stand the operation of the same supernatural causes in respect 
 of other ordinances. They have a virtue in them beyond what 
 reason can discover in them, as naturally fiitted to serve the pur- 
 poses both of signs and seals of spiritual things. They have a 
 blessing to the right receiver of them, not their own to give. 
 " They are made effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue 
 in them, or in him that doth administer them, but only by the 
 blessing of Christ, and the working of His Spirit in them who by 
 faith receive them."^ In this respect their power and virtue are 
 not more and not less mysterious than those of ordinances non- 
 sacraraental. 
 
 Such are the general conclusions which a consideration of the 
 nature of the Sacraments of the New Testament lead us to 
 
 holds out to us," etc. (" noumodo salutaria exercitia, et adjumenta pietatis, sed 
 etiam ejficacia gratis instrumenta.'''' " Praestat igitur vere Deus quicquid siguis 
 promittit ac figurat ; nee effectu suo carent signa, ut verax et fidelis probetur 
 eorura Author"). — Comment, in Gal. iv. 9, Col. ii. 17, Tnxt. iv. xiv. 17, etc. Cf. i. 
 Conf. Helv. c. 21, ii. c. 21. Conf. Gall. Art. 37, Catech. Gen. v. etc. Some of 
 the expressions in the Church Catechism, indeed, with respect to Baptism seem 
 to Presbyterians to require at least all the explanation Avhich Dean Goode and 
 others have bestowed upon them. And the passage from Martensen about the 
 " commimication of Christ's glorified corporeity " in the Lord's Supper, which 
 Mr. Liddon quotes, seemingly as supplementary of the Catechism, would of 
 course be disapproved of by Calvinists generally, although there are statements 
 in the works of Calvin himself which might perhaps be adduced in its favour. 
 Mr. Liddon concludes by observing that, "though there have been and are 
 believers in our Lord's Divinity who deny the realities of sacramental grace, 
 experience appears to show that their position is only a transitional one." 
 There is " a law of fatal declension," which will ultimately, Mr. Liddon 
 thinks, bring all who do not hold the High Church doctrine of the Sacraments 
 to the Sociuian position. " Centuries," however, " may intervene between 
 the premisses and the conclusion;" so that the prediction is a singularly safe 
 one. By a precisely similar process of reasoning. Dr. IMauning and others 
 are prepared to prove that there is an indissoluble connection between the 
 worship of the virgin and a belief in the Divinity of Christ. — Engl, and 
 Ch'istend. p. civ. Faber, Groicth in HuUness, p. 72.] 
 ^ Shorter Catechism, qu. 91. 
 
Div. II. IV. Cri. I.] THE SACRAMENTS. 15 
 
 acquiesce iu. They are Divine institutions appointed by Christ ; 
 they are signs and significant representations of spiritual thincrs ; 
 they are seals and vouchers of a federal transaction between God 
 and the worthy receiver of Sacraments ; they are the means for 
 applying spiritual grace to the soul. To sum up the discussion in 
 the language of the Shorter Catechism : " A Sacrament is an holy 
 ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein by sensible signs Christ 
 and the benefits of the new covenant are represented, sealed, and 
 applied to believers." -^ 
 
 Sacraments and non-sacramental ordinances arc like each 
 other in two respects ; and in two respects they differ. In the 
 first place, sacramental and non-sacramental ordinances agree in 
 this : first, that they are both positive institutions of Christ ; and 
 second, that they are both means of grace to believers. Without 
 a Divine warrant and institution, neither non-sacramental ordi- 
 nances nor Sacraments could have any place in the worship of 
 God as part of His service ; and both are therefore Divine appoint- 
 ments. They are both likewise means of grace to believers, 
 
 there being a positive promise attached to the right use of them, 
 and that promise being fulfilled in the bestowment of spiritual 
 blessing in connection with their use. This spiritual benefit, 
 linked to the proper use of ordinances, whether sacramental 
 or not, is over and above and quite distinct from the natural or 
 moral influence such ordinances may have to benefit those who 
 employ them. There is a benefit, for example, which the ordi- 
 nance of preaching the Word is naturally fitted to impart, because 
 the truth preached is adapted to man's moral and intellectual 
 nature, and so naturally fitted to be of advantage to the hearers. 
 In like manner there is a benefit which Sacraments are naturally 
 fitted to impart, because they are symbolical ordinances or teach- 
 ing signs; and the truths represented or taught by them are, 
 upon the very same principle, naturally fitted to be of advantage 
 to the receiver. But in both cases there is a blessing distinct 
 
 ^ 1 Shorter Catechism, qu. 92. Calvin, Inst. lib. iv. cap. xiv. Consensus 
 Tujurinus iu Niemeyer's Colkctio Confess. Lipsiaj 1840, pp. 192-217, trans- 
 lated m Calvin's Tracts, Edin. 1849, vol. ii. pp. 205-244. Turrettin, Opera, 
 torn. ui. loc. xix. qu. i.-ix. Cuuuingham, Works, vol. i. pp. 225-291, vol. 
 u. pp. 201-207, vol. iii. pp. 121-133. Amesius, Bellarm. Euerc. torn. iii. lib. 
 1. cap. 1. Wilhson, Works, Hetherington's ed. pp. 456 f. Gillespie, Aaron's 
 Rod Blossoming, B, iii. chap, xii.-xiv. Mastricht, Theol. Theoretico-Pract. 
 torn. ii. lib. vii. cap. 3. 
 
16 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 from and additional to the natural or moral effect of the Word 
 preached or the Sacraments administered. There is the work of 
 the Spirit making use of Word and Sacrament to reach the 
 understanding and the heart, and to convey to the worthy hearer 
 or worthy receiver a spiritual blessing. And this work of the 
 Spirit, over and above the natural effect of the truth received, is 
 a mystery, both in the case of the ordinance of preaching and the 
 ordinance of the Sacraments ; and not, I think, a greater mystery 
 in the one case than in the other. 
 
 We do not plead for the Sacraments as means of grace, 
 viewed merely as natural actions and ceremonies apart from the 
 truths which they represent, any more than we would plead for 
 the preaching of the Word being a means of grace, viewed as the 
 mere letter of the Word apart from the meaning of the truth 
 which is uttered. The case of infant Baptism, which is, as we 
 shall afterwards see, in some respects exceptional, and not to be 
 taken as completely bringing out the full and primary idea of the 
 Sacrament,^ we for the present put aside, postponing it for future 
 consideration. But in the case of adult participation in the Sacra- 
 ments, we do not plead for these generally as means of grace, 
 when viewed simply as outward acts, and apart from the truths 
 represented, any more than the sound of the Word preached would 
 be a means of grace apart from the intelligent apprehension of 
 it. Through the truths, however, in one case impressed on the 
 hearer by significant words, and in the other case impressed on 
 the participator through significant actions, the Spirit of God 
 does operate upon the intellectual and moral nature of man, 
 making both the one ordinance and the other a means of grace. 
 How the Spirit thus operates and imparts of His gracious gifts, ! 
 we cannot tell in the one instance more than in the other. What 
 is the mode or measure of His communications of a spiritual 
 kind, over and above the natural or outward influence of the 
 truth, we cannot tell. It is His own secret and supernatural 
 work, known and recognised by the believer in the effects 
 wrought on His soul, both in the case of the Word preached and 
 the Sacraments administered, but not to be explained or defined 
 in the manner of working. Let it never be forgotten that there 
 is a mystery not to be explained whenever we get beyond the 
 natural effect of the ordinance, whether sacramental or not, 
 ^ Cunniugham, Works^ vol. iii. pp. 144-154. 
 
Div. II. IV. Cn. I.] THE SACRAMENTS! 17 
 
 necessarily resulting from the fact that it is an effect of the 
 Spirit, and not of any natural cause. All ordinances, as means of 
 grace, must in that character have something in them mysterious 
 and inexplicable. We cannot rid ourselves of the mysterious 
 by simply ridding ourselves of sacramental ordinances, — as verv 
 many in the present day seem to imagine. We can only dis- 
 connect all mystery from the ordinances of the Church when we 
 limit their efhcacy simply to their natural influence, and deny 
 the influence of the Spirit of God as at all connected with them. 
 In the second place, Sacraments differ from ordinances not 
 sacramental in the New Testament Church, in these two thinfTs : 
 first, they are sensible signs of spiritual truths ; and second, they 
 are seals or vouchers of a federal transaction. In respect that 
 they are sensible exhibitions and significant actions, having a 
 definite meaning in them, Sacraments stand out distinctly marked 
 from other ordinances. Speaking generally, sacramental ordi- 
 nances are spiritual acts of the mind or soul embodying themselves 
 in outward and sensible actions, in so far as regards the part of 
 the receiver in the ordinance. They are outward representations, 
 by means of certain actions on the part of the worthy participator, 
 of the great fact that he gives himself to Christ according to 
 the terms of the covenant of grace. In partaking of the ordi- 
 nance, he embodies in the sensible actions of the ordinance a 
 spiritual surrender of himself to Christ, in the manner and upon 
 the terms which Christ has appointed. This is the receiver's 
 part in the ordinance. On the other side, Christ, through the 
 person of the administrator of the ordinance, embodies in the 
 actions of it a picture or representation of a spiritual communi- 
 cation of Himself and all the blessings of His grace to the worthy 
 receiver. Christ, in the Sacrament, and by means of its sensible 
 signs, gives Himself and the benefits of the new covenant, 
 spiritually, although under an outward representation, to the 
 believing participator. The outward signs of the Sacrament 
 exhibit, then, a twofold action : the believer givino- himself to 
 Christ in covenant, and Christ giving Himself to the believer ia 
 the same covenant. There is a spiritual act on the part of the 
 believer embodied in outward representation,— the act, namely, of 
 his surrendering of himself to Christ in the way and on the 
 terms which Christ has appointed; and there is a spiritual act 
 on the part of Christ embodied in outward representation also, — 
 VOL. ir. 3 
 
18 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 the act, namely, of Christ with all His precious and unspeakable 
 blessings communicating Himself to the soul of the worthy 
 receiver. There is thus a double significance comprehended in 
 the administration and in the participation of the sacramental 
 ordinance, each of them having a definite and intelligible meaning 
 of its own. In the administration of the Sacrament, Christ 
 makes over Himself and all the benefits of His atonement to the 
 believer, and accepts in return the believer as His. In the 
 participation of the Sacrament on the part of the worthy receiver, 
 he makes over himself to Christ ; and receives, in return for his 
 own soul, Christ and His covenant blessings. The double action 
 of the administration and participation of the Sacrament is the 
 embodiment in outward sign of a double spiritual act. There 
 is a mutual intercommunication spiritually of Christ and the 
 believer embodied and represented in action, — a covenant inter- 
 changeably exhibited in sensible signs, whereby Christ becomes 
 the believer's, and the believer becomes Christ's. In their being 
 signs of spiritual truths, Sacraments differ in a marked manner 
 from non-sacramental ordinances. 
 
 Sacraments differ also from other ordinances in this, that they 
 are seals or vouchers of a federal or covenant transaction. This, 
 after all, is the grand and essential distinction between sacra- 
 mental and non-sacramental ordinances. As a kind of types, as 
 speaking and teaching signs, they are fitted to express, by the help 
 of significant actions cognisable by the senses, the twofold spiri- 
 tual act of Christ making over Himself and all His blessings to 
 the believer, and of the believer making over himself with all \m 
 poverty and sins to Christ. But they are more than signs of i 
 covenant thus entered into between the two parties, — they art 
 seals and vouchers for the covenant, serving to give confirmatioi 
 and validity to the engagement, as one never to be broken. Id 
 the Sacraments there is a twofold seal, as well as a twofold actiout, 
 represented. There is a seal on the part of Christ, and there i 
 a seal on the part of the believer. In marvellous condescensio. 
 to our infirmity and unbelief, Christ has been pleased to add t 
 the promise of His covenant an outward and visible voucher fo 
 it, — thereby, as it were, binding Himself doubly to the fulfilment 
 of it, and pledging Himself, both by word and by sign, to imple- 
 ment all its terms. And in the worthy receiving of the Sacrament, 
 the believer gives also a visible voucher for his part of the engage- 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. I.] THE SACRAMENTS. 19 
 
 ment, — thereby placing himself under new and additional obliga- 
 tions to give himself to Christ, and adding the outward seal to 
 ratify the inward pledge of his heart. The covenant is mutual, 
 and the seal is mutual. Without either part of the covenant 
 transaction, the Sacrament would be incomplete. Withdraw 
 Christ from the ordinance as both entering into covenant with 
 the believer and giving him a seal of it, — take away Christ sealed 
 to the soul in the Sacrament, — and the ordinance is reduced to a 
 bare sign of spiritual blessing, having, perhaps, a certain natural 
 effect by signifying truth, but empty and destitute of all spiritual 
 grace. Or withdraw the believer from the ordinance in so far as 
 he really by means of it gives himself to Christ, — take away the 
 spiritual act by which the worthy participator surrenders his soul 
 to the Saviour through his outward participation of the Sacra- 
 ment, — and the Sacrament is made to be a charm, in which Christ 
 and grace are communicated apart from the spiritual act or state 
 of the receiver. Abstract from the ordinance the act of Christ 
 covenanting with the believer and giving to the soul Himself and 
 His blessings, and the remaining portion of the ordinance may 
 continue, — the believer may still be accounted as giving himself 
 to Christ in the Sacrament ; but in the absence of Christ's act 
 there is no spiritual blessing given in return, and the believer's 
 act of participating in the Sacrament becomes a mere sign of 
 adherence to Christ on his part, and nothing more than a sign.^ 
 Again, abstract from the ordinance the act of the believer spiri- 
 tually covenanting with Christ and giving his soul in faith to the 
 saviour, and the remaining portion of the ordinance may con- 
 inue, — Christ may be held as present in the Sacrament giving 
 .iimself and His supernatural grace ; but in the absence of the 
 3ceiver's act surrendering his soul in faith to his Saviour, the 
 Cjmmunication of spiritual grace is degraded to the position of 
 being the result of a charm or talismanic formula, — something 
 "Tected, ex opere operato, apart from the spiritual character or 
 .ith of the receiver. It is only when the separate spiritual acts of 
 'th parties meet and combine in one transaction, that the covenant 
 
 1 [" Quod omnes fere opinantur, hoc ritu, quem Sacramentiim appellant, 
 confirmari saltern fidem nostram, ne id quidem verum censeri debet ; cum nee 
 uUo sacro testimonio comprobetur, nee iilla ratio sit cur id fieri possit. Quo- 
 modo enim potest nos in fide confirmare id quud nos ipi^l facimus, quodque, 
 licet a Domino iustitntum, opus tamen nostrum est?" — Faustus Socinus, Be 
 Ccenu Dum, Tract. Brtv. Racovian Catecliism, 1609, p. Itti f.] 
 
20 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 is real or complete ; or that the ordinance, as a seal of the mutual 
 engagement, is a true and proper Sacrament. As the voucher or 
 seal of a real covenant, spiritually entered into between Christ and 
 the believer through the ordinance, a Sacrament differs, in a very 
 marked and important way, from ordinances not sacramental. 
 
 SECTIOX II. — UNSCRIPTURAL OR DEFECTIVE VIEWS OF THE 
 SACRAMENTS. 
 
 The principles which I have laid down in regard to the nature 
 of Sacraments, and in regard to the difference between them aad 
 ordinances not sacramental, stand opposed to the views of two 
 parties holding extreme positions on either side of this question. 
 There is one party who deny the grand and characteristic distinc- 
 tion between sacramental and other ordinances already enunciated, 
 and hold that the Sacraments have no virtue except as badges of 
 a Christian profession, and signs of spiritual truths. There is 
 another party holding opinions on the subject admitting of various 
 modifications, but agreeing in this, that they ascribe a high spiri- 
 tual efficacy to the Sacraments apart from the faith or spiritual 
 act of the receiver. By the first party the views of the Sacra- 
 ments already stated by me are held to be erroneous in the way 
 of attributing to them a greater virtue than actually belongs to 
 them. By the second party these views are regarded as defective 
 in the way of ascribing to Sacraments a less virtue than really 
 belongs to them. Let us endeavour briefly and generally to esti- 
 mate the merits and truth of the principles adopted by these two 
 parties, — reserving until a future stage in our discussions the 
 more particular examination of their theories, in their applica- 
 tion to the Sacraments of the New Testament individually. 
 
 I. The Sacraments of the New Testament are regarded by 
 one party as signs, and no more than signs, of spiritual things, — 
 symbolical actions fitted to represent, and impress upon the minds 
 of men. Gospel truths. The Socinian party have made this 
 doctrine peculiarly their own. According to their views, a federal 
 transaction between the believer and Christ founded on His atone- 
 ment is no part of the Gospel system at all ; and hence the 
 Sacraments of the New Testament can be no seals appointed 
 and designed to ratify such a covenant. The Socinian doctrine 
 concerning the nature of the Sacraments allows to them no more 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. I.] THE SACRAMENTS. 21 
 
 than a twofold object and design. Tliey are not essentially dis- 
 tinct from other ordinances, as set apart by themselves to be the 
 seals of the one great covenant between the believer and Christ, 
 at his entrance into the Church at first, and from time to time 
 afterwards, as occasion justifies or demands. But in the first 
 place, they are signs in which something external and material is 
 used to express what is spiritual and invisible, — the only virtue 
 belonging to them being what they are naturally calculated to 
 effect, as memorials, or illustrations, or exhibitions of the important 
 facts and truths of the Gospel ; and in the second place, the 
 Sacraments are solemn pledges of discipleship on the part of 
 those who receive them, discriminating them from other men, and 
 forming a public profession of or testimony to their faith as Chris- 
 tians. These are the two grand objects, which, according to the 
 Socinian view, the Sacraments were intended to serve ; and such, 
 according to their theory, is the nature of the ordinance. 
 
 The same system in substance, making, as it does. Sacraments 
 entirely or essentially teaching and symbolical signs, has been 
 adopted by many who disown the tenets of Socinianism in regard 
 to the Gospel system generally. The theory of the Sacraments 
 now described has been and is held by not a few in the Church 
 of England of somewhat latitudinarian views, — the representative 
 of such, as a class, being Bishop Hoadly. It is avowed and advo- 
 cated in the present day by a very large proportion of the Inde- 
 pendent body, who count the Sacraments to be no more than 
 symbolical institutions, and who are ably represented by Di-. 
 Halley in his work, entitled. An Inqxdrij into the Nature of the, 
 Symholic Institutions of the Christian Religion^ usually called the 
 Sacraments. The single difference between the Socinian doctrine, 
 as maintained by Socinians in the present day, and the Indej)end- 
 ent doctrine, as maintained by Dr. Halley and others, is probably 
 this, that Socinians limit the efficacy of the Sacraments to the 
 natural or moral power that belongs to them as signs of Gospel 
 truth, while Independents may admit that beyond the natural 
 and moral power of the ordinance, as symbolical of truth, the 
 Spirit of God makes use of them in representing truth to the 
 mind. Let Dr. Halley speak his own views as they are generally 
 held by English Independents. " The opinion we propose is, that 
 the Sacraments are significant rites, — emblems of Divine truth, — 
 sacred signs of the evangelical doctrine, — designed to illustrate, to 
 
22 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 enforce, or to commemorate the great and most important truths 
 of the Gospel. Baptism, we believe, is the sign of purification, on 
 being admitted into the kingdom of Christ, but neither the cause 
 nor the seal of it ; the Lord's Supper the commemoration of the 
 death of Christ, the symbol of its propitiatory character, but not 
 tlie assurance of our personal interest in its saving benefits. The 
 truth exhibited in the Sacraments, just as when it is propounded 
 in words, may be the means of the communication of Divine 
 grace ; but then the evangelical doctrine and not the Sacrament, 
 the truth and not the symbol, the spirit and not the letter, gives 
 life and sanctity to the recipient, as it may even to a spectator." ^ 
 According to this theory, it is the truth signified in the Sacrament — 
 and not, over and above that, the Sacrament itself as a seal — that 
 possesses any spiritual virtue ; and that virtue may be, according 
 to Sociniaus, the natural influence of the truth on the mind, — 
 or, according to Independents, that natural influence, with the addi- 
 tion of the power communicated through the truth by the Spirit. 
 
 Now, in reference to this view of the Sacraments, it is neces- 
 sary to bear in mind that there is no dispute as to the fact that 
 sacramental ordinances are symbolical, — signs fitted to represent 
 and to teach Gospel truths. Further, there is no dispute as to 
 the fact, acknowledged by some of the advocates of this theory, 
 that in so far as they teach or convey truth to the mind, they 
 may be made the means of the communication of Divine grace, 
 in the same manner very much as when the truth is propounded 
 in words." But the point in debate is, whether the Sacraments 
 are not more than signs, and more than merely symbolical repre- 
 sentations of truth. We hold that they are. We contend that, 
 
 ^ Halley, The Sacramentx : an Itupiinj, etc. Lond. 1844, vol. i. p. 94 f. 
 
 2 [" Es geschah in dem Zeitpunkte der Reformation, aber nicht zum ersten 
 Male, dass die hypermystische oder zauberische Vorstellung den entgegen- 
 gesetzten Fehler, die Behauptuug des siguum loulum oder des blossen Be- 
 kenntnisszeichens, hervorrief. Gegen diejenige Kirche, die im Dienste der Yer- 
 wandluugslehre und des opus operatum die symbolisclie Natur des Sacraments 
 verleuguete und zerstorte, hatte die sogenannte Ketzerei allezeit Reclit, 
 zunachst nur wieder das Daseyn des Symbols und die Bedeutimg zu behaupten. 
 Diejenige Kirche, die des Sacramentes Wirkung und Wesen vom lebendigen 
 "Worte luid Glaubeu, den Sohn vom Geiste losgerissen hatte, dm-fte eineu 
 Gegner nie Liigen strafen oder des Unchristenthuras zeihen, der der Gemein- 
 schaft des Erlosers durch die Speise des Wortes als durch die rechte Assimila- 
 tion mit seinem Leben theilhaft zu werden hoffte, und sich des Sacramentes 
 nur noch als eines Zeichens dieser Gemeinschaft, oder auch dieses Zeichens 
 nicht mehr bediente well es so sehr vom Wesen abgelenkt und etwa nur habe 
 bei noch nicht ganz befestigter Wirksamkeit des Wortes eiuem anfiinglichen 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. I.] THE SACRAMENTS. 23 
 
 in addition to being signs, they are also seals, — the visible vouchers 
 of a federal transaction between Ciirist and the believer who par- 
 takes of His Sacraments, — the outward pledges speaking to the 
 eye and the senses of tlie completed covenant by which Christ 
 becomes the believer's, and the believer becomes Christ's, And 
 further, we contend that, as seals, they are made a means of grace 
 more powerful and efhcacious than simply as signs of truth. 
 
 The arguments urged by Dr. Halley against this additional 
 office and virtue attributed to Sacraments as more than signs, and 
 as the seals of a federal engagement between the worthy recipient 
 and Christ, are the two following, as stated in his own words : 
 " First, Tiie ceremonial institutes of preceding dispensations, the 
 Sacraments of the patriarchal and Jewish Church, correspond only 
 with the view which we take of the Christian Sacraments as sacred 
 signs of Divine truth. Second, The Sacraments considered as the 
 causes or the means, or even the seals of converting or regenerat- 
 ing grace, stand opposed to the great Protestant doctrine of justifi- 
 cation by faith without works." ^ We shall very briefly examine 
 each of these two objections to the view which we have announced. 
 And we do this all the more readily, as it will afford us the better 
 opportunity of bringing out our own principles in contrast with 
 those embodied in the Independent theory of the Sacraments. 
 
 1st, Dr. Halley alleges, against the ascription to the New 
 Testament Sacraments of the character of seals, that the cere- 
 monial institutes of preceding dispensations, the Sacraments of 
 the patriarchal and Jewish Church, correspond only with the 
 views which he advocates of the Christian Sacraments as ex- 
 clusively signs of Divine truth. Perhaps there never was a more 
 unfortunate or unfounded assertion. " One passage of St. Paul," 
 says Dr. Halley, " will establish this proposition."'" And the 
 single passage which is to bear the weight of the whole argument 
 is the following one from the Epistle to the Romans : " He is 
 not a Jew which is one outwardly ; neither is that circumcision 
 
 Bediii-fnisse dienen sollen." (This is still the position of the Quakers as 
 expounded by Barclay in his Apulogy.) " Blosse Gebetschristcn, Messalianer 
 und dergleichen, sind nicht wciiiger Chrkten als blosse Sacramentsckristen ; 
 blosse SymboUker stehen sich niclit schlechter mit der Quelle des Lehens als die 
 Hierurgen die den Leib Christi conficirev. Diesc sind am Ende des verschAvin- 
 denden Christenthums angelangt, jene stehen am Wiederanfange der Ent- 
 wickelung." — Nitzsch, ;jro^ Beant. der Symb. Mohlers, Hamburg 1S35, p. 162.] 
 1 HaUey, p. 95. ^ Ibid. p. 9G. 
 
24 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew which is one 
 inwardly ; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and 
 not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." ^ This 
 is the solitary passage quoted to prove the broad and general 
 assertion, that the Sacraments of the patriarchal and Jewish 
 Church afford no precedent or example of Sacraments as seals, 
 but only of Sacraments as signs. The verses quoted plainly 
 amount to nothing more than a statement of the difference 
 between what the apostle calls circumcision outwardly and 
 circumcision inwardly, the external rite and the internal grace, 
 and a declaration that a man might have the outward rite, and 
 not the inward grace. The apostle does not say, and cannot, 
 except by a violent misapplication of his words, be made to say, 
 that ill the case of the man who has both the outioai'd and inward 
 circumcision^ the external rite may not be the visible seal of the 
 spiritual grace. The very opposite of this the same apostle in 
 the very same Epistle undeniably asserts. In language as plain as 
 he could possibly select or employ, Paul affirms that in the case 
 of Abraham, who had the inward grace, the outward rite of cir- 
 cumcision was a seal to him of that grace. " Abraham," says 
 the apostle, " received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the 
 righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircum- 
 cised." ^ And how is it that Dr. Halley gets rid of this express 
 assertion of the apostle, standing as it does in explicit contra- 
 diction to liis general averment that the Sacraments of the Jewish 
 Church were signs and not seals ? He admits that to Abraham 
 personally and individually circumcision was a seal, and not 
 merely a sign. But by a strange misapprehension of tlie doctrine 
 of his opponents, he argues that it could not be a seal of faith 
 to others of Abraham's family or countrymen wlio liad not his 
 faith. " Although," says Dr. Halley, " to him circumcision was 
 the seal of faith, it could not have been so to his posterity." 
 " Was it," he asks, " was it, in this sense, a seal of the righteous- 
 ness which they had, an approval of their faith, to the men of 
 his clan, or to Ishmael, or to the infants of his household, or to 
 any of his posterity in subsequent ages?"^ The answer to such 
 a question is abundantly obvious. If the men of Abraham's clan 
 had not faith, if Ishmael had not faith, circumcision could have 
 been no seal of faith to them. The outward rite could not be a 
 1 Rom. ii. 28, 29. - Rom. iv. 11. ^ Halley, p. 100. 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. I.] THE SACRAMENTS. 25 
 
 seal of the inward grace, when the latter did not exist. It could 
 not be a seal of a spiritual covenant between them and God 
 which had not been entered into. I do not stop to consider the 
 question of whether or not circumcision is to be accounted, even 
 in such a case, the seal to such individuals of the outward 
 blessings promised to them, as Jews, by God, as the rightful 
 King of Israel as a nation ; but, as a seal of a spiritual covenant, 
 it of course could not be a seal at all to those who were not 
 parties to the covenant, — while it was a seal, according to the 
 explicit assertion of the apostle, to those who were. The very 
 express statement of Paul cannot be evaded, but fully bears out the 
 assertion that the Sacraments of the Jewish Church were not signs 
 alone, but seals of a spiritual covenant to those who were really 
 parties to the covenant. "Abraham received the sign of circum- 
 cision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had^ 
 
 2d, Dv. Halley alleges that the Sacraments, if they are con- 
 sidered as the cause or the means, or even the seals of spiritual 
 and saving grace, would be opposed to the great Protestant 
 doctrine of justification by faith without Works. Now it is 
 readily admitted, that if Sacraments are regarded as the causes 
 or means of justification, they are utterly inconsistent with the 
 Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone ; and in this 
 point of view the objection is true and unanswerable when directed' 
 against some of those theories of the Sacraments which we may 
 be called upon to consider by and by. But it is denied that the 
 objection is true when directed against the theory of the Sacra- 
 ments which maintains that they are not causes and not means 
 of justification, but seals of it and of other blessings of the new 
 covenant. The Sacraments as seals, not causes of justification, 
 cannot interfere with the doctrine of justification by faith, for 
 this plain reason, that before the seal is added, the justification is 
 completed. The seal implied in the Sacrament presupposes 
 justification, and does not directly or instrumentally cause it; the 
 seal is a voucher given to the believer that he is justified already, 
 and not a means or a cause of procuring justification for him. 
 Justification exists before the seal that attests it is bestowed. 
 The believer has previously been " justified by faith without the 
 works of the law," ere the Sacrament of which he partakes can 
 affix the visible seal to his justification. All this is abundantly 
 obvious ; and the objection of Independents, that the doctrine of 
 
26 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWDER DEALS. [Part IH. 
 
 the Sacraments as personal seals is opposed to the principle of 
 justification by faith, is wholly without foundation. That the 
 Sacraments are a means of grace additional to what the believer 
 possessed before his participation in them, it is not necessary to 
 deny, but rather proper strongly to assert.^ In entering into a 
 personal covenant with Christ throngh particiption in the Sacra- 
 ments, or in renewing that covenant from time to time, the faith 
 of the believer is called forth and brought into exercise in the very 
 act of participation, and by the aids to faith which the ordinance 
 affords. And in answer to this faith so exercised and elicited, 
 there is an increase of grace given to the worthy recipient above 
 and beyond what he had before. The faith of the believer, called 
 into exercise in partaking of the ordinance and by means of it, is 
 met by the bestowment of corresponding grace. But it is never to 
 be forgotten that the Sacraments presuppose the existence of grace, 
 however they may give to him that already has it more abun- 
 dantly. They presuppose, and beforehand require, that a man is' 
 justified by faith before they give their seal to his justification. 
 
 There is no ground, then, in Scripture, but the very opposite, 
 for asserting that the Sacraments are no more than signs or 
 symbolical actions, as held by Dr. Halley and those whom on this 
 question he represents. The fundamental error involved in the 
 views now adverted to is, the denial of Christ's part in the federal 
 transaction involved in a Sacrament. Independents overlook 
 His department of the work in the engagement entered into 
 through means of the act of receiving the Sacraments ; and in 
 the absence of the act of Christ giving Himself and all His spiritual 
 blessings to the believer in the ordinance, the act of the recipient 
 
 ^ ["Das Glaubigste, so zu sagen, am sacramentlichen christlichen Gemein- 
 glaubeu ist doch wohl dieses : je rnehr das Sacrament mit voller Empfang- 
 lichkeit genosseu wird, desto weniger ist es blosses Zeichen, oder blosses 
 Unterpfand der Lebensmittheilimg Christi, desto rnehr diese Mittheilimg 
 selbst. Das Sacrameut ist Leiter, Kauai der Guade, wie der romische Kate- 
 chismus sicli ausdriickt. Bis auf diesen Punkt wird der Sacramentsbegriff — 
 ich will zugeben unter sehr verschiedenen Bedingungeii (from those of the 
 Romanist theory) — durch das iu dieser Hinsicht ganz ungetheilte Bekenntniss 
 der Protestanten gesteigert. . . . Der protestantische Bcgriff des Siegels oder 
 Pfandes, ist weit eutfernt die collalivc Kraft des Sacraments zu schwachen ; 
 er gestattet sogar die mystische Verkniipfung der Elemente des Sacraments 
 mit der res signata et cxJiibemla ; signa et res slgnificatai sacramentaUter 
 cdiijungiintur {Covf. Ilclv. post. xix.). Bezeichinnig, Besiegclung, Dorreichung 
 der Gnade Christi vereinigen sich im Sacramente. {Decl. Thoriin. De Sacr. 
 1, 7)." — Nitzsch, prot. Beaut, der Symh. Mohlers, Hamburg 1835, p. 151 f.] 
 
Div. II.IV. Cii.l.] THE SACRAMENTS. 27 
 
 is not met by the grace that Christ confers, but is reduced to a 
 mere significant dedication of himself to the Saviour unconnected 
 with any grace at all. Take away Christ from the ordinance 
 as present there, to covenant with the believer, actually giving 
 Himself and His blessings spiritually through means of the 
 outward ordinance, in answer to the faith of the believer giving 
 himself to Christ through the same ordinance, and the Sacra- 
 ment is evacuated of all spiritual grace ; the act of the receiver 
 becomes a mere expressive sign of what he is willing to do in the 
 way of dedicating himself to Christ ; but not an actual dedication, 
 accomplished through means of a covenant then and there renewed, 
 by which the believer becomes Christ's, and Christ becomes the 
 believer's. The principle of the Independents in regard to the 
 Sacraments cuts the Sacrament, as it were, in twain, and puts 
 asunder what God has joined. It leaves to the believer his part 
 in the transaction, in so far as he employs the Sacrament as a 
 sign of his dedication to Christ ; but it takes away Christ's part 
 in the transaction, in so far as He meets with the believer and 
 enters into covenant with him, — accepting the believer as His, and 
 giving Himself to the soul in return. Severed from Christ in 
 the ordinance, and from the covenant with His people into which 
 Christ there enters, the act of the recipient can be no more than 
 an expressive sign, or convenient profession of faith, unconnected 
 with true and proper sacramental grace. 
 
 II. The Sacraments of the New Testament are regarded by 
 another party as in themselves, and by reason of the virtue that 
 belongs to them, and not through the instrumentality of the faith 
 or the Spirit in the heart of the recipient, effectual to impart 
 justifying and saving grace directly, in all cases where it is not 
 resisted by an unworthy reception of the ordinance. This gene- 
 ral opinion may be held under various modifications ; but all of 
 them are opposed to the doctrine I have already laid down, that 
 the Sacraments are seals of a justifying and saving grace already 
 enjoyed by the recipient, and not intended for the conversion of 
 sinners ; and that they become means of grace only in so far as 
 the Spirit of God, by the aid of the ordinance, calls forth the 
 faith of the recipient, and no further. 
 
 The doctrine of the efficacy of Sacraments, directly and im- 
 mediately of themselves, and not indirectly and mediately through 
 the faith of the receiver, and through the Spirit in the receiver, 
 
2S MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 is advocated in its extreme and unmodified form by the Church of 
 Rome. According to that Church, these ordinances, as outward 
 and material rites, become, after certain words of institution pro- 
 nounced by the priest, possessed of a sacramental virtue, which 
 is conveyed infallibly to the soul of the person who receives them, 
 on hoo conditions, which are necessary to justifying and spiritual 
 grace being really imparted. First, on the side of the priest who 
 pronounces the words of institution, there is required, as a con- 
 dition of the supernatural grace being imparted, that he have the 
 intention to make the Sacrament and confer it ; for without this, 
 the outward matter of the ordinance M^ould remain mere matter, 
 and have no sacramental character or virtue. And second, on 
 the side of the recipient of the ordinance, it is required that he 
 be free from any of those sins which, in the language of Popery, 
 are called " mortal, " and which, when contracted and not re- 
 moved, would resist the operation of the sacramental virtue, antl 
 prevent his soul receiving spiritual grace. But when these two 
 conditions are present, — when the priest intends to consecrate and 
 dispense the ordinance, and the recipient is not barred fi'om the 
 reception of its virtue by mortal sin, — such is the efficacy of the 
 Sacrament in itself, and directly, that it infallibly communicates 
 to the partaker of it justifying and saving grace. The doctrine 
 of the Church of Rome is very distinctly brought out in the 
 canons of the Council of Trent, and also in her Catechism. " If 
 an}'," says the 11th canon concerning the Sacraments in general, 
 " if any shall say that there is not required in the ministers, when 
 they make and confer the Sacraments, at least the intention of doing 
 what the Church does, let him be accursed." " If any shall say 
 that the Sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace of 
 which they are the signs, or that they do not confer that grace 
 on those who place no obstacle in the w^ay, as if they were only 
 outward signs of grace or justification already received by faith, 
 and certain badges of the Christian profession, by which' believers 
 are distinguished from infidels, let him be accursed." " If any 
 shall say that grace is not conferred by the Sacraments of the 
 New Law, ex opere operato^ but that faith in the Divine promise 
 alone avails to secure grace, let him be accursed." ^ According 
 
 ^ Concil. Truknt. Caudiics ct Decretn, Sess. vii. De Sacr. in Gen., Can. vi. 
 viii. xi. [Compare Muliler's statement of the Roman Catholic theory of the 
 Sacraments {Symb. 6te Aufl. pp. 253-258). It is worthy of remark, that that 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. I.] THE SACRAMENTS. 29 
 
 to this doctrine, then, Sacraments impart grace, not tlirounh tlie 
 channel of the faith of the receiver, and not in dependence in 
 any way on his spiritual act, but immediately and directly from 
 themselves, " ex opere operator This hast expression is to be 
 interpreted in connection with the distinction drawn by the 
 Church of Kome between the Sacraments of the Old and New 
 Testament Churches. The Sacraments of the Gospel Church 
 are superior in efficacy to those under the law, in the Popish 
 theory, because the former, or the New Testament Sacraments, 
 work grace independently of the spiritual disposition or act of the 
 
 acute aud dexterous controversialist, in his own exposition of the doctrine, 
 I)asses over in utter sileuce the veiy remarkable aud important element of 
 the priest's intention, as defined at Trent, — the sole reference to it being in 
 a quotation from Bellarmine given in a note (p. 256). Nitzsch's remarks 
 on the significance of the point thus ignored, are worth quoting: "The 
 demand of an intention on the part of the priest in order to tlie Sacrament 
 being savingly effectual, or effectual at all, met opposition among the Komish 
 theologians, both at and before the Council of Trent. At one time the danger 
 was pleaded incurred by the baptized or the absolved, Avho might now so 
 easily miss obtaining grace, or be left in uncertainty about it ; at another, 
 the much greater concession already made, that unbelief, or even mortal sin 
 on the part of the priest, did not destroy the efficacy of the priestly act. On 
 these grounds, the Council saw themselves compelled to restrict the demand as 
 much as possible ; it asserted itself, notwithstanding. Sess. vii. Can. 11 : 'Si 
 quis dixerit in ministris, dum Sacramenta conficiunt et conferunt, non requiri 
 intentionem saltern faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, anathema sit,' with good 
 reason, as is easily to be seen. For if, as Can. x. decided, the private Chris- 
 tian cannot make or confer most of the Sacraments, — if the supernatural 
 qualification of the priest, although a ' gratia gratis data,'' aud not ' gratnm 
 faciens,^ still was of the essence of the sacramental dispensation, — while, on the 
 other hand, no ' bonus motus'' of the recipient was necessary for the reception 
 of the gTace, nay, in the case of private mass, no recipient at all, in tlie case 
 of infant Baptism, no conscious recipient, was needed, — then, should there be 
 an e7iti7-e absence of harmony between the mental state of the priest and the 
 design of the transaction, there would be absolutely nothing left but the bare, 
 mechanical, accidental, external act ; and from this hardly a single believer 
 would have expected any blessing whatsoever. The worth of the words of 
 institution and promise, as appropriated by faith, had already been sacrificed 
 to the worth of the ' opus ,• ' so hiid the dignity of the congregation to the 
 dignity of the priest : hence arose great perils and perplexities, if now, after 
 all, the worth of the words should be allowed to stand Avithout moral desert 
 on the part of the priest. The morally intlifferent supernatural qualification 
 of the priest must therefore now receive at least a psychological quickening, 
 and the co-operation of the mental state of the priest be thus brought in to 
 give the requisite support to a transaction otherwise bereft of all substance 
 and security. They resigned themselves, accordingly, to the lesser perjilexity. 
 The doctrine of the ' intcntio ministri ' is a reinforcement to the doctrine of 
 the ' opus operatuni,' which yields at the same time various advantages of 
 another sort ; and the latter dogma is again explained and supported by the 
 notion of the 'not interposed hindi-ance.' " — Prot. Beant. Hamburg 1835, 
 p. 154. Gerhard, Loci, x\aii. 31-38, ed. Preuss. torn. iv. pp. 151-158.] 
 
30 MATTEES WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part IH. 
 
 recipient ; whereas the latter, or Okl Testament Sacraments, were 
 dependent on the spiritual disposition or act of the receiver of 
 them. The " ojnis operatum " of the New Testament Sacraments, 
 or the virtue they have by their own act, apart from the spiritual 
 state of the recipient, is contrasted with the " ojnis operantis " 
 in the Old Testament Sacraments, or the virtue which they had, 
 not in themselves, or in their own operation, but only in connec- 
 tion with the spiritual act of the partaker. According to the proper 
 theory of the Church of Rome, the Sacraments of the New Testa- 
 ment impart grace ex ojjere operate, or from their own intrinsic 
 virtue and direct act on the soul of him who receives them.^ 
 
 This doctrine of the inherent power of Sacraments in them- 
 selves to impart grace, held by the Church of Eome, is also the 
 system maintained, although with some important modifications, 
 by another party beyond the pale of that Church, the representa- 
 tives of which, at the present day, are to be found in the High 
 Churchmen of the English Establishment. The doctrine of the 
 High Church party in the English Establishment in regard to 
 the Sacraments differs indeed in two important particulars from 
 the full and unmodified development of it found in the Popish 
 system ; but in other respects it is substantially the same, — 
 equally implying the inherent power of Sacraments to impart 
 grace, not through the spiritual act of the recipient, but apart 
 from and independently of it. The advocates of High Church 
 principles in the Church of England generally — although there 
 is a numerous and increasing section of them who in this respect 
 
 1 The statement that Papists hold the Sacraments to be efficacious of 
 themselves, apart from the spiritual condition of the recipient, is often met — 
 especially by English Romanists — with a flat denial. And on this ground. 
 They hold that many elements are, in point of fact, present in every case in 
 which the Sacraments are efficacious ; some of these elements are connected 
 with the state of the recipient, — such as a desire to receive the ordinance, — 
 and others with the working of God. Thus Bellarmine objects to Calvin's 
 stating the point in debate to be, not as to grace being conferred in the 
 Sacraments, but only "whether God works in them by His own proper, and, 
 so to speak, intrinsic virtue, or whether He resigns His place to the external 
 signs." — Inst. lib. iv. c. xiv. 17. (See next note.) Any Romanist, however, 
 who has the slightest regard for the authoritative declarations of his Church, 
 can be fixed down conclusively to this position, that, whatever other elements 
 may, in point of fact, be present, the immediate, efficient, mstrimicntal cause 
 of the grace invariably conveyed to all "qui nou ponimt obicem" is "the 
 outward action called a Sacrament," and nothing else. See Turrettin's 
 masterly treatment of this point. Opera., loc. xix. Qu. viii. 2-6. Cunning- 
 ham, Works, vol. iii. pp. 124-130. Hodge, Princeton Essays and Revicics, 
 New York 1857, pp. 370 f., 3«8. 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. I.] TPIE SACRAMENTS. 31 
 
 approximate more nearly to Rome — generally reject the Popish 
 doctrines, — first, of the opus operatum, and second, of the necessity 
 for the intention of the priest in the Sacrament. They deny that 
 the Sacraments have any immediate physical influence upon the 
 soul, by the very act of outwardly participating in them, — such 
 as is implied in the opus operatum of the Church of Rome ; 
 and they deny, further, that the intention of the priest to make 
 and confer the Sacrament is a necessary condition of it, without 
 which it could impart no grace. These two elements in the 
 Popish theory of sacramental ordinances are rejected, generally 
 speaking, by the High Church disciples of the English Establish- 
 ment, although instances are not awanting — and they seem to 
 be multiplying of late — of both these monstrous pretensions being, 
 in a certain sense, maintained by them. But they agree with the 
 Romish Church in the grand and fundamental principle which 
 belongs to its doctrine of the Sacraments, — namely, that they 
 communicate grace from the sacramental virtue that resides in 
 themselves, — or, as some prefer to put it, that invariably accom- 
 panies them by Christ's appointment,^ — and by their own imme- 
 diate influence on the soul, and not instrumentally by the opera- 
 tion of the Spirit of God on the worthy recipient and through the 
 medium of his faith. This is the characteristic principle that is 
 common both to the Popish and the High Church theories of 
 Sacraments. Both these parties hold that there is something in 
 or connected with the ordinance which directly and immediately 
 does the work of grace upon the soul ; and not merely indirectly 
 and mediately through the Spirit of God working on the soul, 
 and the faith of the soul working in return. The Church of 
 Rome ascribes this efficacy of the ordinances to the opus operatum 
 of the Sacraments, and the act and intention of the priest in 
 consecrating them. The High Churchmen of the English Estab- 
 lishment usually reject both of these doctrines as laid down by 
 the Council of Trent, and ascribe this efficacy of the ordinances 
 to the deposit of spiritual grace which Christ has communicated 
 
 ^ In, emu, or sub Sacramento. [ " It is to be observed," says Bellarniine, 
 " that the dispute is not about the mode in which Sacraments are causes of 
 justification, i.e. whether the effect is produced by physical or moral means ; 
 and again, if the influence be of a physical sort, whether it be by some in- 
 herent quality, or by the simple will of God ; for these points do not belong 
 to the question of faitli ; but only in general, whether the Sacraments are true 
 and proper causes of justification ; so that it truly follows, from a man's being 
 baptized, that he is justified." — Disputationes, tom. iii. lib. ii. cap. i.] 
 
32 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 to the Church, and connected with the Sacraments, and given 
 them the power to impart. But the High Churchmen of Rome 
 and the High Churchmen of England agree equally in this, that 
 there are in the Sacraments an efficacy and power to impart 
 grace of themselves, directly and immediately, to the soul of the 
 recipient ; and that they are not merely aids or instruments for 
 bringing the recipient into direct and immediate communication 
 with Christ to receive grace from Him.^ 
 
 Although both the Caiions and Catechism of the Council of 
 Trent lay down, to all appearance, expressly and undeniably the 
 doctrine that there is a physical virtue in Sacraments, whereby 
 they operate upon the recipient, yet there are not awanting 
 doctors of the Romish Church who are anxious to soften down 
 the dogma of the opus operatum, and to explain it in the sense 
 of a moral and spiritual, and not a physical virtue, residing in the 
 ordinance. And in this modified form of it, the Romish doctrine 
 of the Sacraments — apart from the necessity of the priest's in- 
 tention — approximates very closely to the High Church theory 
 entertained by many in the Church of England. That theory 
 maintains the doctrine of not a physical but a spiritual virtue 
 deposited and residing in the Sacrament, which operates univer- 
 sally, not through the faith or spiritual act of the recipient, but 
 directly and immediately through the act of participation in the 
 outward ordinance. This, in fact, is no more than part of the 
 general doctrine that the Church is the grand storehouse of grace 
 to man, and not Christ Himself ; and that it is by communica- 
 tion with the Church, and not by direct communication with 
 Christ, that the soul is made partaker of that grace. The Sacra- 
 ments, as the chief medium through which the Church communi- 
 cates of its stores of spiritual blessings, are the efficient instruments' 
 for imparting grace directly to the recipient. 
 
 Now, there is one preliminary remark which, in proceeding tc' 
 estimate the value and truth of such principles in regard to thf' 
 Sacraments, it is necessary to bear in mind. It is not denied 
 but, on the contrary, strongly maintained and asserted, that tl" 
 Sacraments are means of grace. To the believer who uses them 
 aright, they are made the means of conveying spiritual blessings. 
 In regard to this, there is no controversy between the opponents and 
 
 ^ [Goode, Nature of Chrisfs Presence in the Eucharist, Lond. 1856, vol. i. 
 pp. vi. 11-55. Cunningham, Works, vol. i. pp. 233-237.] 
 
Div. II. IV. Cji. I.] THE SACRAMENTS. 33 
 
 the advocates of Pligli Church views of the Sacraments, wliether 
 Popish or Tractarian. But the question in dispute is, whether 
 the Sacraments become effectual, from a virtue in themselves, or 
 in the priest that consecrates them, or only hy the work of tlie 
 Spirit and the faith of the recipient? That the faith of the 
 believer is called forth and exercised in the ordinance, and that 
 through this faith he receives grace additional to what he enjoyed 
 before, we do not dispute, but, on the contrary, strenuously main- 
 tain. That the spiritual act of the believer in the ordinance, 
 when in faith he gives himself to his Saviour, is met by 
 the spiritual act of Christ in the ordinance, when in return 
 Pie gives Himself and His grace to the believer, is a doc- 
 trine at all times to be asserted and vindicated. That the faith 
 of the recipient, in the act of committing and engaging him- 
 self to Christ, through means of the ordinance, is a faith unto 
 which Christ is given in return, we would constantly affirm ; 
 and in this sense, and in this way, the Sacraments become means 
 or channels or instruments whereby grace is given and conveyed. 
 But they are no means of grace except through the faith of the 
 recipient, and in consequence of his own spiritual state and act. 
 There is no inherent power in the ordinance itself to confer 
 blessing, apart from the faith of the participator, and except 
 through the channel of that faith. Tliere is no deposit of power 
 — whether-, with the Clmrch of Eome, we deem it physical and 
 ex opere operato, or whether, with Tractarians and High Church- 
 men, we call it spiritual — in the Sacraments themselves to influ- 
 mce the mind of him who receives them. They have no virtue of 
 themselves, apart from the work of Christ through His Spirit on 
 ,he one side, and the spiritual act of the recipient through his 
 aith on the other side. In the lano;uao;e of Amesius, in his admi- 
 able reply to Bellarmine, Sacraments have no power " efficere 
 ratiam immediate, sed mediante Spiritu Dei et fide." ^ 
 
 ^ Amesius, Bellarm. Enerv. Amsterdam 1058, tom. iii. lib. i. cap. v. p. 22. 
 ' In the following sentences of the Declaration of Thorn,'''' observes Nitzsch, 
 all Protestants agree : ' Sacraments are outward and visible signs, seals, and 
 t otimonials of the Divine will, instituted by God Himself, by the combination 
 of Word and element, in order to seal and exliibit, through means of these 
 signs, the invisible grace which is promised in the "Word of the covenant. It 
 is obvious that we by no means make them bare signs, empty and inefBcacious, 
 or mere badges of outward profession, since, besides their mystical significance, 
 according to the Divine institution, we attribute to the Sacraments a sure 
 sealing of God's promises, and at the same time a true and infallible exhibi- 
 
 VOL. II. C 
 
34 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 Has the Church, then, ordinances for its administration and 
 use which, either by the original appointment of Christ, or by- 
 deposit of grace from Christ, have in themselves virtue to impart 
 spiritual blessing through the administration of them alone? Or 
 has the Church ordinances for its administration and use which 
 have no virtue in themselves to communicate grace, except in con- 
 nection with the faith of the receiver, and the blessing imparted 
 by the Spirit 1 Are the Sacraments of the New Testament them- 
 selves a quickening power in the soul, apart from the faith or 
 spiritual act of the participator, — the original deposit of grace 
 committed to them being still retained, and still communicable 
 through their administration, and that alone ? Or are these 
 Sacraments effectual to impart grace only in connection with 
 the faith and spiritual disposition of the recipient, — there being 
 necessary to their efficacy, both the act of the believer, in the use 
 of them, giving himself to Christ, and the act of Christ, through 
 the same ordinance, giving Himself to the believer. It matters 
 little whether, as with the Popish Church, the Sacraments are 
 invested with a physical virtue, in consequence of which they 
 impart grace ; or whether, as with the High Churchmen of other 
 denominations, they are invested with a spiritual virtue in conse- 
 quence of which they impart grace, — if in both cases the grace is 
 given by the Sacrament itself, and not given through the Spirit and 
 the faith in the heart of the recipient. It matters little whether a 
 physical or a spiritual explanation is given of sacramental efficacy, 
 if it be efficacy exerted apart from Christ in the ordinance giving 
 Himself to the believer, and experienced apart from the believer in 
 the ordinance giving himself to Christ. Whatever be the efficacy 
 and virtue, physical or moral, if it is independent of and separate 
 from the faith of the recipient covenanting in tlie ordinance with 
 Christ, and the act in answer to that faith of Christ covenanting 
 with the recipient, it is not tlie sacramental grace which the 
 Scripture recognises. It becomes, when thus separated and drawn 
 apart, a mere charm, a trick of magic, whether physical or 
 spiritual, utterly unknown to the Gospel economy. Let us en- 
 deavour to apply to tliis theory those tests which may serve to 
 
 tion of the things promised, in the way suited and proper to them, to be 
 received by a living faith.' " (Niemeyer, p. C80.) Prot. Bcant. chr Si/mh. 
 Moliler's, Hambvu'g 1835, p. 175. Bruce, Serm. on tlie Sacr. Wodrow Soc. ed. 
 Edin. 1843, p. 10 f. Calvin, Antidote to Council of Trent, Sess. vii. Can. ii. 
 iv.-vi. Tracts, vol. iii. Calvin Transl. Soc. Edin. 1851, pp. 172-175.] 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. I.] THE SACRAMENTS. 35 
 
 try its merits and its trutli. Tliere are four different tests by 
 wliicli we may try the merits of this sacramental theory, whetlier 
 held in its extreme form by Papists, or in its more modified form 
 by High Churchmen of other communions. 
 
 Isf, Tested by Scripture, which constitutes the rule for the 
 exercise of Church power, there is no warrant for assei-ting that 
 there is an inherent and independent virtue in Sacraments to 
 impart justifying or saving grace. 
 
 The truth of this general proposition may be establislied by a 
 very wide and ample deduction of evidence from Scripture. It 
 is impossible for us to do more than advert to the leading heads 
 of proof in connection with this question. In the first place, 
 those multiplied and various declarations of Scripture, which 
 state that we are justified by faith alone without works on our 
 part, very distinctly prove that the Sacraments cannot have an in- 
 dependent and inherent power in themselves of conveying justify- 
 ing and saving grace. Such passages expressly assert that faith 
 is the immediate instrumental cause of justification. They are in- 
 consistent, therefore, witli the theory that the Sacraments directly 
 and immediately of themselves impart grace, although they are 
 quite consistent with the doctrine that the Sacraments indirectly, 
 and through the faith of the worthy receiver, may impart grace. 
 In the second place, the doctrine that the Sacraments have an 
 inherent virtue to confer grace, is opposed to the Avhole tenor 
 of Scripture, which sets forth Christ as the one and the immediate 
 object of faith and hope to the believer, in the matter of his 
 justification and salvation. The Word of God, from its com- 
 mencement to its close, clearly and constantly and invariably 
 points to Christ, and to nothing but Christ, as the only source to 
 which a sinner must look for forgiveness and acceptance with 
 God. The tlieory of the Sacraments held by High Churchmen 
 presents another and a different object for his faith, and teaches 
 liim to rest in an outward observance as sufficient. It is part of 
 that most destructive system which places the Church and the 
 ordinances of the Church between the sinner and his Saviour. 
 In the third i^lace, the very express testimony of the Apostle 
 Paul, in regard to tlie insufficiency of the Sacraments under the 
 Old Testament Church to communicate grace of themselves, is 
 an argument equally effectual to show that the New Testament 
 
36 
 
 MATTERS WITH WHICPI CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Fart HI. 
 
 Sacraments are insufficient likewise, Abraham was not justified 
 by circumcision, but by the faith of which his circumcision was 
 the seal.^ In tlie fourth place, the statements of Scripture which 
 at first sight might be construed as if they ascribed a gracious 
 influence to the Sacraments of the New Testament in themselves, 
 and which seem to connect saving benefits with the observance 
 of them, are not stronger or more numerous, but less so, than 
 those which ascribe justifying and saving blessings to the ordi- 
 nance of the Word, or truth received by the reader or hearer of 
 it. We know that the Word or the truth justifies, not of itself, 
 but through the faith of him that receives it; and that, apart from 
 this faith, it has no virtue or power of a gracious kind at all. In 
 the same manner, Sacraments impart grace, not of themselves, 
 but through the faith of those who receive them ; and, apart from 
 that faith, they have no life or blessing whatsoever. In the fifth 
 place, the theory of an inherent virtue or power in the admin- 
 istration of the outward ordinance is utterly opposed to those 
 numerous passages of Scripture which assert that the power of 
 the Gospel is altogether of a spiritual kind, and is in no respect 
 akin to a mere external and material influence, as if such could 
 impart a supernatural grace. It is " not meat and drink, but 
 righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." And 
 instead of pointing to any outward source of power or efficacy, 
 and exclaiming, " Lo here, or Lo there ! " the Christian has 
 been taught to think that " the kingdom of God " has its source 
 and presence " within him." ^ The theory which ascribes to the 
 Sacraments an infallible virtue which, unless counteracted by some 
 obstacle, such as infidelity or open vice, must operate to impart 
 grace, is inconsistent with those numerous statements of Scripture 
 which represent the Gospel as a spiritual power, adapted to the 
 spiritual nature of man.'^ 
 
 In estimating the bearing of Scripture testimony on this ques- 
 tion, there is one consideration of a general kind which it is of 
 great importance to the argument to bear in mind. In every 
 theory of the Sacraments that can be held, — from the lowest to 
 
 1 Rom. ii. 25-29, iii. 20, oO, iv. ;5-ll ; Heb. ix. 11 f., x. 1-11. [Comp. 
 the Apology for the Confession of Augsburg, vii. 18, p. 203, in Hase, Lihil 
 SymboUci Ecclcs. Evan;/. Lipsiai 1827.] 
 
 ^ Rom. xiv. 17 ; Luke xvii. 21. 
 
 •"^ Gillespie, Aaron's Rod Blossomhig, B. iii. clia^i. xii.-xiv. 
 
Di\. II. IV. Cn. I.] THE SACRAMENTS. 37 
 
 the highest, from the Socinian up to the Popish, — the Sacraments 
 are regarded as at least signs of spiritual things, representing and 
 exhibitiufT the blessino; in outward resemblance. The union thus 
 established, according to any theory that can be held of them, be- 
 tween the sign and the thing signified by it, has introduced into 
 Scripture a kind of phraseology which at first sight appears to 
 give some sanction to the High Church system in regard to sacra- 
 mental ordinances. There is often an exchange of names between 
 the sign and the thing signified in Scripture, in consequence of 
 which what may be predicated of the one is often asserted of the 
 other, and vice versa. This usage of language, so frequently 
 exemplified in Scripture in connection with this matter, is a usage 
 found commonly in other writings and in regard to other matters, 
 and gives rise to no sort of misapprehension in our interpretation 
 of it. It is the great foundation indeed of all figurative language.^ 
 Thus, when Christ is said to be " the Passover sacrificed for us,'' 
 there is an exchange of this kind, in which the name of the sign 
 is given to the thing signified ; and when Christ says of the bread, 
 " This is my body," there is an exchange in the opposite way. and 
 the name of the thino; sio;nified is attributed to the sign. And in 
 perfect accordance with this usage, of language, there are several 
 passages in Scripture in which the mere outward observance in 
 the case of the New Testament Sacraments, the external sign, has 
 a virtue attributed to it which in reality belongs, not to the sign, 
 but to the grace represented in the observance, or to the thing 
 signified. Thus, for example, " Baptism " is said in one passage 
 " to save us ;" although, from the further explanation contained 
 in the ])assage itself, it is plain that it is not the outward sign but 
 the thing signified that is spoken of under the name of the sign ; 
 for the apostle adds immediately, " not the putting away of the 
 filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards 
 God."^ In the same manner the Apostle Paul speaks of "the 
 cup of blessing" as " the communion of the blood of Christ,"'' 
 — language in which that is predicated of the sign which is truly 
 predicated only of the thing signified. In short, the sacramental 
 
 ^ ['' Omnia siguificantia videntur quodam modo carmn rerum quas signifi- 
 cant sustinere personas : sicut dictum est ab Apostolo, ' Petra erat Cliristus,' 
 quoniam petra ilia, de quii hoc dictum est, significabat utique Christum." — 
 Aug. De Civitate Dei, lib. xviii. cap. 48.] 
 
 ^ 1 Pet. iii. 21. ^ i Cor. x. 16. 
 
oS MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 union between the outward sign and the inward grace gives 
 occasion to not a few examples in Scripture in which what is 
 true of the one only, or the inward grace, is attributed to the 
 other, or the outward sign. Almost the wdiole plausibility of 
 the argument from Scripture in favour of the High Church theory 
 of the Sacraments comes from this source ; and it is completely 
 removed when the familiar canon of criticism, applicable to Scrip- 
 ture in common with other writings, is attended to, — namely, 
 that what truly belongs to the thing signified is often predicated 
 figuratively of the sign, and so ought to be interpreted and under- 
 stood.^ 
 
 2c7, The theory of an inherent power, physical or spiritual, 
 in the Sacraments, is inconsistent with the supreme authority of 
 Christ, from whom all Church power is derived. 
 
 The doctrine that would deposit in sacramental ordinances 
 grace communicable to the participator, apart from his communior 
 with Christ, directly and immediately, is inconsistent with the 
 office and right of Christ to hold in His own hand all blessing, 
 and to dispense from His own hand, not mediately through another, 
 but at once from Himself, the grace which His people receive. 
 Such a theory takes the administration of grace out of the hands 
 of Christ, ever present to dispense it, and transfers it to a priest 
 standing in His room. There can be no participation in heavenly 
 blessing except what comes from direct communication with 
 Christ on the part of the soul that receives it ; and it is a dis- 
 honour to Him, who is the ever-living and ever-present adminis- 
 trator of all grace to His people, to put the mute and conscious 
 ordinance in the place of Christ, and to transfer the dependence 
 of the soul for spiritual blessing from the Divine Head in heaven 
 to the outv^^ard ministry of Sacraments on earth. That Christ 
 vdght by His original appointment have made tlie Sacraments the 
 receptacle of a physical influence, fitted and able to work a super- 
 natural blessing on the soul, it would perhaps be presumptuous to 
 deny. That Christ might at the first institution of the ordinances 
 have made them a reservoir or storehouse of grace enough for all 
 ages of the Church, and imparted to them a spiritual blessing 
 out of which every subsequent generation of His people might 
 draw their supply, w^e need not be anxious to dispute. Or that 
 
 ^ [Westminst. Couf. cliap. xxvii. 2, xxix. 5. Goode, Nature of ChrUfn 
 Presence in the Eucharist, Lond. 1856, vol. i. pp. 211-250, 598.] 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. 1.] THE SACRAMENTS. o9 
 
 Clu-ist, without communicating at the beginning to Sacraments a 
 store either of physical or spiritual grace sufficient for all gene- 
 rations, might have tied Himself up to the indiscriminate and in- 
 variable communication of His Spirit along with the administration 
 of outward Sacraments, and bound Himself down, without any 
 choice or discretion, to link spiritual grace to material rites, apart 
 from the faith of the person observing them, — this, too, is perhaps 
 a possible imagination. But had Christ, as the Head of ordinances 
 in His Church, done either the one or the other of these things, 
 He must to that extent have divested Himself of His office as 
 Mediator, or resigned the exercise of it ; He must in so far have 
 abdicated His functions as the sole and living and ever-present 
 administrator of grace to His Church ; and been shut out from 
 that exclusive and supreme agency which He maintains as the 
 dispenser as well as author of every blessing by which the soul is 
 to be saved. 
 
 Sd, The theory of the Sacraments wdiich ascribes to them an 
 independent virtue or power, is inconsistent with the spiritual 
 liberties of Christ's people. 
 
 Such a system brings the soul itself into bondage. It keeps 
 the spirit, which Christ has Himself redeemed, waiting upon man 
 for the communication of the blessings of its redemption ; it makes 
 the soul which Christ has ransomed dependent for its freedom on 
 the ministry of a fellow-creature. There cannot be a worse or 
 more abject thraldom than that which subordinates the flock of 
 the Saviour's purchase to any one but Himself, and causes them to 
 hang upon the intention entertained or not entertained by a priest 
 for the enjoyment or forfeiture of spiritual blessing. But even 
 apart from the monstrous doctrine of the Eomish Church as to the 
 intention of the priest being necessary to the efficacy of the ordi- 
 nance, the sacramental theory we have been considering, whether 
 Popish or Tractarian, is inconsistent with the spiritual freedom of 
 those whom Christ has redeemed. That freedom consists in sub- 
 jection to and dependence on Christ, and none but Christ, — in 
 being emancipated from all dependence on any other except their 
 Saviour, — in being kept waiting, not at the footstool of man for 
 saving blessings, but at the footstool of Christ, — and in being 
 taught to look for all the grace they need day by day, not to the 
 ministry of man's hand, but to the hand of Christ. Spiritual free- 
 dom for the believer is bound up with a dependence on Christ 
 
40 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 immediately and directly, and on Him alone, for every blessing 
 that lie needs/ 
 
 Aih, The sacramental theory we have been considering is 
 inconsistent with the spirituality of the Church, and of the power 
 exercised by the Church for the spiritual good of men. 
 
 When, according to that theory, the Sacraments become the 
 instruments of justification and the source of faith, instead of the 
 seal of a justification already possessed, and the exercise and aid 
 of a faith already in existence, — when they are made to come 
 between the soul, in its approach to Christ, and Christ Himself, 
 and communion in the external ordinance is substituted for the 
 fellowship of the Spirit, it is a fatal evidence that the Church, 
 which so teaches and so practises her teaching, although she has 
 " begun in the Spirit," has " sought to be made perfect by the 
 flesh." ^ If the external ordinance be made to occupy that place 
 which belongs to the Spirit, and participation in the ordinance be 
 the substitute for faith, the sacramental theory thus reduced to 
 practice will be but the commencement of worse and deeper de- 
 gradation. It is but the beginning of a course which, consistently 
 followed, must lead to a religion of form and self-righteousness, 
 of sense and sensuous observances, of carnal ordinances and a 
 ceremonial holiness, of outward satisfaction and penances and 
 merit. There will he the priest and the bloodless but efficacious 
 sacrifice, grace conferred by the tricks of a physical or spiritual 
 magic, a religion that manifests itself outwardly and not inwardly, 
 the holiness of houses, and altars, and sacred wood and stone, but 
 not the holiness of the Spirit ; the atonement of Sacraments and 
 penances and creature merits, but not the atonement of the 
 Saviour received by faith ; a righteousness of bodily discipline 
 and fleshly mortification, but not the righteousness of God im- 
 puted to the believer ; a justification made out of pains and merits, 
 of sufferings and works, but not a justification freely given by 
 Divine grace and freely accepted by faith ; an outward baptism 
 to regenerate the sinner with water at first, — the food of the com- 
 munion table, made flesh and blood by the consecration of a 
 priest, to sustain the life so begun, and the anointing with oil 
 at last to prepare the soul for the burial. Such are the inevitable 
 
 ^ [Goode, Letter to a Lay Friend, Lond. 1845, pp. 18-24. Litton, Church 
 of Christ, Lond. 1851, pp. 11-13, 202-232, 240 f.] 
 2 Gal. iii. 3. 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. I.] THE SACRAMENTS. 41 
 
 fruits of the sacramental theory, consistently carried out in tlu' 
 Church of Christ, making the very temple of God to be the 
 habitation of every carnal and unclean tiling.^ 
 
 ' Bellarm. Dlsputationes, torn. iii. lib. ii. cap. i.-xxii. Perrone, Pnelectionvx 
 Theologiai', Parisiis 1842, torn. ii. pp. 5-GG. Amesius, Bellarm. Euerv. torn, 
 iii. lib. i. cap. i.-v. Turrettiu, Opera, torn. iij.. loc. xix. qu. i.-ix. Cunning- 
 ham, ITorAw, vol. iii. pp, 121-lo3. [Bruce, Sermous on the Sacraments, Wodrow 
 Soc. ed. Edin. 18-43, pp. 11-33. Js'ewman, Lectures on Just ijicat ion, pp. 31G, 
 etc.; Tract No. 90, 2d ed. p. 13. AVilberforcc, Doctrine of the Holy Eucliarist, 
 3d ed. Lond. 1854, pp. 17-38, 97-130. Goode, Doctrine of the Church of 
 England as to the Effects of Baptism in the case of Infants, 2d ed. Loud. 
 1860, pp. 3-10. Vind. of the ' Defence of the XXXIX.' Art: etc., 2d ed. p. 
 38 f. Unpublished Letter of Martyr to Bullim/er, Lond. 1850, pp. 11-13. 
 Martensen, Dogmatik, -ite Aufl. Kiel 1858, pp. 361, 364. Matthes, Compara- 
 tive Symholik, Leipzig 1854, pp. 492-510. Tbomasius, Dogmatik, 3ter Theil, 
 2te Abth. Erlangen i'861, pp. 113-135.] 
 
42 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM. 
 SECTION I. — NATUEE OF THE ORDINANCE. 
 
 Passing now from the doctrine of the Sacraments in general, or 
 viewed in respect of what belongs to them in common, I proceed 
 to consider them more in detail and individually ; and for this 
 purpose I commence with the Sacrament of Baptism, as the 
 initiatory rite. Upon what grounds are we justified in attribut- 
 ing to Baptism the name and character of a Sacrament I What 
 is the nature of the ordinance, the place which it occupies, and 
 the office it is intended to serve in the Christian Church ? The 
 general principles which we have already laid down in regard to 
 Sacraments as such, when applied more particularly to Baptism, 
 will enable us to bring out distinctly the character, authority, and 
 meaning of the ordinance. There were four elements which we 
 found to enter into the idea of a Sacrament. Let us proceed to 
 apply these to the ordinance of Baptism, in order that we may 
 ascertain its true nature and import. And in doing so, we shall 
 have an opportunity, at the same time, of noticing some of the 
 opinions in regard to Baptism which we hold to be unscriptural 
 and eiToneous. 
 
 I. The first characteristic of a Sacrament is, that it must be 
 a positive institution of Christ in His Church ; and this mark 
 applies to Baptism. 
 
 The doctrine of the Quakers is opposed to this first position. 
 They contend that Baptism, and the Lord's Supper also, were 
 Jewish practices, neither suited to the Gospel economy nor 
 appointed for the Gospel Church, but destined to be done away 
 with under the dispensation of the Spirit.^ Now, in reference to 
 Baptism, it cannot be doubted that it was a Jewish observance 
 1 [Barclay, Apology, 10th ed. Loud. 1841, pp. 387-421.] 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. II.] THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM. 43 
 
 before it became a Christian one, and that it was adminis- 
 tered by tlie Jews to proselytes joining them from among tlie 
 Gentiles, previously to the time when it was adopted by our 
 Lord as one of the Sacraments of His Church. This is suffi- 
 ciently attested by the statements of Jewish writers ; it may be 
 inferred, indeed, from the narratives of the Evangelists. Baptism, 
 as an initiatory rite and token of discipleship, connected with a sect 
 or school of religion, was familiarly known among the Jews ; and 
 it is on the ground of their previous acquaintance with and 
 practice of it amongst themselves, that we can understand the 
 question addressed to John the Baptist : " Why baptizest thou 
 then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that Prophet?"^ 
 Had John been any of those personages come into the country as 
 a teacher or founder of a new school of religion, the Jews would 
 have felt no surprise, and expressed no objection to his practice of 
 baptizing with water ; and it was only because he denied that he 
 was either Christ or Elias, that they were led to demand the 
 authority by which he baptized. Although, then, there is no 
 mention of any such ordinance in the law of Moses, yet there 
 seems to be no doubt that it was a ceremony that had found its 
 way into the practice of the Jews.^ But we are not on this 
 account to imagine that Christian Baptism was one of those 
 temporary ordinances destined to be done away with, or that it is 
 not a positive institution of Christ in His Church. During His 
 own personal ministry on earth, we are given to understand that, 
 acting on our Lord's direct authority. His Apostles adopted the 
 rite, and administered it to the Jews who professed their desire to 
 become Christ's disciples. Side by side with the commission to 
 preach the Gospel given to the Apostles, when the Church was 
 set up by our Lord after His own resurrection, we find the com- 
 mand to baptize those whom they taught ; and the ordinances of 
 the Word and of Baptism are spoken of in terms significant 
 equally of the authority and standing obligation of both. " Go 
 ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; 
 teaching them to observe all things wdiatsoever I have com- 
 
 ^ John i. 25. 
 
 - The question of Jewish Baptism is ably discussed by Di*. Ilalley ; and 
 the conclusions at -which he arrives on this subject are, I believe, substantially 
 correct. The Sacra meiifs, Loud. 1844, pp. 111-160. Wall, Hist, of Infant 
 Jhiptisui, Lond. 1720, vol. i. pp. Ixvi.-cx. 
 
44 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 manded you : and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end 
 of the world." ^ 
 
 The natural and indeed unavoidable interpretation of the 
 apostolic commission seems to establish these two things : first, 
 that a literal Baptism, or washing with water, was to accompany 
 the discipleship brought about by the preaching of the Apostles ; 
 and second, that both the ordinance of Baptism and that of 
 preaching were to be continued unto the end of the world. 
 Added to this, we have the evidence for the Divine authority 
 and permanent obligation of Baptism in the Church of Christ, 
 from the unvarying practice of the Apostles in regard to their 
 converts, wdiether Jewish or Gentile, down to the latest period in 
 the history of the Church to which the inspired narrative refers. 
 Such considerations as these go to prove that Baptism was not a 
 mere Jewish practice, suffered for a time in the Christian Church, 
 and destined to be cast off with other Jewish customs and obser- 
 vances. On the contrary, the positive appointment of our Lord 
 expressed in the commission He addressed to the Apostles as 
 founders of the Christian society, — the apostolic example itself as 
 regards Baptism equally of Gentile and Jewish converts, — and 
 the entire absence of any intimation, either express or implied, 
 that the practice was only temporary and designed to be discon- 
 tinued, go undeniably to prove that Christian Baptism is a per- 
 manent institution of Christ in His Church. 
 
 II. Another characteristic of a Sacrament is, that it be an 
 external and sensible sign of an internal grace, — a spiritual truth 
 embodied in an outward action ; and this mark is applicable to 
 Christian Baptism. 
 
 That Baptism is symbolical of unseen and spiritual blessings, 
 is admitted by all parties who hold the ordinance itself to be an 
 appointment of Christ, whatever theory they may entertain as to 
 its sacramental character or virtue. Adopted as it was by Christ 
 from Jewnsh customs and practices, it could hardly fail, indeed, 
 at its original institution in the Christian Church, to appear to 
 those who used it to be of a symbolical character. They had 
 been accustomed to the washings and sprinklings practised under 
 the law as symbolical observances, expressive of the removal of 
 ceremonial uncleanness, and of such a ceremonial purification as 
 secured acceptance with God, — at least outwardly. And when 
 1 Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. 
 
Div. ir. IV. Cii. II.] THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM. 45 
 
 Baptism was appointed by our Lord, the wasliing with water 
 included in it must have been interpreted, in accordance with tlie 
 previous use and meaning of the Jewish observances, as a puri- 
 fication, or a putting away of defilement of sin, so that tlie person 
 baptizetl was accounted clean, and fitted for acceptance with God. 
 Hence the language of Scripture everywhere in connection with 
 Baptism conveys the idea of its being a symbolical ordinance like 
 the ancient washings and sprinklings customary among the Jews, 
 and indeed among other nations, as expressive of religious puri- 
 fication or cleansing. The body washed with pure water was an 
 emblem of the soul purified and cleansed through the blood and 
 Spirit of Christ. The "Baptism for the remission of sin" was 
 expressive of the cleansing by which sin is removed. The action 
 by which water w^as applied by the administrator to the person, 
 was representative of the application of the blood of Cb.rist to the 
 guilt of the soul. The action by which the washing of Baptism 
 was submitted to by the I'ecipient, was expressive of his passing 
 under the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy 
 Ghost. And the distinguishing practice in Christian Baptism, 
 that the person who received the ordinance was baptized " into 
 the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost," was 
 symbolical of his dedicating himself to the Father, through his 
 justification by the blood of the Son, and his sanctification by the 
 grace of the Spirit. 
 
 There was the twofold representation, exhibited in the ordi- 
 nance of Baptism, of Christ giving Himself to the believer in 
 the two great initial blessings of the covenant, — justification and 
 sanctification, — and of the believer dedicating himself to Christ 
 as one of His justified and sanctified people. Ciirist united to 
 the believer, and the believer united to Christ, in consequence 
 of the removal both of the guilt and pollution of sin Avhich had 
 separated between them, is the great lesson exhibited in the ordi- 
 nance of Baptism as a symbol. Hence Baptism, rather than 
 the Lord's Supper, forms the great initiatory rite of the Church. 
 The former ordinance is more especially fitted symbolically to 
 represent the union of the believer to Christ ; the latter to set 
 forth the communion of the believer with Christ. Baptism meets 
 us at our entrance into tl>e Church, and by the purification from 
 the guilt and defilement of sin, which it more particularly repre- 
 sents, it exhibits us as entering into union with a Saviour in the 
 
46 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHUECH POWER DEALS. [Pakt HI. 
 
 only way in whicli that union can be effected, — in the way, 
 namely, of free justification by tlie blood of Christ sprinkled upon 
 the soul, and full sanctification by the Spirit of Christ cleansing 
 and renewing our nature/ In regard to this office which we 
 assign to Baptism, of being a sign of the spiritual blessings of the 
 covenant by which the believer is united to Christ, all parties who 
 hold Baptism to be an ordinance of Christ at all, agree, whatever 
 additional views they may hold as to its sacramental character or 
 virtue. 
 
 III. Another characteristic of a Sacrament, as we have already 
 seen, is, that it is a seal of a federal transaction between two 
 parties in the ordinance ; and this third mark also belongs to 
 Christian Baptism. 
 
 It is more than a sign of spiritual blessings ; it is a visible 
 seal and voucher of these to those who rightly partake of the 
 ordinance. At this point the theory of Baptism laid down in the 
 standards of our Church differs from the views held in regard to 
 it by Socinians, and by many of the English Independents. They, 
 contend that Baptism is a symbol, and nothing more than a 
 symbol, of spiritual blessings. We maintain that the statements 
 of Scripture warrant us in asserting that, in addition to its being 
 a symbol, it is also a seal of the covenant entered into between 
 Christ and the believer through the ordinance. That in the 
 administration and participation of Baptism there is a federal 
 transaction between Christ and the believer who rightly receives 
 it, and that the outward ordinance is a seal of the covenant engage- 
 ment, may be established by abundant evidence from Scripture. 
 
 1st, There are a number of statements of Scripture connected 
 with the ordinance which cannot be understood except upon the 
 supposition that Baptism is not only a sign, but also a seal of a 
 
 ^ [" Baptisma nobis quod purgati et abluti simus testificatur ; Ciena 
 Eucharistipe, quod redempti. In aqua figuratur ablutio ; in sanguine satis- 
 factio. Hsec duo in Christo reperiuntur, qui, ut ait Joannes (i. v. 6), ' venit 
 
 in aqua et sanguine,' hoc est, ut purgaret et redimeret Sic aiitem 
 
 cogitandum est quocunque baptizemur tempore, nos semel in omnem vitam 
 ablui et purgari. Itaque quoties lapsi fuerinius repetenda erit Baptismi me- 
 moria, et hac armandus animus, ut de pcccatorum remissione semper certus 
 securusque sit. [Conip. Luther's Sermon on Absolution and the Sacraments 
 in the Kirclten I'nstill.'] Nam etsi semel administratus prseteriisse visus est 
 posterioribus tamen peccatis non est abolitus. Puritas enim Chrisii in eo nobis 
 ohlata est ; ea semper viget, nullis maculis opprimitur, sed omnes nostras 
 sordes abluit et extergit." — Calvin, Inst. lib. iv. cap. xiv. 22, xv. 3. Bruce, 
 Scrmojis on the Sacraments, Wodrow Soc. ed. Edin. 184o, pp. 38-40.] 
 
Div. II. IV. Cir. II.] THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM. 47 
 
 covenant transaction between Clirist and the believer. The very 
 words of the institution seem to point to this. Baptism " into tlie 
 name (et? TO ovofxa) of tlie Father, and the Son, and the Holy 
 Ghost " means more than Baptism by their autliority, or an expres- 
 sion of our submission to them. It plainly implies, on the part of 
 the baptized person, an act of dedication of himself to the Three 
 Persons of the blessed Godhead, under the separate characters 
 which they bear in the Avork of redemption, — an act of engage- 
 ment by the recipient of the ordinance unto the Father, through 
 the Son, and by the S})irit ; or, in other words, a dedication of him- 
 self to God through the medium of justification and sanctification. 
 In exact accordance with this view, we find in Scripture that 
 Baptism is connected with " remission of sins," obtained through 
 Christ, and with " the washing of regeneration," performed by 
 the Spirit, — expressions which go much farther tha:n merely to 
 represent the ordinance as symbolical of these blessings, and which 
 appear to imply that there is an intimate connection between the 
 right reception of Baptism and the privilege of forgiveness of sins 
 through the blood of Cin-ist, and of sanctification of our nature 
 by the Spirit. What that sort of connection is which is more 
 than a mere sign to represent, and less than an outward charm to 
 impart these blessings, is illustrated by the Apostle Paul in a 
 remarkable passage of his Epistle to the Romans : " Know ye 
 not," says the Apostle, " that so many of us as were baptized into 
 Jesus Christ were baptized into His death ? Therefore we are 
 buried with Him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ w*as 
 raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we 
 also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted 
 together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the like- 
 ness of His resurrection."^ Of course in this passage the Apostle 
 must be held as referring to the Baptism of a believer, in whose 
 case it was a spiritual act of faith embodying itself in the outward 
 ordinance. Tliei'e are two tln'ngs which seem plainly enough to 
 be included in this remarkable statement. In ihe Jirst i-ilace, the 
 immersion in water of the persons of those who are baptized is 
 set forth as their burial with Christ in His grave because of sin ; 
 and their being raised again out of the water is their resurrection 
 with Christ in His rising ao;ain from the dead because of their 
 justification. Their death with Christ was their bearing the 
 1 Rom. vi. 3-5. 
 
48 iMATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 penalty of sin, and their resurrection with Christ was their being 
 freed from it, or justified. And in the second place, their burial 
 in water, when dying with Christ, was the washing away of the 
 corruptness of tlie old man beneath the water; and their coming 
 forth from the water in the image of His resurrection was their 
 leaving behind them the old man with his sins, and emerging into 
 newness of life. Their immersion beneath the water, and their 
 emerging again, were the putting off the corruption of nature and 
 risinij ao;ain into holiness, or their sanctification.^ All this seems 
 to be implied in this statement of the Apostle in regard to a 
 believer's Baptism ; and it cannot be doubted that, in accordance 
 with many other passages of Scripture, it makes Baptism in the 
 case of a believer far more than a sign of the initial blessings of 
 justification and regeneration. The Apostle undoubtedly repre- 
 sents the act as a federal one, in which the believer gives himself 
 to God in the way that God has appointed, through faith in Christ 
 for pardon, and through submission to the Spirit for regeneration; 
 and in which these blessings are communicated and confirmed to 
 him. Such statements of Scripture seem to bear out the assertion, 
 that in the Baptism of a believer there is a federal transaction, and 
 that the outward ordinance is the seal of the spiritual covenant. 
 
 2d, The same conclusion, that Baptism is not only a sign but 
 also a seal of the covenant, may be supported by the consideration, 
 that Baptism has come in the room of the Old Testament Sacra- 
 ment of circumcision. That the ordinance of Baptism under 
 th^ New Testament has taken the place of circumcision in the 
 ancient Church, is apparent from the statements of the Apostle 
 Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians, in which he argues against 
 the necessity of circumcision under the Gospel, on the ground 
 that Baptism, was all to believers now that circumcision had been 
 to believers in former times ; and where he actually calls Baptism 
 by the name of " the circumcision of Christ.''^ " In whom also ye 
 are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in 
 putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of 
 Christ: buried with Ilim in Baptism, wherein also ye are risen 
 with Ilim, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath 
 
 1 [For a very able exposition of this passage and Col. ii. 11 f., agreeing in 
 substance with that given above, but not finding in either case any allusion to 
 a particular mode of Baptism, see Beccher, Bajilism iritli reference to its Im- 
 port and Modes, New York 1849, pp. 83-114 ; also AVillianis, Antipnid. Exam. 
 vol. i. pp. 189-195. Wardlaw, Dlscrt. on Inf. Baptism, 3d ed. pp. 155-104.] 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. II.] THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM. 49 
 
 raised Iliin from the dead." * This assertion, that Baptism is now 
 the circumcision of the Christian Church, leads very directly to 
 the inference that we must regard Baptism as being as much a 
 seal of the covenant of grace, as circumcision was a seal of the 
 Abrahamic covenant ; and it goes very clearly to establish the 
 position, that Baptism is far more than the simple symbolical 
 institution which many Independents would make it, — that it has 
 more in it than the character of a mere empty sign ; that there 
 belongs to it the grand characteristic of a sacramental ordinance, 
 namely, the character of a seal, confirming and attesting a federal 
 transaction between God and the believer. 
 
 IV. Another characteristic of a Sacrament is, that it is a 
 means of grace ; and this fourth mark, like the former ones, 
 belongs to Christian Baptism. 
 
 Baptism is a means for confirming the faith of the believer, 
 and adding to the grace which he possessed before. It is not 
 intended for the benefit or conversion of unconverted men ; it is 
 not designed or fitted to impart justification or spiritual grace to 
 those -who were previously strangers to these ; but it is made a 
 means of grace by the Spirit to those who are believers already, 
 and fitted and intended to promote their spiritual good. I do not 
 at present speak of the case of infants baptized, or of the benefits 
 which they may be supposed to receive from the administration of 
 the ordinance. Their case, as peculiar and exceptional, I shall 
 reserve for separate and more detailed consideration. But, putting 
 aside the case of infant Baptism for the present, the position that 
 I lay down is, that Baptism is a means of grace fitted and blessed 
 by God for the spiritual good of the believer. And that it is 
 so, the considerations already stated in regard to the nature of 
 the ordinance, if they are correct and scriptural, will sufficiently 
 enable us to understand. If the act of the adult believer in 
 receiving Baptism be an act of making or renewing his covenant 
 with God through the ordinance, — if his part of the transaction 
 be the embodiment in outward sign of the spiritual act whereby 
 he dedicates himself to Christ, — and if Christ's part of the trans- 
 action be the giving of Himself and His grace to the believer in 
 return, then it is plain that the ordinance, so understood, must be 
 a divinely instituted means of grace to the parties who rightly 
 partake of it. Christ given to the believer in the Sacrament is 
 1 Col. ii. 11, 12. 
 
 VOL. II. I> 
 
50 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 iiot less precious and blessed, but more so, than Christ given to 
 the believer in the Word ; and for this reason, that in the Sacra- 
 ment Christ is not only in the Word, but in the sign also. In 
 both cases, it is, however, only in connection with the faith of the 
 believer that the blessing is received and enjoyed ; and apart 
 from that faith, there is no blessing either in Word or Sacrament. 
 Christ in the Word, received into the soul by faith, is the source 
 of saving grace to the soul. Christ in the Sacrament, received 
 into the soul by faith, is not less, but more, a blessing likewise. 
 But in neither case can the grace and blessing be enjoyed except 
 in connection with the exercise of faith on the part of the hearer 
 or receiver. There is no promise connected with Word or Sacra- 
 ment over and above the promise that " the just shall live by 
 faith." It is only in connection with faith, indeed, that grace 
 can be imparted in a manner consistent with the nature of man 
 as a moral and intelligent being, and without a subversion of its 
 ordinary laws. The case of infants is an exceptional case, to be 
 dealt with apart, and by itself. But in the case of adults, the 
 communication of supernatural grace, whether through Word or 
 Baptism, must be in connection with, and not apart from, the 
 exercise of their own spiritual and intelligent nature, and in 
 connection with that act of the spiritual nature which we call faith. 
 Baptism is no exception to the ordinary principle that represents 
 all the blessings of God's salvation as associated with faith on the 
 part of the receiver of them. It becomes a means of grace in 
 connection with the faith of the believer, which it calls into life 
 and exercise. 
 
 The views now stated are of course opposed to the doctrine 
 of what has been called " baptismal regeneration," whether held 
 by Romanists or Romanizing Protestants. The Church of Rome 
 considers Baptism, like the other Sacraments, to be a means of 
 imparting grace ex opere operato, and to carry with it the virtue of 
 so applying to the person baptized, whether infant or adult, the 
 merits of Clu'ist, as that both original and actual transgression 
 are completely removed by the administration of it, in every case, 
 apart altogether from the faith of the recipient. The authorized 
 formularies of the Church of England seem to maintain the 
 doctrine of baptismal regeneration in a sense at least approxi- 
 mating to that of the Church of Rome. The Thirty-nine Articles, 
 indeed, give no countenance to such a theory; but both her 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. II.] THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM. 51 
 
 Liturgy and her Catechism appear to speak differently on the 
 subject ; and the doctrine, under various modifications, is held 
 and asserted by a large number of her ablest divines. It is ex- 
 tremely difHcult, in investigating this question, to ascertain the 
 exact sense in which regeneration is understood to be imparted 
 through the ordinance of Baptism, or the precise nature and 
 amount of change which, according to the advocates of this 
 doctrine, actually takes place on the person baptized. In some 
 instances, I belieA'e that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration 
 is held in words, whilst it is not held in reality ; the advantage 
 conferred by Baptism on all equally and indiscriminately being 
 nothing more than admission to the outward privileges of the 
 visible Church, in consequence of the reception of it. But 
 although, in the case of a few, the doctrine, as held by them, 
 may be regarded as more nominal than real, yet it cannot be 
 doubted that very many in the Chui'ch of England approximate, 
 on this question, more or less closely to the views asserted in the 
 standards of the Church of Rome. 
 
 There are at least three different modifications of the doctrine 
 of baptismal regeneration held by divines of the Church of Eng- 
 land, which can be readily enough distinguished from each other. 
 Fust, there is one party who assert that Baptism, by the adminis- 
 tration of it, gives the person baptized a place within the covenant 
 of grace, in such a sense that he has a right to all its outward 
 privileges and means of grace, and by a diligent and right use of 
 them, may secure to himself salvation. This is the lowest view 
 of the efficacy of Baptism held by those who assert the doctrine 
 of baptismal regeneration, and amounts apparently to this, that 
 Baptism is necessary in order to the salvability of a man, — all 
 unbaptized persons having no right to the privileges of the 
 covenant, and being left to " the uncovenanted mercies of God." 
 In answer to such a theory, it is enough to assert, with the Word 
 of God, that the Gospel is free to all; that all, without exception 
 of class or character, are invited to avail themselves of it ; and 
 that " the free gift unto justification of life " is not restricted to any 
 limited number of men, baptized or unbaptized, but is co-extensive 
 in its promises and invitations with " the judgment that has come 
 upon all unto condemnation." ^ Second, there is another party 
 
 ^ Rom. V. 18. [" Atqiii jam visum est fieri non levem injuriam Dei foederi 
 nisi in eo acc[uiescimus, acsi per se iiifirmum esset ; quum ejus effectus ncque 
 
52 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 who assert that Baptism conveys to the soul, by the administration 
 of it, regenerating grace — a true spiritual life ; which may con- 
 tinue with the baptized person, so as to avail at last to his 
 everlasting salvation, but which may also be forfeited in after 
 years by means of sin. This second form of the doctrine of bap- 
 tismal regeneration proceeds upon an alleged distinction — held 
 apparently by Augustine,^ and after him maintained by many 
 Lutheran divines — between those who are predestinated unto life, 
 and those who are regenerated. It is affirmed that the two classes 
 do not coincide, and that regeneration, though once imparted to 
 the soul, may be subsequently lost. Third, there is another party 
 who admit that Baptism imparts saving grace and regeneration to 
 the soul, which under no circumstance can be entirely forfeited, 
 but which entitle the person baptized to everlasting life. 
 
 These three different forms of the theory of baptismal re- 
 generation it is not necessary to reply to separately. The only 
 plausible arguments which can be brought in defence of such a 
 doctrine are derived from a few passages of Scripture which 
 apparently, at first sight, connect the inward and spiritual grace 
 with the outward action in Baptism which is its sign. These 
 passages it is not difficult to explain by the help of the canon of 
 interpretation, to which I formerly had occasion to refer, founded 
 on the practice of Scripture, and the practice of every other 
 book, of predicating of the sign figuratively what can only be 
 truly and literally predicated of the thing signified."'^ The sacra- 
 
 a Baptismo neque ab uUis accessionibus pendeat. Accedit postea Sacramen- 
 tum sigilli instar, noii quod efficaciam Dei promissioni, quasi per so invalidse, 
 conferat, sed earn duntaxat nobis confirmet. Unde scquitur, non idco bajD- 
 tizari fidelium liberos ut filii Dei time primum fiant qui ante alieni fuerint ab 
 Ecclesia, sedsolcuni jjotiussigno ideo recipi iuEcclesiani, quia promissiouis bene- 
 ficio jam ante ad Ckristi corpus pertiuebant." — Calvin, Iiu^t. lib. iv. cap. xv. 22.] 
 
 ^ [Cunningham, Warls, vol. ii. pp. 356-358.] 
 
 - This principle applies to the famous text, John iii. 5', on which Dr. Pusey 
 says he " would gladly rest the whole question of baptismal regeneration " 
 (Tracts for the Times, No. 07). In this passage the second clause is epexe- 
 getical of the first, — " born of water, even of the Spirit," — the one being the 
 sigu, the other the thing signified. This is shown mainly by two considera- 
 tions : 1. Chri.stian Baptism was not yet instituted, — thy proper baptismal 
 commission being only given after our Lord's resurrection. This is perfectly 
 clear from Scripture ; and the Fathers, on whose statements in this matter 
 Ilomauists and High Churchmen mainly rely, declare with one voice that 
 baptismal regeneration Avas unknown till the promised Spirit was poured out 
 freely by the ascended Saviour. To quote Dr. llalley's words : " The spring 
 of living water had not then issued from the foot of the Cross to fill the re- 
 generatiug font ; the augel of Baptism had not then descended to trouble the 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. II.] THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTIS:\I. 53 
 
 mental relation between Baptism and regeneration, which it re- 
 presents, easily explains the application to Baptism, figuratively, of 
 language that belongs literally to regeneration. And while this 
 principle, rightly understood and applied, is sufficient to explain 
 the statements of Scripture that apparently, at first sight, give 
 countenance to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, the whole 
 tenor of the Word of God clearly and decisively contradicts th.e 
 theory. It is inconsistent with the fundamental principle whicli 
 regulates the matter of a sinner's salvation, — the principle that he 
 is saved and lives by faith; and that it is by faith, and not through 
 any other channel, that he receives from God all that is necessary 
 to his present and his everlasting well-being.^ 
 
 holy waters, and impart to them their sanative virtue ; the sacramental gifts 
 were not conferred upon men ; the priesthood was not consecrated ; St. Peter 
 had not been invested with the keys ; the life-inspiring baptistry was not 
 erected in the porch of the Church ; the initiation into the greater mysteries 
 of the faith had not commenced. Did our Lord, then, speak to Nicodemus of 
 what it was impossible for him or any one else to experience or understand 
 until the day of Pentecost, — the date of the great gift of baptismal regene- 
 ration ? If He did, how could He say, ' Art thou a master in Israel, and 
 knowest not these things? ' Can any one seriously expound the passage, as 
 though it were to Nicodemus, not a declaration of what then actually was, but 
 a dark propiiecy of what was afterwards to take place ? " — The Sacraments, vol. 
 i. p. 230. 2. The precise meaning of the phrase "born of water" is fixed, 
 beyond reasonable doubt, by a reference to the Jewish ideas and modes of ex- 
 pression. Nicodemus must have understood the words addressed to him — our 
 Lord must have intended him to understand them — in the sense in which any 
 Jew of that day conversant with the Old Testament Scriptures, and with the 
 habits of speech and action of his nation, must infallibly have regarded them, in 
 the sense in which psalmists and prophets had said : " AVash me, and I shall 
 be whiter than snow." " Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your 
 doings from you." " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall 
 be clean ; from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you." 
 (Ps. li. 2, 7 ; Isa. i. 16 ; Ezek. xxxvi. 25.) The passage, in short, does not 
 refer — at least in any direct sense — to Christian Baptism at all. It points to 
 the purification of heart and renewal of nature by the Holy Spirit, for which 
 " washing," or bemg " born of water," wds the familiar sign and figurative 
 expression among the Jews. Comp. John vii. 37 ; Titus iii. 5. [Cf. Calvin, 
 in loc. and Inst. iv. xvi. 25. " Postquam naturae corruptionem Nicodemo 
 exposuit Christus, ac renasci oportere docuit ; quia ille renascentiam corpo- 
 ralem somniabat, modumhicindicatquoregenerat nos Deus, nempe per aquam 
 et Spiritum ; quasi diceret, per Spiritum, qui purgando et irrigando fideles 
 animas vice aquse fungitur. Neque hsec nova est locutio ; prorsus enim cum 
 illii quae !Matth. iii. 11, habetur convenit : ' Ille est qui baptizat in Spii'itu 
 sancto et igni.' Quemadmodum ergo Spiritu sancto et igni baptizare est 
 Spiritum sanctum conferre, c[ui in regeneratione ignis officium naturamquc 
 habet : ita renasci aqua et Spiritu nihil aliud est quam vim illam Spiritus 
 recipere, qua? in anima id facit quod aqua in corpore."] 
 
 ^ Williams, Antip;v<h>haptism Examined, Shrewsbury 1789, vol. i. pp. 102- 
 111, 121-171, 180-197. Halley, The Sacraments, Lond. 1844, vol. i. pp. 
 213-283. Goode, Doct. of the Church of Engl, as to the Effects of Baptism in 
 
54 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 SECTION II. — THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM AS REGARDS ADULTS. 
 
 Having discussed the general nature of Baptism, the question 
 that next awaits our consideration is, as to the subjects of Chris- 
 tian Baptism, or the parties to whom this ordinance ought to be 
 administered. There are three opinions that may be maintained 
 in regard to this matter. There is one party who affirm that 
 Baptism ought to be administered to all, not infants, Avho are 
 qualified to become members of the Christian Church in virtue of 
 a credible profession of faith in Christ and a corresponding con- 
 duct. There is a second party who assert that Baptism rightfully 
 belongs not only to such persons, but also, in virtue of a repre- 
 sentative relation between parents and their offspring, to their 
 children. And there is a third party who hold that Baptisni 
 ought to be administered without restriction to parents and chil- 
 dren, without demanding, as a prerequisite from the applicant, any 
 profession of faith or corresponding conduct. These three classes, 
 holding principles markedly different from each other, probably 
 exhaust the answers to the question : To whom is Baptism to be 
 administered? The first, or the Antipsedobaptists, administer the 
 ordinance only to adults, who, by their faith and obedience, appear 
 to be possessed personally of a title to be regarded as members of 
 the Christian Church, and exclude infants, who cannot, by their 
 own faith and profession, make good their claim to be regarded as 
 proper subjects of the ordinance. The second, or the Pasdobap- 
 tists, administer the ordinance not only to adults, who personally 
 possess a right to be regarded as members of the Christian Church, 
 but also to tlieir infants, who can have no right except what they 
 derive from their parents. And the third class, or the advocates 
 of indiscriminate Baptism, administer the ordinance to all appli- 
 cants without any restriction, and without demanding, in the case 
 of adults, that they establish their claim to the ordinance by ex- 
 hibiting a credible profession of faith in their own persons, or, in 
 the case of infants, in the persons of their parents or guardians. 
 
 the case of Infants, 2d ed. Lond. 1850, pp. 9-37, 143-178. [Calvin, Insf. 
 lib. iv. cap. xv. Turrettin, Op. torn, iii. loc. xix. qu. 11-13, 19. Bp. E. H. 
 Browne, Expos, of the Thirty-nine Art. Sth ed. Lond. 1868, pp. 612-671. 
 Martensen, Dogmatik, 4te Aufl. pp. 367-370. Thomasius, Dogmatil; 3te Th. 
 2te Abth. Erlangen 1861, pp. 6-10, 22-25. Cunningham, Works, vol. iii. 
 pp. 133-142. Goode, Vind. of the ' Def of the XXXIX Art., etc.; in reply to 
 the Bishop of Exeter, 2d ed. pp. 8-22.] 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. II.] THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 55 
 
 In proceeding to examine these different systems, it will not be 
 necessary for me to discuss over again what occupied our atten- 
 tion at an early period of the course,' — the question of wdiat are 
 the qualifications that give a person a title to be regarded as a 
 member of the Christian Church, — or to enter into the controversy 
 between Independents and Presbyterians as to the necessity in 
 order to membership of a true and saving faith, or simply an out- 
 ward profession and consistent practice/ Without entering upon 
 that subject a second time, the three systems of opinion as to the 
 proper subjects of Baptism now mentioned may be conveniently 
 discussed under the head of these two questions. First : Are we 
 warranted by the Word of God to administer the ordinance of 
 Baptism to all applicants fc- themselves or their children, without 
 any restriction as to religious profession and character in the case 
 of the applicant ? And second : Are we warranted by the Word 
 of God to administer the ordinance of Baptism to the children of 
 a parent wdio would himself be a proper subject for Baptism, and 
 is a member of the Church ? The first question, or the point in 
 debate between our Church and the advocates of indiscriminate 
 Baptism, we shall now proceed to deal with, reserving the second, 
 or the question of infant Baptism, for after consideration. 
 
 The doctrine of Baptism without restriction, and apart from 
 the religious character and profession of the applicant, has assumed 
 an aspect of more than ordinary importance recently, in conse- 
 quence of the extent to which it has prevailed and the manner 
 in which it has been advocated among Independents, Dr. Ward- 
 law, — who was no friend of such a doctrine, but the reverse, — 
 when speaking in reference to a former statement of opinion, to 
 the effect that all parties were of one mind as to the necessity for 
 a, religious profession as a prerequisite to Baptism, says : " Until 
 of late, I had no idea of the degree or of the extent of this laxity, 
 both as to the requisites in adults to their own baptism, and in 
 parents, to the baptism of their children. It has been a cause of 
 equal surprise and concern to me to find, from the publications of 
 more than one of my brethren which have recently appeared, that 
 in my first statement I have been so very wide of the truth. The 
 lax views to which I now refer have been propounded and argued 
 at length in the Congregational Lecture for 1844, by my esteemed 
 friend, Dr. Halley of Manchester." The surprise expressed by 
 [1 See above, vol. i. pp. 68-80.] 
 
56 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 Dr. Wardlaw at the acceptance which the doctrine of indiscrimi- 
 nate Baptism has received, and the prevalence which the practice 
 has obtained among English Independents, is not wdthout founda- 
 tion. Dr. Halley may, I believe, be fairly regarded as the repre- 
 sentative of the views of Independents, at least in England, on 
 the subject ; and he is perhaps the ablest defender of the practice 
 which prevails, very nearly universally, among them. The doctrine 
 of the class to which he belongs, and whose views he advocates, 
 is expressed by Halley as follows. After stating the principles 
 held by other and opposite parties, he says : " There are, lastly, 
 those who baptize all apj^icants whatsoever, provided the appli- 
 cation does not appear to be made scoffingly and profanely, — for 
 that would be a manifest desecration of the service, — and all chil- 
 dren offered by their parents, guardians, or others who may have 
 the care of them." " The third class maintain that, as no restric- 
 tion is imposed upon baptism in the New Testament, none ought 
 to be imposed by the ministers of the Gospel."^ " These views," — 
 I quote again from Dr. Wardlaw, — " these views, which he 
 broaches and defends, are characterized by a latitudinarian laxity, 
 which in my eyes is as mischievous as unscriptural,' — the former, 
 because the latter."^ The question, then, of indiscriminate Baptism 
 is one of very great interest and importance, — more especially in 
 the present day, — and amply deserves discussion. In that discus- 
 sion we must of course appeal for the only arguments which can 
 decide the controversy to the Scriptures themselves. We learn 
 from them that Baptism is a positive institution of Christ in the 
 worship of the Christian Church ; and from them also we must 
 learn the terms on which the ordinance is to be dispensed, and 
 the parties entitled to receive it. Is the ordinance, then, to be 
 administered to all applicants indiscriminately without regard to 
 religious profession or character, — to believers and unbelievers 
 alike, — without any restriction, except, according to Dr. Halley, 
 that they do not apply for it " scoffingly and profanely?" Or, 
 on the contrary, does a title to participation in the ordinance of 
 Baptism imply, as a prerequisite, a religious profession and corre- 
 sponding conduct on the part of the applicant? 
 
 Now, in examining into the doctrine and practice of Scripture 
 
 ^ Halley, The Sacrament.^, Lond. 1844, vol. i. j). 496. 
 
 - Wardlaw, Dissertatiim an the Scriptural Anthoriti/, Nature, and Uses of 
 Ivfant Baptism, 3d. ed. Glasg. 1846, pp. 221-223. 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. II.] THE SUBJECTS OF BArXISM. 57 
 
 bearing upon this question, it is important to iinderstanJ distinctly 
 at the outset the real point in debate. There are two preliminary 
 remarks which may help to place it in its true light. 
 
 Isf, The question in debate between the advocates and oppo- 
 nents of indiscriminate Baptism is not, as Dr. Halley has stated it 
 to be : " Whether the Apostles and their assistants baptized indis- 
 criminately all applicants, leaving their characters to be formed and 
 tested by subsequent events." ^ The question rather is : Whether, 
 in such application made to the Apostles for Baptism, there was 
 not included or implied a religious profession of faith in Christ, 
 such as to warrant them to administer the ordinance because of 
 the profession. It is manifest that, in apostolic times, when men 
 were called upon in consequence of a Christian Baptism to for- 
 sake all that was dear to them on earth, and to incur the hazard 
 of persecution and death, almost any such application necessarily 
 involved or implied at least a credible profession of faith in Christ; 
 inasmuch as hardly any conceivable motive except a behef in 
 Christ would have induced any one to make the application, 
 except, it may be, in rare and exceptional cases. Generally speak- 
 ing, the fact of a man's applying for Baptism in apostolic times 
 was itself the evidence of a credible profession, and enough to 
 warrant the administration of the ordinance, not on the principle 
 of baptizing all, believers and unbelievers alike, with a profession 
 or without it ; but rather on the principle that the applicant, by 
 the very act of application, in the circumstances of the early 
 Church, professed his faith in Christ. Upon this principle we 
 can easily explain why, in the Scripture narrative of the practice 
 of baptizing in the early Church, we find no example of the appli- 
 cant being kept for a length of time in the position of candidate 
 for Baptism, so as thereby to test his character and profession. 
 
 2d, The question in debate between the advocates and oppo- 
 nents of indiscriminate Baptism is not, whether the Apostles, in 
 their administration of the ordinance, baptized, as Dr. Halley 
 asserts, " bad men as well as good."" That the Apostles did so 
 in particular instances, the case of Simon Magus plainly attests. 
 But that case no less plainly attests that the Baptism was ad- 
 ministered, not in the absence of any religious profession, but in 
 consequence of such a profession. Nothing can be more unde- 
 niable than that it was upon the ground of his professed belief in 
 1 Halley, The Sacraments, Loud. 1814, vol. i. p. 505. ^ ]jjij^ p. 595. 
 
58 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 the Gospel preached by Philip that Simon Magus was baptized. 
 " Then Simon," says the inspired account of the transaction, 
 " then Simon himself believed also : and when he was baptized," 
 etc/ Like the other hearers who were baptized in consequence 
 of their profession of faith in Philip's doctrine, Simon professed, 
 to believe, and, on the credit of that profession, was baptized as 
 they were. But although among the number of those who 
 received apostolic Baptism thei'e were good men and bad men, as 
 there must be among the members of the Church in all ages, this 
 is not the real question at issue between the friends and opponents 
 of indiscriminate Baptism. The real question in controversy 
 between them is, whether Baptism was generally, or was ever, 
 administered without a religious profession at all on the part of 
 the applicant ; or whether such a profession was invariably pre- 
 sent as a prerequisite to Baptism. " Baptism," says the Shorter 
 Catechism, " is not to be administered to any that are out of the 
 visible Church, till they profess their faith in Christ and obe- 
 dience to Him."^ 
 
 Bearing in mind these preliminary remarks, it is not difficult, 
 I think, from an examination of Scripture doctrine and practice 
 in regard to Baptism, to establish the conclusion, that it is a 
 sacramental ordinance not to be administered indiscriminately 
 and without restriction to all applying for it, but, on the contrary, 
 limited to those maintaining an outward character and profession 
 of Christianity. 
 
 I. The nature and import of the ordinance of Baptism are 
 inconsistent with the idea of an indiscriminate administration of 
 it to all, without respect to religious character and profession. 
 
 The doctrine and practice of the advocates of indiscriminate 
 Baptism very naturally arise out of the system maintained by 
 them as to the nature of the ordinance. With Dr. Halley and 
 the Independents, whom he represents. Baptism is not, in the 
 proper and peculiar sense of the term, a Sacrament, but only a 
 sign ; and a sign, too, of a very restricted meaning indeed. It is a 
 sign that the person holds certain Christian truths, or is willing 
 to learn them ; which truths may be held in the way of a mere 
 intellectual apprehension, Avithout the man who so holds them 
 being a Christian, or even seriously professing to be one. Upon 
 this theory, — that Baptism is no more than a sign, expressive of 
 
 ^ Acts viii. 13. ^ Shorter Catechism, qu. 95. 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. II.] THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 59 
 
 certain truths of Christianity, — it is quite possible to engraft the 
 doctrine of an indiscriminate administration of the ordinance in 
 every instance where those truths, as is usually the case in a Chris- 
 tian country, are not openly renounced or publicly denied. To 
 affix the sign of allegiance to those truths in the case of every man 
 who merely does not deny them, and must be held by the very 
 act of applying for the sign, as at least in some tolerable degree 
 acquainted with them, is consistent enough. To affix the sign 
 to all infants proposed for Baptism, is also consistent ; for they 
 are capable of being instructed in the truths represented, and 
 the act of their parents in bringing them to receive the ordinance 
 may be regarded as an acknowledgment that they are willing 
 that their children be so instructed. Eestrict the import of 
 Baptism to that of a mere sign of certain Gospel truths, and 
 it is quite in accordance with the theory of indiscriminate ad- 
 ministration. " Practically, " says Dr. Halley, " those who 
 baptize indiscriminately all applicants and all children proposed 
 for baptism, and those who reckon upon the prospect of teaching 
 the baptized, will be found seldom at variance ; for scarcely ever 
 is any one proposed whose religious instruction might not be 
 secured by proper care." ^ As a sign expressive of acquaintance 
 with certain Christian truths, or of a capacity and willingness to 
 receive them, Baptism may consistently enough be administered 
 without restriction to all applicants, whether adults or infants. 
 
 But the very opposite doctrine and practice must be main- 
 tained, on the supposition that the Sacrament of Baptism is not 
 a sign merely, and that in a very restricted sense, of Christian 
 truth, but a seal of a federal transaction between two parties in 
 the ordinance, whereby the recipient gives himself in Baptism to 
 Christ, and Christ in Baptism gives Himself and His grace to 
 the recipient. A seal of a covenant which the party baptized 
 does not even profess to make, and has avowedly no intention of 
 entering into, — a voucher to a federal transaction, in which there 
 is no person in the least professing to be a party, — an attestation 
 to a mutual engagement never pretended by the individual who 
 is supposed to give the attestation, — this is a contradiction and 
 inconsistency not to be got over. There is a manifest incon- 
 gruity in administering equally to those who avow that they 
 are believers, and to unbelievers with no such avowal, the same 
 ^ Halley, nt supra, p. 479. 
 
60 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 Christian ordinance, — in dispensing a Gospel Sacrament indis- 
 criminately to those who profess to have received the Gospel, and 
 to those who do not, — in giving a religious privilege to those who 
 make no religious profession, not less than to those who do. If 
 Baptism be no more than a sign of certain religious truths known, 
 or at least that may be learned, by the party baptized, then 
 indeed there is no such incongruity between the nature of the 
 rite and its unrestricted administration. But if Baptism be the 
 outward seal of a federal engagement, distinctively marking the 
 true Christian, then the very nature of tlie ordinance forbids it 
 to be administered to men with no profession of Christianity. If 
 it be the Sacrament of union to the Saviour and admission into 
 the Christian Church, the ordinance itself points out the necessity 
 of its restriction to those who " name the name of Christ," and 
 whose life and conduct are not outwardly inconsistent with their 
 claim to be numbered among His people. 
 
 II. The administration of Baptism by John, the forerunner 
 of our Lord, has been very generally appealed to in favour of an 
 indiscriminate dispensation of the ordinance,^ but in point of fact 
 may be regarded as affording evidence of a contrary practice. 
 
 The Baptism of John, when we are told that multitudes of 
 the Jews flocked to him in the wilderness to be baptized, has 
 been quoted in favour of the doctrine and practice of English 
 Independents. There are two things which it is necessary to 
 establish before any argument for indiscriminate Baptism in the 
 Christian Church could be drawn from the preaching of John ; 
 and both these things, so far from being proved, may with good 
 reason be denied. In the first place, it were necessary to prove 
 that the Baptism of John was identical with Christian Baptism, 
 before any countenance could be derived from his practice, — even 
 if it were, as is alleged, that of indiscriminate Baptism, — in favour 
 of the same custom in the Christian Church. And in the second 
 place, it were necessary to establish the assumption that John 
 really baptized all equally who came to Jiim, without regard to 
 their religious profession. I believe that neither the one nor the 
 other of these positions can be established from Scripture, but 
 the reverse. 
 
 With regard to the first position, there seems to be warrant 
 from Scripture to say that John's Baptism was not identical with 
 1 Halley, ut supra, pp. 1G3-1G7, 19^-201. 
 
Div. 11. IV. Cii. 11] THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTIS:\r. 61 
 
 that of Christ. His doctrine and his office occupied an inter- 
 mediate place between those of the Old Testament teachers and 
 those of the Gospel Church ; and his Baptism corresponded with 
 his doctrine. He taught the doctrine of repentance and of pre- 
 paration for Him that should come after him ; he pointed to the 
 future Saviour, rather than preached a present one ; and his 
 Baptism was the same in character. We have no reason to 
 believe that he baptized in the name of Christ; and we have 
 ground for asserting that the Baptism of John, in the case of 
 those who received it, was afterwards replaced by Christian 
 Baptism, when they were received into the Christian Church. 
 That such was the case, the instance of the disciples at Ephesus 
 proves ; whom Paul rebaptlzed, as is recorded in the nineteenth 
 chapter of tlie Acts of the Apostles : "-And he said unto them, 
 Unto what then were ye baptized ? And they said, Unto John's 
 baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism 
 of repentance, saying unto the |>eople, that they should believe on 
 Him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When 
 they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord 
 Jesus." ^ 
 
 With regard to the second point, or the assumption that the 
 Baptism of John was really given to all applicants indiscriminately, 
 Avithout respect to religious character, there seems to be no evi- 
 dence for it in Scripture, but the reverse. We seem to have as 
 good evidence, that John demanded a profession of a religious 
 kind from those whom he baptized, as the character of the very 
 brief and scanty narrative which has come down to us of the 
 transaction would naturally lead us to expect. That vast multi- 
 tudes of the Jews enrolled themselves by Baptism in the number 
 of John's disciples, would appear to admit of no doubt ; for we 
 are expressly told tliat " there went out unto him into the wilder- 
 ness all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all 
 baptized of him in the river Jordan." That of this great multi- 
 tude all were truly brought to repentance, and turned from sin, 
 and savingly taught to look forward to the Messiah who was to 
 come, may, from many circumstances, appear improbable. But 
 that they were all admitted to the ordinance of John's Baptism, 
 
 1 Acts xix. 3-5. Williams, Antlpxdohaptism Examined, Shrewsbury 1789, 
 vol. i. pp. 113-120. Wardlaw, Dissert, on Infant Baptism, od cd. Glasg. 1846, 
 pp. 223-269. 
 
62 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 without any regard to the rehgious profession that they made, 
 is undeniably contradicted by the express language of the sacred 
 historian ; for it is added: " They were all baptized of him in the 
 river Jordan, confessing their sinsT ^ The Baptism and the con- 
 fession of sins went together, — the one being the accompanying 
 condition of the other. So far is it from being true that the 
 practice of John gives countenance to the theory of indiscriminate 
 Baptism, that the very opposite may be proved from the inspired 
 narrative, brief though it be. 
 
 III. The terms of the commission given by our Lord after 
 His resurrection to His Apostles in regard to founding and estab- 
 lishing the Christian Church, seem very clearly to forbid the 
 practice of indiscriminate Baptism, and to require a profession of 
 faith in Christ as a prerequisite to Baptism in His name. 
 
 The terms of the commission, as recorded in the Gospel by 
 Matthew, are these : " Go ye therefore, and disciple — fxaOrjrev^, 
 G-are — all 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 have commanded you."^ Such is the 
 language employed by our Lord in what must be regarded, I 
 think, as the original institution of Christian Baptism. The 
 commentary of Dr. Halley on these words brings out his argu- 
 ment in favour of indiscriminate Baptism. " The question," says 
 he, " respecting the subject of Baptism is here resolved into one 
 of grammar and criticism. It is simply what is the antecedent 
 to the w^ord them, or for what noun is that pronoun substituted. 
 ' Going forth, disciple all the nations — wavra ra idvr) — baptizing 
 them — avTov<; — all the nations, into the name of the Father, and 
 the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; teaching them — all the nations — to 
 observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.' So far 
 as the grammatical construction is concerned, the meaning of the 
 terms is precisely the same, as it would be if the words of the 
 commission were, ' baptize all the nations.' Adhering, therefore, 
 to the grammar of the words, we say, the commission, which no 
 man has a right to alter, is, 'baptize all the nations.'"^ Now, this 
 somewhat summary and confident mode of reasoning may be 
 satisfactorily set aside in two ways. 
 
 1 . There is some weight due to the order in which the terms 
 of the commission run, as indicating the order in which the dis- 
 1 Matt. iii. 5, 6. - Matt, xxviii. 19. ^ Halley, ut supra, p. 489. 
 
Div. ir. IV. Cii. II.] THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 63 
 
 cipllng, the baptizing, and the teaching of all the nations were 
 to take pLace, and were to be accounted necessary parts of the 
 Apostles' or the Churcli's obedience to the commission of Christ. 
 There are three particulars embraced in the authoritative com- 
 mission addressed to the Apostles, and, through them, binding 
 upon the Chnrch in every age. First, the command is to make 
 disciples of all nations, turning them to the profession and belief 
 of the faith of Christ. Second^ there is the command to baptize 
 all nations, granting them the formal and public rite by which 
 their admission into the Church was to be attested and ratified. 
 And tlilrd, there is the command to teach all nations to observe 
 all things whatsoever Christ had appointed for His Church col- 
 lectively, or His people individually. This is the order in which, 
 according to the nature of the various particulars embraced in the 
 commission, they Avere to be accomplished. That the order of 
 procedure here indicated is in harmony with the nature of the 
 work to be done by the Church in reference to the world, is 
 abundantly plain from the scriptural account given of it in many 
 other passages of the Bible. First of all is the preaching of the 
 Gospel, as the grand instrument employed by the Church to 
 gather in the disciples of Christ within its pale. Next there is 
 the affixing to the disciples thus gathered the characteristic badge 
 of discipleship, and granting them, by the initiatory rite of Bap- 
 tism, formal admission into the Christian Church. And lastly, 
 there is the instructing those thus admitted in the observance of 
 all their appointed duties as disciples of Christ and members of 
 His Church. This is plainly, I think, the order of procedure 
 indicated in the apostolic commission ; and it is an order which 
 implies that a knowledge and profession of the faith as disciples 
 preceded the administration of Baptism to them. The expression, 
 " cdl nations " — iravra ra eOvrj — upon which Dr. Halley builds his 
 argument for universal and indiscriminate Baptism, is not to be 
 regarded so much as declaring the duty of the Apostles to teach 
 and baptize every individual of the world, or as denoting the 
 absolute extent of the commission, as asserting that individuals of 
 every nation were to be discipled and baptized, and marking out 
 that no nation or class were excluded from the range of the com- 
 mission. The terms, " disciple," " baptizing," must be taken to- 
 gether, and not separately; and in the order of the inspired 
 declaration, and not in the reverse of that order. 
 
G4 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part IIT. 
 
 2. The words of institution in the baptismal service seem to 
 imply that a knowledge and profession of the faith of Christ are 
 necessary as a prerequisite to Baptism. The recipients of the 
 ordinance are to be baptized "■ into the name, eh to ovo/jia, of the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost," — language which obviously 
 refers to the peculiar character the Three Persons of the Godhead 
 sustain, and the offices they discharge in the work of man's re- 
 demption. Unless Christian Baptism, then, be a mere heathen 
 mystery, to suffice as a sign or to work as a charm, jt necessarily 
 implies previous knowledge and instruction in the fundamental 
 truths of the Gospel system ; and this, again, implies that the 
 Church, in administering the ordinance, has a right to require 
 some evidence, such as an intelligent profession of the faith, that 
 such knowledge has been obtained. All this points very dis- 
 tinctly to a profession of faith in Christ as a necessary prerequisite 
 to the administration of the ordinance in the case of candidates 
 for Baptism. 
 
 IV. An examination in detall'of Scripture practice, as bearing 
 upon the doctrine of indiscriminate Baptism as contradistinguished 
 from Baptism restricted to professing Christians, will sufficiently 
 bear out the conclusion to be drawn from the previous considera- 
 tions, that at least a profession of faith is necessary as a prerequisite 
 to the scriptural administration of the ordinance. 
 
 It is impossible, and indeed unnecessary, for us to enter at 
 length into this field of argument. Nothing but the most violent 
 injustice done to the language of Scripture by a bold and un- 
 scrupulous system of interpretation can suffice to get rid of the 
 evidence which, in the case of the Baptism of converts mentioned 
 in Scripture, connects the administration of the rite with a pro- 
 fession of faith in Christ on the part of the person who was the 
 recipient of it. The association of the person's profession, faith, 
 repentance, or believing, with Baptism, appears in a mviltitude of 
 passages ; while not one passage or example can be quoted in favour 
 of the connection of Baptism with an absence of profession. " He 
 that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved;" "I'epent every 
 one of you, and be baptized ;" " many having believed, and been 
 baptized,"^ — these and many other passages of a like import con- 
 nect together, as inseparable in the process by which under the eye 
 
 iMarkxvi. 16; Acts ii. 38, 41, viii. 12, 13, 36-38, xvi. U. 15, 30-34. 
 xviii. 8. 
 
I 
 
 Div. II. IV. Cii. II.] THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 65 
 
 of the Apostles many in their days were added to the Christian 
 Church, the two facts of the religious profession of the candidate, 
 and the administration of the religious ordinance by which for- 
 mally he became a member of the Church of Christ. In the 
 history, although brief and incomplete, of the Baptism of the early 
 converts to the Christian faith, there is almost invariably some 
 statement by which is attested the distinctive Christian profession 
 that stands connected with the administration of the outward rite ; 
 while in no instances are there any statements from which it 
 could be proved that Baptism ever stood connected with the ab- 
 sence of such a profession. Connected with the Baptism of the 
 three thousand on the day of Pentecost, there stands the state- 
 ment, " Then they that gladly received the Word w^ere baptized." 
 Connected with the Baptism of the people of Samaria in conse- 
 quence of the preaching of Philip, there stands the assertion, 
 " When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the 
 kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, 
 both men and women." In regard to the Baptism of the Ethi- 
 opian treasurer, we are told that, after the Gospel was preached 
 to him by the same evangelist, " the eunuch said, See, here is 
 water ; what doth hinder me to be baptized ? And Philip said, 
 If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he an- 
 swered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 
 And he commanded the chariot to stand still : and they went 
 down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he 
 baptized him." In connection with the Baptism of Lydia, and as 
 preceding the administration of the rite, we have the statement: 
 " whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things 
 that were spoken of Paul." Connected with the Baptism of the 
 Philippian jailer, there stands the statement : " And he rejoiced, 
 believing in God, with all his house." In short, in almost every 
 example of Baptism which the New Testament records, there is 
 enough in the narrative, however scanty and compressed it be, to 
 bring out the fact, that in close association with the administra 
 tion of the rite appears the religious profession of the recipient. 
 And, on the other hand, it may be safely asserted, that in no 
 example of Baptism recorded in the New Testament can it be 
 distinctly proved that no such profession was made. 
 
 What, then, is the answer given to this abundant and appa- 
 rently satisfactory evidence for a Baptism restricted to and con- 
 
 VOL. II. E 
 
GG MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 uectecl with a religious profession by the advocates of its indis- 
 criminate administration ? Tlie answer given by them is twofold : 
 first, that there are examples of bad men as well as good baptized 
 by the Apostles ; and second, that many or most of these Baptisms 
 Avere administered so immediately in point of time after the pro- 
 fession made, that there was no opportunity to test by any satis- 
 factory process the sincerity of it. Neither of these replies to 
 the Scripture evidence is satisfactory. With regard to the first, 
 or the fact that unbelievers and hypocrites were baptized, it is 
 enough to say that we do not hold the Independent doctrine that 
 a saving belief is necessary to entitle a man to Church member- 
 ship ; but, on the contrary, maintain that a profession of faith is 
 enough,^ and that we have no security beyond the mere circum- 
 stance of an outwardly decent life against such profession being 
 insincere. With regard to the second, or the fact that the pro- 
 fession on which the apostolic Baptisms in many instances pro- 
 ceeded could have been of no more than a few hours' standing, 
 and therefore not proved by the lapse of time to be true, it is 
 enough to say that there may be, and in apostolic times were, 
 circumstances apart altogether from its duration sufficient to give 
 credibility to the profession.' 
 
 SECTION III. — INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 We have now considered the question, To whom ought Baptism 
 to be administered, in so far as it regards adults ? The conclusion 
 to which we were conducted was, that the ordinance ought to be 
 dispensed to those alone who " profess their faith in Christ, and 
 their obedience to Him." The theory of indiscriminate Baptism 
 Ave set aside as inconsistent Avith the nature and meaning of the 
 Sacrament, — as destitute of any countenance from the practice 
 of John the Baptist, — as contrary to the terms of the apostolical 
 commission, and opposed to the practice of the apostles and the 
 New Testament Church. There still remains for our considera- 
 tion the question as to the connection of infants with Baptism, 
 and as to the lawfulness or duty of administering the ordinance 
 
 1 [See above, vol. i. pp. 73-80.] 
 
 2 Halley, The Sacraments, Loncl. 1844, vol. i. pp. 488-527, 580-585. 
 "Wardlaw, Dissert, on Infant Baptism, Sd ed. pp. 291-340. Wilson, Infant 
 Baptism a Scriptural Service, Lond. 1848, pp. 338-381. 
 
DiY. II. IV. Cii. II.] INFANT BAPTISM. 67 
 
 to them. The subject is a dehcate and a difficult one, and 
 demands a more than usually earnest investigation. The practice 
 of baptizing infants may be regarded at first sight as running 
 counter to all those views which we have already asserted in 
 regard to the nature of Sacraments in general, and of Baptism in 
 particular. Add to this, that it seems at first view directly to 
 traverse the principles we have so lately laid down on the question 
 of indiscriminate Baptism. The advocates of the doctrine of 
 baptismal regeneration, who hold that Baptism is a charm Avitli 
 an inherent and independent power to confer grace in all circum- 
 stances and on all parties, can readily defend the practice of 
 administering it to infants, as efficacious in the case of uncon- 
 scious children, not less than in the case of intelligent adults. 
 The advocates of the doctrine that Baptism is no more than a 
 sign, have also an obvious ground on which they may defend the 
 practice of infant Baptism, — the parents' professional badge 
 being, not without reason or precedent in other matters, affixed 
 to the child. And once more, the party who hold the doctrine 
 of indiscriminate Baptism, and regard themselves as authorized 
 to dispense the rite without regard to religious character or pro- 
 fession, can have no sufficient reason for excluding infants from 
 this comprehensive commission. But if Baptism be the seal of a 
 federal transaction between the party baptized and Christ ; if this 
 be the main and characteristic feature of the ordinance ; and if 
 a religious profession be a prerequisite to its reception ; it would 
 appear as if there were no small difficulty in the way of admit- 
 ting to the participation of it those who, by reason of nonage, can 
 be no parties to the engagement in virtue of their own act or 
 will. The difficulty that stands in the way of infant Baptism 
 lies on the very surface of the question ; and Antipasdobaptists 
 have the advantage of an argument on their side which is both 
 popular and plausible. 
 
 But in this case, as in all others connected with matters of 
 positive institution in the Church of Christ, the pi'imary and 
 ruling consideration in the controversy must be the express Divine 
 appointment on the subject. In those positive, and in a sense 
 arbitrary, institutions, set up by God in the worship of His 
 Church, mere inferential considerations drawn from reason must 
 be of secondary authority and subordinate force to determine 
 their nature and use, as compared with express intimations of the 
 
68 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part IIL 
 
 Divine will. Positive observances, from their very nature, must 
 be regulated by positive institution ; and it is only as secondary 
 to such positive institution, that we can listen to arguments drawn 
 from our views of the moral character or meaning of the ordi- 
 nance. Our first appeal in the case of infant Baptism must, 
 therefore, be to the express statements of the Word of God, and 
 to the view of the ordinance as a positive institution which is 
 there presented. We shall consider, then, in the first place, the 
 scriptural principles which bear upon the question of the lawful- 
 ness or duty of infant Baptism. Thereafter we shall examine 
 into the objections, from reason or Scripture, that have been 
 brought against the practice ; and also discuss the subject of the 
 efficacy of the ordinance in the case of infants ; and lastly, the 
 scriptural mode of administering it. 
 
 What, then, is the bearing of Scripture doctrine and practice 
 on the question of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of infant 
 Baptism ? The following five propositions I shall endeavour to 
 establish in connection with this subject ; and the discussion of 
 these will very nearly exhaust the question. First, the covenant 
 of grace, as revealed by God at different periods for the salvation 
 of His people, has been essentially the same in former and in 
 later times, and has always comprehended infants within it. 
 Second, the Church of God, made up of His professing people, 
 has been essentially the same in character in former and in later 
 times, and has always included infants among its members. 
 Third, the ordinance of outward admission into the Church has, 
 in its essential character and meaning, been the same in former 
 and in later times, and has always been administered to infants. 
 Fourth, the principle on which the initiatory ordinance of admis- 
 sion into the Church has been administered has been the same in 
 former and in later times, and has always applied to the case of 
 infants. And fifth, the practice in regard to the administration 
 of the initiatory rite has been the same in former and in later 
 times, and has always included the case of infants. The illustra- 
 tion of these five propositions must, in consequence of the limits 
 prescribed to us, be very brief, and more in the way of giving 
 the heads of the argument than the argument itself. But taken 
 under consideration even in the briefest way, they will embrace 
 the prominent points of the controversy in regard to infant 
 Baptism. One or more of them separately, if sufficiently estab- 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. II.] INFANT BAPTISM. 69 
 
 lished by an appeal to Scripture, would suffice to demonstrate 
 that " tlie infants of such as are members of the visible Church 
 are to be baptized;"^ while all taken together afford a very full 
 and cumulative proof of the lawfulness of the practice. 
 
 I. The covenant of grace, as revealed by God at different 
 periods for the salvation of His people, has been essentially the 
 same in former and in later times, and has always comprehended 
 infants within it. 
 
 This proposition is, properly speaking, made up of two : first, 
 that the covenant was essentially the same in all ages ; and 
 second, that within the covenant, infants were always included. 
 Neither of these two assertions ought to be very difficult of proof. 
 In regard to the first, it is undeniable that God has had a people 
 on the earth since the fall, chosen from the rest of mankind, who 
 called upon His name, and were themselves called by it. The 
 faith and hope of that chosen people, through every generation, 
 have been sustained by a revelation of a Saviour, who either was 
 to come or had come, expressed in promise and in type, in predic- 
 tion and in symbol before His coming, and in plainer and ampler 
 narrative of actual fact after His appearance. In whatever out- 
 Avard form it was revealed, this was God's covenant — His free 
 promise of grace — His Gospel of glad tidings for the salvation of 
 Plis people, identical in character and in substance, one in its 
 announcements and its terms in every age from the first revela- 
 tion in Paradise down to the last in Patmos. It was one and 
 the same covenant of grace which was revealed to Adam in the 
 first promise given to him, and the first ordinance of sacrifice 
 appointed for him ; revealed in other terms and form to Noah ; 
 repeated to Abraham in the word of promise and type ; em- 
 bodied in history, and prophecy, and symbolic institutions to 
 the Church under the Mosaic economy ; and fully brought to 
 light under the Gospel dispensation. That the covenant of grace 
 established under the Gospel was not then for the first time made 
 known, but had been announced long before, — that although in 
 the latter times it was more fully revealed, it had been revealed 
 all along in substance, and proved to be the same at first as at the 
 last, — the plain statements of Scripture veiy expressly affirm. The 
 Apostle Paul tells us in the Epistle to the Galatians, that " the 
 Gospel was preached before unto Abraham." And in the same 
 ^ Shorter Catech. qu. 95, 
 
70 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 Epistle he tells us that " the covenant confirmed of God in Christ 
 was given to Abraham four hundred and thirty years before the 
 giving of the law " of Moses/ — language fitted to mark both the 
 identity of the covenant of Abraham with the Gospel covenant, 
 and its independence of the Mosaic ceremonial institutions. If 
 we turn to the book of Genesis, we shall find the account of the 
 revelation of the covenant of grace given to Abraham, and referred 
 to by Paul, — a covenant which, as then revealed, comprehended 
 in it temporal blessings, such as the promise of Canaan to the 
 patriarch and his seed, but was in itself independent of these ; 
 which preceded the law by more than four hundred years, and 
 was not disannulled by the giving of the law ; which was founded 
 on the free grace and unchangeable promise of God, and thus was 
 not bound up with any temporary institution ; and which was the 
 very Gospel afterwards " confirmed in Christ." ^ So clear and 
 abundant is the evidence for the first part of our proposition, that 
 the covenant of grace, revealed under various forms in former 
 and in latter times, was in substance one and the same. 
 
 The proof of the second part of our proposition is not less full 
 and satisfactory, that this covenant has always comprehended 
 infants within it. The infants of the parents with whom God's 
 covenant was made, were not left outside that covenant. The 
 promises of grace were not given to the parents, to the exclusion 
 of the children. Infants were not left to their chance of un- 
 covenanted mercies, while to adults the blessings were insured by 
 covenant. On the contrary, that infants were comprehended 
 within the covenant as well as their parents, is a fact that the 
 plainest statements of Scripture demonstrate. In what sense or 
 to what effect infants were so included, may come to be inquired 
 into when we afterwards consider the e^^cacy of Baptism in their 
 case, or the seal of the covenant as regards infants. But that the 
 covenant made with the parents did not exclude but included their 
 infant children also, the plain assertions of Scripture leave no 
 room to doubt. In the inspired account of the various announce- 
 ments made by God of His covenant from time to time, the terms 
 of the announcement are almost invariably ^^you and your seed." 
 In the case of Abraham, as referred to by the Apostle Paul, this 
 is very expressly stated: "And God said unto Abraham, Thou 
 shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee 
 1 Gal. iii. 8, 17, 18. 2 Qq^^ xii. 1-3, xiii. lt-17, xv. 1-18, xvii. 1-14. 
 
Div. 11. IV. Ch. II.] INFANT BAPTISM. 71 
 
 in their generations. Tins is my covenant, which ye sliall keep, 
 between nie and you, and thy seed after thee ; Every man-cliild 
 among you shall be circumcised." ^ The covenant of grace, as 
 then revealed to Abraham, included infant children of eight 
 days old ; and it has at all times been equally comprehensive 
 and the same. The seal of the covenant, as affixed to the child 
 when eight days old, was the standing evidence and memorial for 
 two thousand years, that infants were included in God's federal 
 promises.""^ 
 
 And in what manner is this argument from the example of 
 Abraham, in favour of the fact that infants are comprehended 
 within the covenant, met by the advocates of Antipgedobaptist 
 doctrines. The ordinary reply given by the opponents of infant 
 Baptism is this : They affirm that there were two covenants, dis- 
 tinct and separate from each other, made by God with the patri- 
 arch at that time ; the one a covenant of temporal, and the other 
 of spiritual blessing. ' They assert that the " seed " mentioned in 
 the history of the transaction, were the natural seed of Abraham, 
 including adults and infants, in so far as regards the temporal 
 covenant ; and the spiritual seed of Abraham, or adult believers 
 alone, in so far as regards the spiritual ; and that the seal of cir- 
 cumcision administered to his children was the token of a temporal, 
 and not a spiritual blessing. And lastly, they argue that under 
 the Gospel the natural relationship of children to their parents, 
 which under a former economy warranted their admission to the 
 sign and seal of a temporal covenant, does not warrant their admis- 
 sion to the sign and seal of a spiritual one.'^ 
 
 Now in regard to this attempted reply to the Scripture evi- 
 dence for infants being included in the covenant of grace as 
 revealed to Abraham, it is unnecessary to do more than make the 
 following observations. 
 
 Is^, Even although it were capable of being proved that there 
 were two covenants made with Abraham, and not one simply, — a 
 covenant of temporal blessing separated from the covenant of 
 grace, — and that infants were included in the one .but not in 
 the other, this would not do away with the whole tenor of Scrip- 
 
 1 Gen. xvii. 9, 10. 
 
 2 Williams, Antipiedohaptism Examined^ Slirewsbury 1789, vol. i. pp. 172- 
 180. 
 
 ^ [Carson, Baptism in its Modes and Subjects, Loud. 1844, pp. 214-231. 
 Booth, Pxdobaptism Examined, Loud. 1829, vol. ii. pp. 55-08.] 
 
72 JIATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 ture declaration in many other passages wliicli evinces that the 
 covenant of grace, under whatever shape and to whatever parties 
 it was revealed, included not only the parties themselves, but also 
 their infant offspring. The covenant of grace, as revealed to 
 Abraham, and recorded in Genesis, has been very generally 
 appealed to by the advocates of infant Baptism in demonstration 
 of the interest infants had in it ; and it has been so appealed to 
 because it contains a more detailed and distinct evidence of the 
 fact than most other passages of Scripture. But even were the 
 record of the Abrahamic covenant expunged from the Bible, the 
 interest of infants jointly with their parents in the covenant of 
 grace could be satisfactorily established without it. The whole 
 tenor of Scripture justifies us in saying, that it was a covenant 
 which, at whatever time or in whatever form it was revealed to 
 men, embraced both them and their infant seed. 
 
 2(7, There is certainly no countenance in the narrative in 
 Genesis given to the notion of two covenants, separate and dis- 
 tinct from each other; in the one of which the children of 
 Abraham, being infants, were to have an interest, and in the 
 other of which the descendants of Abraham, not being infants, 
 but adult believers, were alone comprehended. The terms em- 
 ployed very expressly refer to one covenant, and not to two. 
 " Thou slialt keep my covenant. This is my covenant, which ye 
 shall keep, betwixt me and you, and thy seed after thee." Such is 
 the language emphatically reiterated in the original narrative of 
 the transaction, marking a single covenant and not many. It is 
 true, indeed, that there was a twofold blessing, the temporal and 
 the spiritual, — the inheritance of Canaan, and the inheritance of 
 the heavenly Canaan, — embodied in that one covenant. But these 
 two orders of blessing Avere promised by the same covenant, and 
 referred to the same end. There is no mention of one covenant 
 intended for the natural posterity of the patriarch, and a second 
 intended for his spiritual posterity. The temporal blessings might, 
 indeed, be enjoyed by the descendants of Abraham after the flesh, . 
 while they had no interest in the spiritual ; just in the same man- 
 ner as a man under the Gospel may enjoy the outward privileges 
 of a Church state without participation in the inward and saving 
 blessings. But there is nothing whatever in the book of Genesis 
 to warrant the distinction which the opponents of infant Baptism 
 draw between a temporal covenant made with Abraham including 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. II.] INFANT BAPTISM. " 73 
 
 infants, and a second and a spiritual one made at tlie same time 
 and excluding them. 
 
 od, The rite of circumcision, appointed for every man-child 
 when eight days old, in the Abrahamic covenant as the token of 
 it, excludes the theory of the Antiptedobaptists, that the covenant 
 in which infants were interested was a temporal covenant only. 
 The fact that circumcision was ordained in connection with the 
 covenant proves that it was not a mere temporal covenant, as 
 Antipffidobaptists allege, but a spiritual one, — the very covenant 
 of grace which was the same through all times and dispensations 
 of the Church. It does so in two ways. First, circumcision, 
 as the token of the Abrahamic covenant, was a sign not of tem- 
 poral, but of spiritual blessings. That this is the case is very 
 expressly asserted by the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the 
 Romans. " He is not a Jew," says Paul, " which is one out- 
 wardly ; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh : 
 but he is a Jew which is one inwardly : and circumcision is that 
 of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter ; whose praise is 
 not of men, but of God."^ The ordinance of circumcision, then, 
 had a spiritual import ; it was expressive of Gospel blessings. 
 And when it was appointed by God as the token of His covenant 
 with Abraham, and administered in that capacity to children, it 
 very plainly declared that the covenant, of which it was the token, 
 and into which it introduced infants, was spiritual too. Circum- 
 cision, as the sign of the Gospel blessings, when it was appended 
 to the covenant, demonstrated that the covenant itself was the 
 covenant of grace. Second, circumcision is declared by the 
 Apostle Paul to be more than a sign of grace ; it is asserted to be 
 a seal of grace. It is declared to be so, when he tells us, in 
 reference to this very matter of the covenant established with 
 Abraham, that " he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of 
 the righteousness of the faith which he had being yet uncircum- 
 cised."^ As the seal, then, of the covenant according to which 
 Abraham was justified, the ordinance plainly testified that it was 
 the covenant of grace ; and, when administered to infants eight 
 days old, it no less plainly indicated that they were interested in 
 that covenant.'^ 
 
 The objections, then, brought by Antipgedobaptists against the 
 
 1 Rom. ii. 28, 29. 2 Rom. iv. 11. 
 
 3 [Calvin, Inst. lib. iv. cap. xvi. 3-6, 13-lG.] 
 
74 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 evidence from Scripture, — more especially derived from the cove- 
 nant of grace as revealed to Abraham, but by no means confined 
 to that source, — to the fact that infants are interested in that 
 covenant, are of no great force. Our first position seems to be 
 fairly established by Scripture evidence, namely, that the cove- 
 nant of grace has been, under all the different forms in which 
 from time to time it has been revealed, identical in substance and 
 essentially unchanged ; and that it has ever included infants 
 within its provisions. The denial of infant Baptism cannot very 
 well be maintained in the face of this proposition. If included 
 in the provisions of the covenant of grace under the Gospel, 
 infants must have a right to Baptism as one of them. They can- 
 not be excluded from the initiatory ordinance which signifies and 
 seals its blessings, unless the covenant of grace under the New 
 Testament is different essentially both in its extent and in its 
 terms from what it was before. The covenant of grace under 
 former dispensations comprehended -vvithin its limits the infants 
 of parties interested in it, as well as the parties themselves. This 
 is undeniable. And the covenant must be altered essentially as 
 to its extent, — it must be a different covenant as to the parties 
 with whom it is made, — if so large a portion of the members 
 included in it formerly, as infants were, should appear under the 
 New Testament Church to be excluded. Further, it must be 
 altered essentially as to the terms of it, and as to its free and gra- 
 cious character, — it must be a different covenant as to the condi- 
 tions of it, — if by these conditions one important class, made up 
 of irresponsible parties such as infants, are now cast out when 
 they Avere formerly comprehended. Unless the covenant of grace, 
 in short, under the New Testament Church is another covenan*-. 
 from what it was under the Old Testament, infants ^must have 
 a place in it now as much as then. But it is not so altered cr 
 restricted. Neither its extent nor its terms are altered. It is 
 God's covenant of grace still; and as it was gracious enough andj 
 wide enough to comprehend within its limits infants under a] 
 former economy, it does so still.^ 
 
 There are manifold intimations in the New Testament that' 
 the covenant of grace is not less comprehensive in latter times 
 than in former. At the first planting of the Christian Church 
 the Apostle Peter assured the Jews that there was no change in 
 
 1 Wilson, Infant BaptUm a Script. Service, Loud. 18i8, pp. 388-437. 
 
Div. II-. IV. Cii. II.] INFANT BArXISM. 75 
 
 this respect of the covenant under the Gospel economy as com- 
 pared with its comprehensiveness under the Old Testament : 
 " For," said he, " the promise is unto you, and to your childven, 
 and to all that are afar off, even to as many as the Lord our God 
 shall calL"^ To the Philippian jailer Paul declared in the very 
 form of the Old Testament promises : " Believe on the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.'' "" In these, 
 and a multitude of other expressions of similar force and import, 
 we recognise the great and important truth, that the covenant of 
 grace was the same under the Gospel as under the law ; that it 
 was not limited or straitened in latter times in comparison with 
 former ; but that in its grace and comprehensiveness it embraces 
 infants under the New Testament dispensation as well as under 
 previous economies. We conclude, then, that the covenant of 
 grace, revealed by God at different periods for the salvation of 
 His people, has been essentially the same in former as in latter 
 times ; and has always comprehended infants within it." 
 
 IL My next proposition is, that the Church of God, made 
 up of His professing people, has been essentially the same in 
 character in former and in latter times, and has always included 
 infants among its members. This second proposition, like the 
 first, consists of two parts, each of which admits of being estab- 
 lished separately ; the first part of the statement being, that the 
 Church of God, under whatever outward form it has appeared, 
 has been identical in substance throughout every dispensation ; 
 and the second part of it being, that it has always included infants 
 among its members. 
 
 The first part of the proposition, which affirms the identity of 
 the Church of God under all its outward forms, in Old Testament 
 times and in New, may be readily demonstrated from two general 
 considerations, independent of other arguments. 
 
 1. The oneness of the covenant of grace in every age neces- 
 sarily implies the oneness of the Church of God in every age. It 
 was on the foundation of that covenant that the Church of God 
 was built at first, and has ever since been maintained. It is that 
 covenant that gives to its members every privilege which, as 
 belonging to the Church of God, they possess; it defines the 
 
 lActsii. 39. 2Actsxvi. 31. 
 
 3 Williams, Antipxdohapt. Exam. vol. i. pp. 234-249. Wardlaw, Dissert, 
 on Inf. Baptism, pp. 20-89, 102-117. 
 
76 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 nature and limits the extent of their rights ; it is the title by 
 which they hold their standing and place as members of the 
 Church ; it constitutes the badge that distinguishes between a 
 Church state and character, and the absence of them. The 
 covenant is the charter of the Church of God in every age ; and 
 that charter remaining unchanged and identical from age to age^ 
 the Church that is built upon it must, in all its essential features, 
 be one and the same also, — whatever may be the outward form it 
 may bear, or the circumstantial and accidental changes that may 
 be superinduced upon it. The Church of God in the days of 
 Abraham, — the Church in the days of Moses, — the Church under 
 the Gospel, — are in all vital respects the same; one Church, 
 founded on the same covenant of grace, having the same essential 
 character, and the same chartered rights, although different in 
 outward things, according to the different stages and periods in 
 the development of the Divine dispensations. The reason of this 
 is obvious. The charter that constituted the society was the same 
 in the earlier as in the later times. The covenant that called into 
 existence and defined the character of the Church was essentially 
 identical in the age of Abraham, and in the present age. We 
 are not to confound with the unchanged and unchano-ino; cove- 
 nant of grace, on which the Church of God was and is built, the 
 covenant made with Israel at Sinai, and destined to be a mere 
 local and temporary ordinance. That subsequent and secondary 
 covenant could neither disannul nor alter the former. It super- 
 induced, indeed, upon the former certain local and temporary 
 ordinances ; but nowise enlarged, or contracted, or changed the 
 original charter of the Church's existence and rights. The Church 
 of Israel under the former economy, and the Church of Christ 
 now under the Gospel, are constituted and defined as to their 
 character, their extent, and their membership, by the same cove- 
 nant of grace. They form the same society in their nature, their 
 essential privileges, and their real members. 
 
 2. The identity of the Church of God in every age and under 
 every dispensation, might be evinced by the relation which the 
 Church ever bears to Christ as Mediator, and the relation which 
 Christ as Mediator ever bears to the Church. Since the begin- 
 ning He has been the Prophet, Priest, and King of the Church, 
 immediately discharging all His offices as Mediator towards it, 
 and sustaining it in existence by His continual presence in the 
 
Div.n.IV. Cii. II.] INFANT BAPTISM. 77 
 
 midst of it. At different periods, indeed, He has been differently 
 related to the Church, in so far as regards the extent of His 
 manifestations of Himself, and the extent of His communica- 
 tions of spiritual gifts and blessings. But at no period has the 
 Church existed, except through the same presence and power of 
 Christ, as Mediator, that the Christian Church now enjoys, — the 
 same in nature, although different in amount. The Church has 
 ever been the Church of Christ; and this spiritual relationship, the 
 same and unaltered from age to age, has caused the Church itself 
 to be identical as a society throughout all times in its essential 
 character, and privileges, and membership. Such considerations 
 as these very clearly and abundantly attest the truth of the 
 first part of our proposition, namely, that the Church of God, 
 made up of His professing people, has been essentially the same 
 in character in former and in later times. 
 
 As regards the second part of the proposition, namely, that 
 the Church has always included infants among its members, the 
 proof, after what has already been said, need not demand a 
 lengthened illustration. If the Church of God, made up of His 
 professing people, be one and the same society at all times, and 
 under all its different dispensations, then the proof that infants 
 were members of it at one period must be a proof that they are 
 competent to be members of it at any subsequent period ; unless, 
 indeed, some express and positive enactment can be produced, 
 altering the charter of the society, and excluding, as incompetent 
 to be admitted by the new and altered terms of the deed, those 
 formerly comprehended within it. If no such proof of alteration in 
 the charter or constitution of the society can be produced, — if the 
 society itself remains the same in character and terms of admis- 
 sion as before, — then the proof that infants were once its members 
 may suffice for proof that they are still competent to be so. We 
 know that under the Abrahamic Church infants, as well as their 
 parents, were admitted to the place of members. We have 
 already proved that they were interested and comprehended in 
 the covenant that constituted the Church in those days. The 
 sign and seal of the covenant marked them out at eight days 
 old, as embraced within it. The initiatory ordinance of the 
 Church, which was the formal evidence of admission to its mem- 
 bership, was administered to the infants of such as were them- 
 selves members of the Church ; and with that token in their flesh 
 
78 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 they grew up witliin the pale of the Church in Old Testament 
 times. Circumcision was not part and parcel of the Sinaitic 
 covenant, revealed afterwards through Moses. Our Lord Him- 
 self testifies that the ordinance was " not of Moses, but of the 
 fathers." ^ It constituted the door of. admission, not into the 
 Sinaitic Church as distinct from the Abrahamic, but into that 
 Church of which Abraham was a member, and of which all in 
 every age are members who have like faith with Abraham. It 
 constituted the door of admission, in the days of Abraham, into 
 that very Church of which Christians are members now. And 
 turning to Gospel times, we have a right to say that infants are 
 competent to* be members of the Christian Church now, unless it 
 can be demonstrated that the Church of God is not the same 
 now as in former times ; that it is different in character and ex- 
 tent ; and that those capable of admission before are, through an 
 express alteration in the fundamental principles of the society,' 
 excluded now. Falling back upon our general proposition, 
 already demonstrated, that the Church of God, as the society 
 of His professing people, is one and the same in its essential 
 nature in every age, we are entitled to affirm that infants once 
 competent members of it are competent members of it still. 
 
 This proof is sufficient in the absence of any statute of limita- 
 tion alleged to have been enacted in New Testament times, 
 altering the character of the Church of God, and restricting it 
 to tlie reception into its membership of adults, and adults alone. 
 But there are very plain intimations in the New Testament, not 
 only that no statute of limitation has been passed excluding 
 infants, but that the privilege they once undeniably enjoyed 
 under the Old Testament economy has been continued to them 
 under the New. I do not dwell again upon the very express 
 declaration of Peter to the Jews, when explaining to them the 
 Gospel privilege : " the promise is unto you and to your children," 
 — language which, in the case of a Jewish parent, could have 
 only one meaning. I would refer to the language of our Lord 
 Plimself, when the Jewish parents brought their little ones to 
 Christ, and He took them up in His arms and blessed them, 
 accompanying the blessing with the words: " Suffer little children 
 to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom 
 of heaven." ^ There can be no plausible interpretation of this 
 1 Jolin vii. 22. - Matt. xix. 14 ; Mark x. 14 ; Luke xviii. IG. 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. IL] INFANT BAPTISM. 79 
 
 passage given ■which proceeds upon the idea that those very 
 infants blessed of Christ, and said by Him to belong to His 
 kingdom, were actually excluded from it as its members. That 
 they were not persons grown up, as one party of Antipa?dobaptists 
 allege, but infants, who could by no act of their own profess their 
 faith in Christ, is clear from the act of Christ taking them up 
 in Ilis arms when He blessed them. That the expression, " of 
 such is the kingdom of heaven," means no more than that persons 
 of the like dispositions with children belonged to the kingdom 
 of heaven,^ and that those very children were actually excluded 
 from it, as another class of opponents of infant Baptism affirm, 
 may be safely denied ; inasmuch as the act of Christ in blessing 
 them, in connection with the words He used, cannot be explained 
 on the supposition that they were shut out beyond the pale of 
 His covenant, and actually cut off from His Church. In short, 
 the words of our Lord, taken in conjunction with His action,very 
 distinctly demonstrate that the right of infants to be members 
 of His Church, formerly recognised under the Old Testament, 
 was not cancelled, but rather confirmed and continued under the 
 Xew." We are entitled thus far to hold as proved our second 
 grand proposition in all its parts, namely, that the Church of God, 
 made up of all His professing people, has been essentially one in 
 character in former and in latter times ; and has always included 
 infants among its members.^ 
 
 The two propositions, which we have already had under 
 consideration, established as we believe them to be by Scripture 
 evidence, go very far indeed, taken by themselves, to decide the 
 question as to the lawfulness of infant Baptism. If infants as 
 well as their parents have an interest in God's covenant, — if 
 infants as well as their parents have a place in the Church as 
 members, — it were difficult to affirm that they have no right to 
 share in the privilege of Baptism, as the seal of the covenant, 
 and the ordinance appointed for the formal admission into the 
 Ciiurch of its members. An express prohibition forbidding the 
 administration of the ordinance to them, or an incompatibility 
 no less distinct between the nature of the Sacrament and their 
 
 1 [Carson, Baptism in its Mode and Subjects, Lond. 18-44, pp. 199-202.] 
 ^ [ Vide Calvin, in loc.'] 
 
 ^ \Villiams, Antipxd. Exam. vol. i. pp. 272-321, 331-3o6, "Wardlaw, 
 Dissert, on Inf. Baptism, 8d ed. pp. 117-120. 
 
80 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 condition as infants, might, indeed, force upon us the conclusion 
 that they are excepted. But in the absence of any such excep- 
 tion forced upon us by expHcit prohibition or explicit incompati- 
 bility, we seem to be warranted in saying that the covenant state 
 of infants and the Church state of infants, fairly demonstrated, 
 imavoidably carry with them the inference that infants are 
 entitled to the administration of Baptism as the seal of the one, 
 and the door of formal admission into the other. The opponents 
 of infant Baptism feel considerable difficulty in giving any explicit 
 or consistent explanation of the relation sustained by infants 
 either to the covenant or to the Church. Some of them deny 
 absolutely that infants have any place either in the covenant or 
 in the visible Church as members ; while others of them hesitate 
 about such a sweeping denial in the face of the strong Scripture 
 evidence available to establish the fact, and rather consider infants 
 as possessed of an inchoate and undeveloped right to be members, 
 and as put under the care of the Church in order to be prepared 
 for claiming and exercising the full right afterwards. But the 
 covenant state and the Church state of infants, once fairly 
 established, as they can readily be from Scripture, and the 
 absence of any express bar interposed by Divine authority to the 
 contrary, seem unquestionably to lead to a conclusion in favour 
 of infant Baptism, even were there no further evidence that 
 could be adduced in support of it. But there is much additional 
 evidence at hand. The three propositions which still remain to 
 be discussed and illustrated afford strong additional confirmation 
 of the same conclusion ; and, taken along with the positions 
 already established, furnish a complete proof of the lawfulness 
 and duty of baptizing infants. 
 
 III. The ordinance of outward admission into the Church 
 has, in its essential character and meaning, been the same in 
 former and in later times ; and has always been administered to 
 infants. 
 
 The main object of this third general proposition, as forming 
 part of the argument for infant Baptism, is to identify, as essen- 
 tially one and the ^ame in their use and import and character, 
 the Old Testament rite of circumcision with the New Testa- 
 ment rite of Baptism. If we can prove that they meant the 
 same thing, and held the same place, and performed the same 
 office in the Church of God in former and in later times, it were 
 
Div.n.IV.Cii.IL] INFANT BAPTISM. 81 
 
 difficult to object to the conckision that the one ought to be ad- 
 ministered to the same infant members of tlie Church as was the 
 otlier. To establish this general proposition we may make use of 
 these three steps. First, circumcision and Baptism are both to 
 be regarded as the a})pointed ordinance for the formal and public 
 admission of its members into the Church. Second, both circum- 
 cision and Baptism have essentially the same meaning as the signs 
 and seals of the same Divine truths and the same spiritual grace. 
 Third, Baptism has been appointed to occupy the place and come 
 in the room of circumcision, which has been done away. 
 
 In the first j)lcice, then, circumcision and Baptism are both to 
 be regarded as the authorized ordinances for the formal admis- 
 sion of members into the Church. 
 
 That circumcision was the initiatory ordinance for the Old 
 Testament Church, an appeal to the history of its institution and 
 administration in ancient times will sufficiently evince. Without 
 it no Israelite was accounted a member of the Old Testament 
 Chui'ch ; with it he could establish a right of membership, and a 
 title to its ordinances. From the days of Abraham down to the 
 date of the discontinuance of the ordinance in Gospel times, 
 circumcision was the only thing that gave a right of admission to 
 the privileges of the Old Testament Church ; and apart from 
 circumcision no one had a right to these. There was no access 
 to the membership or ordinances of the ancient Church, except 
 through the door of circumcision. That this was the case, is 
 proved both from the case of infants and the "case of adults. In 
 the case of infants, the ordinance was universally administered ; 
 and in virtue of it alone, the circumcised infant, as it grew to 
 manhood, was regarded as a member of the visible Church, and 
 ceremonially qualified to receive its privileges without any other 
 initiation or admission. In the case of adults, the administra- 
 tion of the rite to those who had not received it before, — as, for 
 example, in the instance of Gentile proselytes, — was necessary as 
 the door of admission into the fellowship of the Church. With- 
 out circumcision they were not admitted. By Divine appoint- 
 ment, circumcision bestowed on " the stranger, who joined himself 
 to the Lord," a right, the same as that of the Israelites them- 
 selves, to Church privileges and to partake of the passover. 
 " When a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the 
 passover to the Lord," — such were the terms of the enactment, — 
 
 VOL. II. F 
 
82 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 and keep it ; for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof." ^ 
 Both in the case of infants, then, and of adults, circumcision 
 constituted the initiatory ordinance of admission into the ancient 
 Church from the days of Abraham downwards. 
 
 Against this fact, so very plainly attested in Scripture, it has 
 been objected on the part of the opponents of infant Baptism, 
 that it was not circumcision, but birth and natural descent, that 
 gave admission into the ancient Church ; and that every one 
 born an Israelite became a member of the Israelitish Church. 
 And in confirmation of this view, the fact of the circumcision 
 of the descendants of Ishmael and Esau, without the observ- 
 ance giving them a title to admission to Church membership 
 among the Israelites, is appealed to.^ The objection has not the 
 least force in it. The tribes that sprang from Ishmael and Esau 
 were divinely separated from the descendants of Abraham in the 
 line of the covenant ; and had not, like the other children of 
 the patriarch, any interest in the federal promise. With these, 
 therefore, circumcision could avail nothing to give them admission 
 into the Church. Although practised by them, it was not with 
 them a Church ordinance in connection with the covenant Church ; 
 and could not, therefore, admit them among its members. And 
 on the other hand, mere birth did not give to the Israelite a right 
 of admission into the Church, unless when connected with circum- 
 cision administered and submitted to. No Israelite was born a 
 Church member. Unless, in addition to his birth as an Israelite, 
 he was also circumcised, he had no right to the privileges of the 
 ancient Church. So very far is it from being true, as some 
 Antipsedobaptists affirm, that his birth as an Israelite gave him 
 a right to be considered a member of the Church, without 
 circumcision, that it only placed him under the certainty of 
 a heavy judicial sentence. To be born an Israelite, without 
 circumcision being added to birth, only brought upon his head 
 the sentence of God : "He shall be cut off from his people."^ 
 
 There is quite as little foundation for another objection 
 brought by other opponents of infant Baptism against our posi- 
 tion, when they allege that circumcision was no more than a door 
 
 ^ Exod. xii. 48. 
 
 2 CarsoD, Baptism in its Mode and Sidijects, Lond. 1844, jj]'- -2'd-2'27. 
 
 ^ Gen, xvii, 14 : Exod. iv. 24-20. 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. II.] INFANT BAPTISM. 83 
 
 of entrance to the Mosaic Church, and a token of admission to 
 its outward and ceremonial privileges ; and not the initiatory 
 ordinance of the spiritual Church of God in Old Testament 
 times. In answer to this objection, it is enough to say, that cir- 
 cumcision was instituted more than four hundred years before 
 the legal economy was set up ; and although it afterwards came 
 to be associated with the law of Moses, yet it never lost its 
 original meaning and use as the initiatory ordinance through 
 which members entered into the Old Testament Church. It was 
 in that character that we are to regard it wlien first instituted 
 and administered in Abraham's family ; and although four 
 hundred years later there was superinduced upon the Church, to 
 which circumcision was the door, a number of outward and cere- 
 monial observances, yet it never ceased to be the initiatory rite 
 of that Church of which Abraham was a member, and of which 
 believers in every age, who have Abraham's faith, are members 
 also. Under the Mosaic law, circumcision used and owned as an 
 outward badge or privilege, admitted a man to an interest in an 
 outward ceremonial institute ; but not the less under the Mosaic 
 law circumcision used and owned as a spiritual ordinance, and con- 
 nected with the faith of the recipient, admitted also to an interest 
 in that inner and spiritual Church, which was one and the same 
 in the days of Abraham, in the time of Moses, and at the present 
 time. Circumcision, although when associated with the Mosaic 
 economy it was an outward badge of an outward Church, never 
 ceased to be what it was at the first hour of its administration to 
 Abraham himself, the ordinance of admission into the true 
 Gospel Church. 
 
 The argument from Scripture, then, to prove that circum- 
 cision was the authorized ordinance for the admission of members 
 into the Old Testament Church, is clear and satisfactory. It is 
 hardly necessary to prove that Baptism is the authorized oi'di- 
 nance for the admission of members into the New Testament 
 Church. That it is so, is admitted well nigh on all hands. The 
 terms of the apostolic commission prove it to be so. The practice 
 of Apostles and apostolic men in admitting converts to the 
 Christian Church by Baptism, proves it to be so. The meaning 
 of the ordinance as the Sacrament of union to Christ, proves it 
 to be so. In this respect, the two ordinances occupy the same 
 ground, and stand at the entrarfce of the Church publicly to 
 
84 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 mark and define its members ; being the rites respectively belong- 
 ing to the Old Testament Chm'ch and the New, for accomplishing 
 the same object. To this extent, as the ordinance of admission 
 into the Chnrch of God, circumcision and Baptism are identical. 
 
 In the second 'place, circumcision and Baptism are expressive 
 of the same spiritual truths, and are to be identified as signs and 
 seals of the same covenant blessings. 
 
 With reference to circumcision, it is important to bear in 
 mind that it was the sign and seal of a spiritual covenant, and 
 not merely, as has been alleged, of the Sinai covenant, with its 
 outward and ceremonial privileges. It was the covenant of grace 
 as revealed to Abraham of which circumcision was primarily the 
 token ; and hence we have distinct evidence in Scripture that 
 the spiritual blessings conveyed in that covenant to the believer 
 were precisely the blessings wdiich the ordinance of circumcision 
 represents. The tv?o cardinal blessings given by the covenant of 
 grace are justification from guilt by faith in the righteousness of 
 Christ, and sanctification from sin by the renewal of the heart 
 through the work of the Holy Spirit; and these two blessings, 
 we Jiave expi'ess Scripture warrant to say, circumcision was in- 
 tended to signify and seal. That circumcision was expressive of 
 justification by faith in the righteousness of Christ, we are dis- 
 tinctly taught by the Apostle Paul to believe, in that passage of 
 the Epistle to the Romans already more than once referred to : 
 " And Abraham," says the Apostle, " received the sign of circum- 
 cision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, being 
 yet uncircumcised."^ And again, that circumcision was a token 
 of the sanctification of the heart and renewal from sin by the 
 Spirit, is proved by several passages of Scripture which speak of 
 " the circumcision of the heart " as the true meaning of the ordi- 
 nance. " He is not a Jew," says the same Apostle, " which is 
 one outwardly ; neither is that circumcision which is outward in 
 the flesh : but he is a Jew which is one inwardly ; and circum- 
 cision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; 
 Avhose praise is not of men, but of God."' These passages, and 
 others which might easily be adduced, abundantly demonstrate 
 that circumcision, as a sign and seal, represented and attested those 
 two spiritual blessings of the covenant of grace, which are intro- 
 ductory to all the rest, — the blessings of justification and sancti- 
 1 Rom. iv. 11. - Rom. ii. 28, 2^ ; Phil. iii. 3 ; Col. ii. 11 ; Deut. xxx. C. 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. II.] INFANT BAPTISM. 85 
 
 fication. And it is hardly necessary to add, that these ai'e the two 
 very blessings mainly and emphatically represented in the ordi- 
 nance of Baptism under the New Testament Church. The very 
 words of the Baptismal service tell us, that the member formally 
 admitted into the Church is baptized " into the name of the 
 Father " through means of justification by the Son, and sanctifi- 
 cation through the Spirit. That is to say, the very same spiritual 
 blessings represented and attested of old time by circumcision, 
 are now represented and attested by Baptism. In this respect, as 
 the signs and seals of the very same covenant blessings, circum- 
 cision and Baptism are one and the same.^ 
 
 In the third 'place, the oneness of circumcision and Baptism is 
 yet further established by the fact that Baptism has come in the 
 room of circumcision. 
 
 They are not only both initiatory ordinances for the admission 
 of members into the Church, the one under the Old, and the 
 other under the New Testament. They are not only appointed 
 to be expressions of exactly the same spiritual truths, which stand 
 permanently connected with the admission of a sinner into an 
 interest in the covenant of grace. There is distinct enough evi- 
 dence to show^, that when circumcision was done away with at the 
 establishment of the Gospel Church, Baptism was appointed to 
 stand in its stead and fulfil its office. This appears, among 
 other proofs, from the statement of the Apostle Paul in the Epistle 
 to the Colossians. ''And ye are complete in Him," says the 
 Apostle, referring to the unspeakable fulness of blessing laid up 
 in Christ, — " and ye are complete in Him, w-ho is the head of all 
 principality and power ; in whom also ye are circumcised with 
 the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of 
 the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ : buried w'ith 
 Him in Baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him."^ Such 
 language seems plainly enough to imjjly that Baptism comes to 
 Christians now in the room of circumcision to believers under 
 the former dispensation ; and that it is both fitted and intended 
 
 ^ [Calvin, Inst. lib. iv. cap. xvi. 2, 3. Edwards, Worls, Lond. 1834, vol. 
 i. pp. 441 if. Thoiuasius, Dogmatik, 3ter Th. 2te Abth. p. 12.] 
 
 - ["Declarat etiamnum apertius modiim spiritualis crrcumcisiouis : ucmpe 
 quia, Christo cousepulti, consortes sumus mortis ejus. Id nomiuatio nos 
 consequi per Baptisnium docet : quo melius pateat nidlum esse usum circum- 
 cisionis sub regno Christi. Poterat enim alioqui objicere quispiam : Cur 
 circumcisionem aboles hoc prsetextu, quia effectus ejus sit in Christo? An 
 
SG MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 to supply its place as a sign and seal of tlie blessings of the 
 covenant. The reasoning of the Apostle appears very distinctly 
 to intimate, that all which circumcision could do under the former 
 dispensation, Baptism does now.^ 
 
 Upon these grounds, then, we are warranted to say that our 
 third proposition is established, — namely, that the ordinance of 
 admission into the Church has, in its essential character and mean- 
 ing, been the same in former and in latter times, and has always 
 been administered to infants. 
 
 IV. The next general proposition which I laid down at the 
 outset of the discussion was this, that the principle on which the 
 initiatory ordinance of admission into the Church of God has been 
 administered, has been the same in former and in latter times, and 
 has always applied to the case of infants. 
 
 This is a proposition of much interest and importance as form- 
 ing part of the argument for infant Baptism. What was the 
 principle on which circumcision, recognising a title to membership 
 in the Church under the Old Testament, was administered, and 
 in accordance with which parties had a right to participate in the 
 ordinance ? This is the first question. What is the principle on 
 which Baptism, recognising a title to membership in the Church 
 under the Gospel, is administered, and in accordance with which 
 parties have a right to participation in the ordinance ? This is 
 the second question. These questions in our present discussion 
 must, of course, be restricted to the case of infants under both 
 economies. The case of adults does not so directly concern our 
 argument; and indeed in itself admits of little dispute. The 
 personal act of the adult professing his religious faith is the 
 ground on which, under the Old Testament in the case of pro- 
 selytes, and under the Gospel in the case of converts, their right 
 to be admitted as members of the Church, and to receive its ini- 
 tiatory ordinance, as the formal recognition of their admission, is 
 obviously founded. But setting aside the case of adult proselytes 
 or converts, upon what principle were infants entitled to circum- 
 
 nou etiam spiritualiter circumcisiis f uit Abraham ? Atqui hoc minime obstitit 
 quo minus siguum rei adderet. Non est igitur supervacua externa circum- 
 cisio, etiamsi mterior per Christimi conferatur. Ejusmodi objectionem anti- 
 pat Paulus, facta Baptismi mentione. Circumcisionem, inquit, spiritualem 
 peragit in nobis Christus, non interccdente veteri illo signo quod sub Mose 
 valuit, sed BajDtisnio." — Calvin, in loc.^ 
 
 ' Wardlaw, Digsert. on Infant Baptism, 3d ed. pp. 42-66. 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. II.] INFANT BAPTISM. 87 
 
 cision in ancient times, and are infants entitled to Baptism in these 
 latter days ? Can it be established that the principle on which 
 the ordinance is administered is one and the same in both cases ? 
 
 1st, Upon what principle was the right of infants to circum- 
 cision founded under the Old Testament Church ? 
 
 The analogy of the proceedings of God in providence and in 
 grace not indistinctly points to the principle on which infants in 
 the ancient Church were admitted to the same ordinance and to 
 the membership of the same Church as their parents. By no 
 personal act of theirs could infants become entitled, in the same 
 manner as adults become entitled, to the privileges of the Church. 
 But there is a familiar principle of representation, illustrated in 
 the case of civil society, of providence, and of God's spiritual 
 dispensations, in consequence of which infants, in certain cases 
 and to certain effects, are held to be one with their parents, and 
 through this relationship become entitled to the privileges of their 
 parents. We see this representative principle in civil society, 
 when, in consequence of no personal act of theirs, but simply in 
 consequence of being accounted one with their father, infants 
 become members of the civil society, in which their father is a 
 member, and their civil character and standing are the same as 
 his. We see the representative principle, again, in the constitu- 
 tion of God's providence, when, in virtue of no deed of their own, 
 but because of their relationship to their father, his place in 
 society, his moral and intellectual character, his very bodily con- 
 stitution for good or evil, to a certain extent become theirs. We 
 see the representative principle, once more, in God's spiritual 
 dispensation, where infants, in consequence of no personal act of 
 theirs, but in accordance with that prevailing and universal con- 
 stitution of things which is found in this world, become, in con- 
 sequence of their filial relationship and the inheritance of the same 
 flesh and blood as their father, concluded under his sin, and made 
 one with him in original transgression and liability to punishment. 
 In all these cases the representative principle is familiar to us, 
 and infants are seen to partake for good or evil of the relations 
 of their father. In most cases, — perhaps, if we were capable of 
 understanding it, in all cases, — in which God deals with infants 
 so as to show His method or law of dealing, He does so on the 
 representative principle when He cannot deal with them on the 
 principle of personal action and responsibility ; and He acts with 
 
88 MATTERS WrrH WHICH CHUECH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 respect to them as if to a certain extent they were one with 
 their parents. 
 
 That God may act towards infants in a way of sovereignty, 
 without regard to their connection with their parents, may be 
 true. But when He deals with them, and desires at the same 
 time to manifest to us His rule or method of dealing, He does 
 so on the principle of representation ; a principle revealed to us 
 both in His providential and spiritual economies. And such is 
 unquestionably the principle according to which, in the constitu- 
 tion of the Old Testament Church, infants w^ere dealt with. God 
 made His covenant with infants as well as with adults ; and the 
 way in which He did so was never in connection with any per- 
 sonal act of theirs, which was impossible, but in connection with 
 their filial relationship. God made His Church to include in- 
 fants among its members as well as adult believers ; and this too 
 He did not in connection with their personal act, which was im- 
 ])ossible, but in connection with the act of their parents. The 
 membership of the father was counted to the infant ; and the 
 circumcision of the father gave a right to the infant to be cir- 
 cumcised also. 
 
 There are two views somewhat different from each other, that 
 may be held on this point, which it is of considerable importance 
 to discriminate between. The right of the child to circumcision 
 and to the privileges of the Jewish Church, may be viewed as 
 depending on his immediate father ; or it may be regarded as 
 depending on his remote progenitor, Abraham. In the one case, 
 his title to be circumcised is counted good because of his relation- 
 ship to his immediate parent, who was a member of the Jewish 
 Church, and interested in the covenant. In the other case, his 
 title to be circumcised is counted good because of his relationship 
 to Abraham, his remote progenitor, with Avhom the covenant was 
 made, and independently of his connection with his immediate 
 parent, and without regard to the circumstance of his parent 
 being or not being a member of the Jewish Church. The evi- 
 dence of Scripture seems not indistinctly to point to the first view 
 as the correct one, or to the view that connects the right of the 
 infant directly with his immediate father's interest in the Church 
 and covenant, and not the view that connects it indirectly with 
 Abraham's. Dr. Halley advocates the view that connects the 
 infant's right not with the parent's, but with Abraham's interest 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. II.] INFAKT BAPTISM. 89 
 
 ill the covenant, making that right independent of the parent's 
 connection or non-connection with the Church ; and he does so 
 apparently with the view of founding upon it the doctrine of in- 
 discriminate Baptism to all infants alike, whatever be the father's 
 Church state, and whether he be a member of the Church or 
 not.^ The two following considerations, however, seem very 
 decisively to prove that the right of the infant to circumcision in 
 the Jewish Church was valid in consequence of the Church 
 membership of the father, and not in consequence of his remoter 
 connection with Abraham. First, mere connection with Abraham 
 did not in all cases give a right to the privileges of the Jewish 
 Church, as we see exemplified in the instance of the descendants 
 of Abraham in the lines of Ishmael and Esau. They were directly 
 connected with Abraham as their ancestor, and yet were separated 
 from the communion of the Jewish Church. Second, the case of 
 the infants of Gentile proselytes demonstrates that not remote 
 connection with Abraham, but immediate connection with the 
 parent, is the ground of the infant's right to circumcision. The 
 infants of such Gentile proselytes as were circumcised and mem- 
 bers of the Jewish Church, had no connection with Abraham 
 through ordinary descent; and yet in virtue of their father's 
 circumcision they had a right to be circumcised also. These two 
 considerations seem sufficient to prove that the right of the infant 
 to circumcision was not derived remotely from Abraham, passing 
 over his immediate parent, but came directly from the parent. In 
 other words, the case of circumcision under the Old Testament 
 presents to us a complete and perfect illustration of the repre- 
 sentative principle, and of the privileges of the child being held 
 to be the same as those of the parent. By no personal act of 
 their own did children become entitled to circumcision ; but they 
 were so entitled, in consequence of the right of their father to 
 the ordinance. 
 
 2d, Now, what is the principle on which infants under the 
 New Testament Church become entitled to Baptism 1 Are we 
 warranted by Scripture in identifying the principle on which 
 Baptism is administered now with the principle on which circum- 
 cision was administered before ? I think that we are. The identity 
 in meaning, and character, and use, already proved between cir- 
 cumcision and Baptism, would afford a strong presumption in favour 
 ' Halley, The Sacraments, Lond. 1844, vol. i. pp. 535-545. 
 
90 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 of the conclusion, even had we no further evidence for it. The 
 strong and close analogy between the two cases would go very- 
 far of itself to establish it. But there is one passage of Scripture 
 more especially, which seems of itself explicitly to announce that 
 the very principle of representation found under the Old Testament 
 in the case of parent and child, is not cancelled, but continued 
 under the New, and must be held as a permanent principle.in the 
 dealings of God with infants. The passage to which I refer is in 
 the First Epistle to the Corinthians, and is to the following effect. 
 Speaking of the case of husband and wife, when one of the 
 parties is not a Christian but an unbeliever, the Apostle says : 
 " For the unbelieving husband is sanctified (rjjLacrTai) by the 
 wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband : else 
 were your children unclean ; but now are they holy {d'yia).^'^ The 
 principle of representation found under the Old Testament is the 
 very principle introduced by the Apostle to explain the position 
 and character of children in the case where no more than one 
 parent is a believer and member of the Church." That the con- 
 trasted terms, " unclean " and " holy," are to be understood in the 
 Old Testament sense of not set apart and set apart to the service 
 or fellowship of God, seems to be undoubted. And the assertion 
 of the Apostle is, that one of the parents being a believer, although 
 the other is not, avails, so that the infants are to be accounted 
 clean, or fit for the service of God and the fellowship of His 
 Church. The holiness of the one parent that is a member of the 
 Christian Church, communicates a relative holiness to the infant, 
 so that the child also is fitted to be a member of the Church, and 
 to be baptized. The forced and unnatural interpretation put 
 
 1 1 Cor. vii. 14. 
 
 2 [" Insignis ergo est hie locus, et ex iutima theologia ductus : docet enini 
 segregari piorum liberos ab aliis quadam prterogativa, ut sancti in Ecclesia 
 reputentur." " J]]qualis est in oumibus naturse conditio, ut siiit tarn peccato 
 quam seternse morti obnoxii. Quod autem hie tribuit liberis fidelium sjieciale 
 privilegium Apostolus id fiuit ex beueficio foederis, quo superveniente deletur 
 natuiaj inaledictio, et Deo per gratiam consecrantur qui natiu-a profani erant. 
 Hinc argumentatur Paulus (Rom. xi. 16) totam Abrahse progeniem esse 
 sanctam, quia fcedus vitie Deus cum illo pepigerat. ' Si radix saneta,' inquit, 
 ' ergo et rami saueti.' Et Deus filios suos vocat omnes qui ex Israele sunt 
 progeniti : nunc diruta maceria, idem salutis fcedus quod iuitmn fuerat cum 
 semine Abrahse nobis est eommunicatum. Quodsi communi generis humani 
 sorte eximuntur fidelium liberi, ut Domiuo segregentur, cur eos a signo arce- 
 amus ? Si Dominus in Eeclesiam suam eos verbo admittit, cur signura illis 
 uegabimus?" — Calvin in Nov. Test. ed. Tholuck, vol. v. p. o35 f.] 
 
Div.IT.IV.Cn.il.] INFANT BAPTISM. 91 
 
 upon this passao-e by Antipasdobaptists cannot stand a moment's 
 investigation. They interpret the "cleanness" of the infant as 
 the lefiiiimacij oi the infant/ — a construction phiinly forbidden by 
 the consideration that marriages are lawful, and the children 
 legitimate, whether the parents be believers or unbelievers. In 
 this passage, then, we have a very express avowal of the principle 
 of representation, proved to obtain in the case of circumcision 
 under the Old Testament. The child is accounted clean because 
 the parent is clean ; or, to translate the phrase into ecclesiastical 
 language, the child is entitled to Church membership because the 
 parent is a Church member." We recognise at once the identity 
 of the principle under the former economy and the present ; and 
 we are entitled to hold as proved the fourth of our general propo- 
 sitions, namely, that the principle on which the initiatory ordinance 
 of admission into the Church of God has been administered, has 
 
 ^ Booth, Pxdohapt. Exam. Lend. 1829, vol. ii. p. 19G. Carsou, Baptism in 
 v7s Mode and Subjects, Lond. 1844, p. 208. 
 
 - " The third meaning of the word uyini^uv in Scripture., is ' to consecrate,' 
 ' to regard as sacred,' and hence ' to reverence or to hallow.' .... Any person 
 or thing consecrated to God, or employed in His service, is said to be sanctified. 
 Thus, particular days appropriated to His service, the temple, its utensils, the 
 sacrifices, the jmests, the whole theocratical people, are called holy. Persons 
 or things not thus consecrated are called profane, common, or unclean. To 
 transfer any person or thing from this latter class to the former, is to sanctify 
 
 him or it (Actsx. 15; ITim. iv. 5) Any child, the circumstances of whose 
 
 birth secured it a place within the theocracy or commonwealth of Israel, was, 
 according to the constant usage of Scripture, said to be holy. In none of 
 these cases does the word express any subjective or inward change. A lamb 
 consecrated as a sacrifice, and therefore holy, did not differ in its nature from 
 any other lamb. The priests or people, holy in the sense of set apart to the 
 
 service of God, were in their inward state the same as other men The 
 
 children of believers are holy in the same sense in which the Jews were holy. 
 They are included in the Church, and have a right to be so regarded. The 
 child of a Jewish parent had a right to circumcision, and to all tlie privileges 
 of the theocracy. So the child of a Christian parent has a right to Baptism 
 and to all the privileges of the Church, so long as he is represented by his 
 parent ; that is, until he arrives at the period of life when he is entitled and 
 bound to act for himself. Then his relation to the Chm-ch depends upon his 
 own act. The Church is the same in all ages. And it is most instructive to 
 observe how the writers of the New Testament quietly take for granted tliat 
 the great principles which underlie the old dispensation are still in force under 
 the new. The children of Jews were treated as Jews ; and the children of 
 Christians, Paul assumes as a thing no one could dispute, are to be treated as 
 
 Christians To be born in hoUness (i.e. within the Church) was necessary 
 
 in order to the child being regarded as an Israelite. So Christian children 
 are not made holy bv Baptism, but they are baptized because they are holy." 
 —Hodge, Expos, of First Cor. Lond. 1857, pp. 115-118. [Meyer, Krit. exegct. 
 Handbuch uber den Itcn Korintherbrief, 4te Aufl. p. 1G6 f. Wilson, Injant 
 Baptism, Lond. 1848, pp. 512-517.] 
 
92 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part IH. 
 
 been the same in former and in latter times, and has always \ 
 applied to the case of infants. 
 
 V. The practice in regard to the administration of the initia- 
 tory ordinance has been the same in former and in latter times, 
 and has always included the case of infants. 
 
 This is the fifth and last of the general propositions which I 
 laid down at the outset ; and after what has already been estab- 
 lished, it requires no more than the briefest notice. Of course in 
 regard to the practice of the Old Testament Church the proposi- 
 tion may be regarded as proved ; the circumcision of the infant 
 eight days old being the standing proof of the practice of the 
 Church in former times. With regard to the practice of the 
 Church under the Gospel, there are two preliminary remarks 
 which it is important to carry along with us. Firs% the uniform 
 practice of the ancient Church down to the epoch of the Gospel,, 
 taken in connection with the total silence of Scripture as to any 
 change of practice when the Jewish passed into the Christian 
 Church, is itself very nearly conclusive as to the practice of the 
 early Christians in regard to infant Baptism. Second, there is 
 not a single instance among all the Baptisms recorded in Scrip- 
 ture in which we find a person, who had grown up a Christian 
 and without Baptism, receiving the ordinance when he became 
 an adult. We have many examples of adult Baptism in Scrip- 
 ture, but none of adults who for years had been Christians before 
 they received the ordinance.^ 
 
 Carrying these remarks along with us, nothing more is neces- 
 sary, in regard to the practice of the Primitive Church in the 
 matter of infant Baptism, than to refer to the frequent and almost 
 constant mention of the Baptism of "households" and "families," 
 in which it is morally certain that there must have been infant 
 members. "I baptized the household of Stephanas." "He was 
 baptized, and all his, straightway." " She was baptized, and her 
 liousehold," "" etc. Such expressions as these, interpreted in the 
 light of the previous undoubted practice of the Jewish Church, 
 can admit of only one meaning. Infants are not mentioned spe- 
 cifically as baptized along with the parents, because it is taken for 
 granted that everybody understood that they were. Had they 
 
 ' Wardlaw, Dissert, on Inf. Baptism, 3d ed. pp. 130-132. AVilsoii, ut supra, 
 l^\x 500-503. 
 
 - 1 Cor. i. 16 ; Acts ii. 38, 39, xvii. 15-33. 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. II.] OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTIS:\r. Ol) 
 
 been pointedly and separately mentioned in such cases, it would 
 very fairly and reasonably have given rise to the suspicion or in- 
 ference that infant Baptism was in principle an entire novelty, 
 that it was a new thing for the Church to have infant members. 
 The notices of household and family Baptisms, that occur in the 
 New Testament so repeatedly, cannot be explained on the theory 
 of the Antipasdobaptists, that the family or household were 
 adults. In the case of Lydia, for example, it is said : " She was 
 baptized, and her household." ' If, according to the theory of the 
 opponents of infant Baptism, the household of Lydia consisted of 
 adults, who separately and personally were converted like herself, 
 and on a personal profession of faith like hers were separately 
 baptized, it is very difficult to understand why their conversion 
 and Baptism were not, like hers, separately mentioned, or on what 
 principle they are all merged under her single name. Upon the 
 theory of infant Baptism, on the contr^iry, it is easy to understand 
 how infants, with no personal profession of faith, and no conver- 
 sion like her own, were merged under her name as "her house- 
 hold." Under the circumstances of the Apostolic Church, the 
 repeated mention of household or family Baptism is of itself de- 
 cisive evidence of the practice by which infants were baptized. 
 We are justified in saying that our fifth and last proposition, like 
 the former, is sufficiently established, namely, that the practice in 
 regard to the administration of the initiatory ordinance of the 
 Church has been the same in former and in latter times, and has 
 always included the case of infants." 
 
 SECTION IV. — OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 We have been occupied of late with the consideration of tlie 
 general principles laid down in Scripture, upon which the lawful- 
 ness and duty of the Baptism of infants may be argued. I have 
 endeavoured to establish and explain five general propositions, 
 from any of which singly, but more especially from all taken to- 
 
 ^ Acts xvi. 15. 
 
 2 Williams, Antipxd. Exam. Slirewsb. 1789, vol. i. pp. 199-2o2. Wilson, 
 Inf. Baptism, Lond. 1848, pp. 517-523. Wardlaw, Dissert, on Inf. Baptism, 
 M ed. pp. 102-130. [Apollonii, Consideratio, Lond. 1G44, pp. 99-105. 
 Hoornbeek, Epistola de Independenfismo, Lugdun. Batav. 1660, pp. 313-350. 
 Owen, Works, Goold's ed., vol. xvi. pp. 258-268. Gillespie, Miscell. Quest. 
 chap, xvii.] 
 
94 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Paht III. 
 
 gether, may be drawn a proof in favour of infant Baptism. In 
 doing this I adopted, as upon the whole the best, the plan of fol- 
 lowing the natural order of the argument, without caring to turn 
 aside at every step to answer the objections which Antipaado- 
 baptists have urged against it, except when these lay directly in 
 the line of my own illustration of it. In the right understanding 
 of the argument itself, there is contained an answer to these 
 objections, so that they may be considered as in a good degree 
 met by anticipation. But still, as the subject is an important one, 
 and as it may better help to develop the principles of the argu- 
 ment, I shall now proceed to consider some of the most common 
 and plausible of the objections brought by Antipasdobaptists 
 against the relevancy or conclusiveness of our reasonings. 
 
 Tliat in the case of infants baptized, there are difficulties 
 connected with their condition as infants, which it may be hard to 
 solve, it would be useless to deny. But that those difficulties, in one 
 form or other, are peculiar to infant Baptism, and nowhere else to 
 be met with, may reasonably be questioned. Above all, that those 
 difficulties should be permitted to overbear the very strong and 
 cumulative evidence from Scripture in favour of the doctrine and 
 practice, it is not the part of truth or wisdom to assert. And yet 
 I believe that it is mainly those difficulties which have led many 
 to scruple to accept as valid or conclusive the Scripture evidence 
 for infant Baptism. In what sense, or to what effect, infants 
 are interested in the ordinance of Baptism, or benefited by it ; 
 what explanation is to be given of the use and efficacy of the 
 Sacrament in their case ; in what manner Ave are to reconcile 
 infant participation in the sign and seal of the covenant of grace 
 with the absence of intelligence and responsibility in infants : 
 these are difficulties which have had more to do in bringing about 
 that state of mind which has led many to declare infant Baptism 
 to be unscriptural, than the force of Scripture argument against 
 it. I believe that these difficulties which have influenced so many 
 against the practice of infant Baptism, and which at first sight 
 appear to be peculiar to it, are not really peculiar to it. In one 
 shape or other, and to a greater or less extent, these difficulties 
 are to be encountered in the case of adult Baptism as much as in 
 the case of infant ; and, indeed, are common to the supernatural 
 grace or virtue connected with all Divine ordinances. Such 
 difficulties may appear more palpably and prominently in their 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. TI.] OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM. 05 
 
 association with infant Baptism, and by many have been regarded 
 as connected Avith it alone ; but in reality they will be found in 
 greater or less measure present, wherever we admit that the work 
 of the Spirit of God in His own ordinances is present, making 
 them the means or instruments of supernatural grace. 
 
 This matter will come on for consideration at a subsequent 
 stage, wlien I proceed to deal with the question of the efficacy of 
 Baptism in the case of infants. I advert to it at present for the 
 purpose of indicating my conviction that the source of not a few of 
 the objections to infant Baptism is to be found, not in the Scrip- 
 ture evidence against it, but rather in those difficulties which are 
 thought to embarrass the theory or explanation of its efficacy. 
 It is plain that, in the first instance, our duty is to examine and 
 weigh the Scripture evidence on the subject, and to be guided in 
 our belief and practice by its force and conclusiveness. It is 
 only in the second instance that it is lawful for us to inquire as 
 to what explanation is to be given of the difficulties which stand 
 connected with the Scripture ordinance. Objections drawn from 
 the mere difficulty of framing a theological theory of the Sacra- 
 nient, in its application to infants, are not for one instant to be 
 allowed to contradict Scripture evidence, where it is clear and 
 conclusive on the subject. That such evidence we have in sup- 
 port of infant Baptism, the heads of argument already given may 
 be enough to evince. Postponing, then, for after consideration, 
 the question of the efficacy of the ordinance in the case of infants, 
 and the difficulties alleged to be connected with that point, be- 
 cause that question ought not to be allowed to interfere with the 
 Scripture evidence to be weighed and examined in the first place, 
 I now go on to consider some of the common and rnost plausible 
 objections to that evidence as it has been already laid down. 
 
 The objections generally urged against the Scripture argu- 
 ment for infant Baptism, may be ranged under two heads : those 
 which deny the relevancy of a large portion of our reasoning ; 
 and those which controvert the conclusiveness of it. There are 
 two general objections which I shall examine, as commonly urged 
 against the relevancy of the argument ; and there are two objec- 
 tions also which I shall notice, directed against the conclusiveness 
 of our reasoning. Under these heads we shall pi-obably be able to 
 discuss all that is of much weight or plausibility in the objections 
 of Antipaedobaptists. 
 
00 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 I. Under the head of objections to the relevancy of our 
 reasoning in favour of infant Baptism, I remark in the first place, 
 that not a few object to our argument as one based upon, as they 
 allege, an outward and ceremonial dispensation that was to be 
 done away, and which has no place under the Gospel. They 
 regard our reasoning from the Abrahamic covenant as irrelevant 
 to our duty or practice under the Gospel economy ; and hold 
 that, in transplanting the custom of affixing to infants the out- 
 ward seal of the covenant from the ancient to the present dis- 
 pensation, we are borrowing the carnal ordinances of a bygone 
 time, and giving them, without warrant and unlawfully, a place 
 in the spiritual Church of Christ.^ 
 
 Now in reference to this objection, it is at once admitted, that 
 the argument for infant Baptism rests partly, although not by 
 any means exclusively, upon a consideration of the Abrahamic 
 covenant and Church. But it rests upon nothing peculiar to that 
 Church, or that has been done away with. It is not unfrequently 
 demanded of the advocates of infant Baptism, why they so often 
 begin their argument in favour of a New Testament ordinance, 
 such as Baptism, from the days of Abraham and from the nature 
 of the covenant made with him. The answer to such a question 
 is very plain. We not unfrequently begin with the Abrahamic 
 covenant in the argument for infant Baptism, because with 
 Abraham the Gospel Church was first formally established, 'and 
 endowed with that ordinance which we believe to be in its cha- 
 racter and use identical with Baptism. No doubt the Church of 
 God had existed from the days of the first promise made to Adam 
 of a Saviour, and of the first believer in that promise ; and down- 
 ward to the present time, under all its different forms, a Church 
 has existed in this world. But with Abraham, and not before, 
 began that outward provision in the Church for the admission of 
 infants by means of an initiatory rite which was to signify and 
 seal their interest in the covenant of grace ; and therefore, in 
 seeking to ascertain the meaning and nature and use of that 
 initiatory rite, whether you view it under the form of circum- 
 cision in other days, or of Baptism now, it is both natural and 
 lawful to go back to its origin and first institution the better to 
 understand it. Circumcision was, in short, the Baptism of the 
 
 ^ Booth, Pxdobapt. Exam. Lond. 1829, vol. ii. p. 140. Carson, Baptism 
 in its Mode and Subjects, Lond. 1844, pp. 214, 2od. 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. II.] OBJECTIONS TO LNFANT BAPTISM. 97 
 
 Church of God in former days ; and in arguing in respect to its 
 use and administration, it is both justifiable and reasonable to 
 inquire into its origin, and into the terms on which it was origi- 
 nally enforced. Nor is there the slightest ground for alleging 
 that in doing this we are guilty of transplanting an Old Testa- 
 ment, carnal, and temporary practice into the New Testament 
 and spiritual Church without warrant, and against the meaning 
 and nature of Gospel ordinances. It is granted, that there is a 
 vast and unspeakable difference between the spirituality of the 
 Gospel dispensation and the outward and ceremonial nature of 
 the Jewish economy. But it is carefully to be remarked, — and if 
 marked, would prevent much confusion in the argument, — that 
 although in popular and common language we are wont to speak 
 of the Jewish and Christian Churches as if they were two 
 separate and contrasted Churches, and not one Church under 
 two dispensations, yet strictly speaking the expression is not 
 correct, and has led to much confusion both of thought and 
 argument on this question as well as on others. There were two 
 dispensations, the Jewish and the Cliristian ; a carnal and out- 
 ward dispensation, and a spiritual and more inward one. But it 
 was the same Church of God under both, identical in character 
 and essence, and all that is fundamental to a Church ; although 
 in the one case, under the Mosaic dispensation, it was the Church 
 encircled by and subsisting in a carnal and outward economy, 
 and in the other case, under the Gospel dispensation, it was the 
 same Church encircled by and subsisting in a less outward and 
 more spiritual economy. What belonged to the mere dispensa- 
 tion within which the Church of God was at any time encircled 
 might be done away ; what belonged to the Church itself was 
 not to be done away.^ 
 
 There are two brief considerations that will be sufficient to 
 remove the objection to the relevancy of our argument for infant 
 Baptism, from the alleged fact that it is built upon the practice 
 of a former and temporary dispensation. 
 
 1. As already indicated, the objection is founded on the 
 fallacy that the Old Testament Church and the New Testament 
 Church were not one but different Churches; the one being 
 carnal and the other spiritual, — the one being outward and cere- 
 monial, as contrasted with the other, which is not so. It is hardly 
 ^ Wilson, Infant Baptism, Loud. 1848, pp. 384-387. 
 VOL. II. G 
 
98 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 necessary to repeat what has already been largely established, 
 that the Church of God has been one and the same in all ages, 
 whether it is made up of " the household of Abraham " whom 
 the patriarch circumcised, or " the household of Stephanas " 
 whom Paul baptized ; whether it numbers as its members Jews 
 as in the days of Moses, or Gentiles as in our own. The out- 
 ward dispensation superinduced upon the Church was changed 
 from time to time ; but the Church itself remained the same. 
 Circumcision did not belong to the dispensation ; it belonged to 
 the Church. The initiatory ordinance by which infants were 
 admitted as its members, was appointed more than four hundred 
 years before the Jewish dispensation, and was administered before 
 as well as during the period of the ceremonial economy. That 
 economy, with its legal observances and symbolic ritual, might 
 have been removed, as indeed it was removed, at the introduction 
 of the Gospel dispensation ; and yet, had God not intended to 
 introduce Baptism in the place of circumcision in these latter 
 times, circumcision might have still remained in force as the 
 initiatory rite of His Church, in virtue of the place which it had! 
 in the Abrahamic covenant. Circumcision was independent 
 either of the introduction or abolition of the law of Moses ; and] 
 would have continued the standing ordinance for admission into 
 the Church of God, as the seal of the covenant of grace, had not 
 Baptism been expressly appointed as a substitute for it.^ 
 
 2. The objection to our reasoning, that it is founded on the 
 practice of a bygone and temporary dispensation, arises partly 
 out of a misapprehension in regard to the typical nature of the 
 ordinance. Under the general and comprehensive formula that 
 all types are now merged in their antitypes, and that all that was 
 symbolic in other days is abolished in the New Testament Church, 
 Antipssdobaptists have argued in support of the conclusion that 
 
 ^ Wardlaw, Dissert, on Inf. Baptism, Sd ed. pp. 96-102. [" In casserenda 
 foederis differentia," says Calvin, arguing against the Anabaptists of his day, 
 "quam barbara audacia Scripturam dissipant et corrumjjunt! neque uno in, 
 loco, sed ita ut nihil salvum aut integrum relinquant. Judajos enim adeo 
 carnales nobis depingunt ut pecudum similiores sint quam hominum. Qui- 
 buscum scilicet percussum fcedus ultra temporariam vitam non procedat, 
 quibus datse promissiones in bonis prsesentibus ac corporeis subsidant. Quod 
 (togma si obtineat, quid restat nisi gentem Judaicam fuisse ad tempus Dei 
 beneficio saturatum (non secus ac porcorum gregem in hara saginant) ut 
 asterno demum exitio periret ? Simul enim ac circumcisionem eique anuexas 
 promissiones citamus, circumcisionem literale signum proiiiissiones ejus car- 
 nales fuisse respondent." — Inst. lib. iv. cap. xvi. 10.] 
 
Div. II. IV. Cn. 11.] OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM. 99 
 
 circumcision belonged to a temporary economy, which can be no 
 precedent under the Gospel. Now circumcision may, it is frankly 
 admitted, have served the purpose of a type of Christian sancti- 
 fication under the ancient economy; and as a type, it had place 
 no longer than until the antitype was realized. But it cannot be 
 denied that it served another purpose also. It cannot be denied 
 that it was instituted and used as a sacramental ordinance in the 
 Church of God, altogether apart from its typical character as 
 expressive of Christian regeneration ; that it was, in short, a sign 
 and seal of the covenant of grace. And in this character, which it 
 unquestionably sustained, over and above its typical one, we cannot 
 regard it as part and parcel of the Mosaic institute ; nor is there 
 any ground for alleging that, in appealing to the authority of cir- 
 cumcision in favour of infant Baptism, we are appealing to a carnal 
 dispensation as a precedent for the practice of the Gospel Church. 
 
 II. But under the head of objections to the relevancy of our 
 reasoning for infant Baptism, I remark, in the second place, that 
 not a few object to our argument, because, as they allege, it is 
 applicable to an outward, but not applicable to a spiritual. Church. 
 This second objection is no more than a modification of the pre- 
 ceding one. It is allied to the fallacy that circumcision was the 
 badge of a temporary and typical dispensation, opposed to the 
 spirit of the Gospel, and not to be represented under the Gospel 
 by any parallel or identical ordinance, equally binding, and equally 
 administered to infants. 
 
 In many cases, the source of the feeling which regards infant 
 Baptism as akin to an outward but unsuited to the character of a 
 spiritual Church, is to be found in the denial of the Scripture 
 distinction, so important to be kept in mind, between the visible 
 and invisible Church. When the character of the Church as a 
 visible corporate society is ignored or denied, — when the Church 
 on earth is identified with the invisible Church made up of true 
 believers alone, — when the title to membership in the Church here 
 below is restricted to a saving faith in Christ and regeneration by 
 His Spirit, and none but those possessed of saving faith are con- 
 sidered to have a right to entrance, — when such views as to the 
 nature of the Church and its membership are held, it is not 
 unnatural, but the reverse, that infants should be regarded as not 
 members of the Church, and that infant Baptism should be 
 accounted a misapplication of the ordinance. And hence, histori- 
 
100 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 cally, it is a fact of great significance and interest, that among 
 Independents, who deny the distinction between the visible and 
 invisible Church, mainly, if not entirely, have been found also 
 that religious party who deny infant Baptism ; while among 
 Presbyterians, whose principles lead them to mark distinctly and 
 maintain strongly the difference between the visible and invisible 
 Church, few or no deniers of the lawfulness of infant Baptism 
 have been found. I feel myself exempted from the necessity of 
 falling back upon the question of the grounds on which the im- 
 portant distinction between the visible and invisible Church of 
 Christ rests, inasmuch as these have been fully argued at a pre- 
 vious stage in our discussions.^ It is enough for me to remind 
 you that the Church of Christ, as exhibited in this world, has, as 
 we have already established, a visible and corporate character, 
 and is possessed of certain outward privileges and certain outward 
 ordinances, by which it is known in the eyes of men, as well as 
 an inward and spiritual character, by which it is known in the 
 eyes of God ; that the tares grow side by side with the wheat in 
 the enclosure of the Christian Church ; and that even the external 
 provision of ordinances and Sacraments, administered, although 
 they may be, in numberless instances, to merely nominal Chris- 
 tians, is not to be undervalued or set aside, but rather esteemed a 
 gift of God to His Church exceedingly great and precious. The 
 ordinance of Baptism, administered to infants as well as to adults, 
 forms part of the outward provision of ordinance which God has 
 made for the visible Church. And it is an unscriptural theory, 
 which, by denying the existence of such a Church, and assuming 
 one purely and exclusively spiritual, would bear with an unfriendly 
 influence on the doctrine and practice of infant Baptism. 
 
 But passing from the objections to the relevancy of our argu- 
 ment in favour of infant Baptism, I go on to consider some of the 
 more common objections to the conclusiveness of our reasonings. 
 
 1st, Under the head of the objections to the conclusiveness of 
 the reasoning in favour of infant Baptism, I remark, in the first 
 place, that it has been objected against infant Baptism that there 
 is no express or explicit command in the New Testament to ad- 
 minister the ordinance to infants." 
 
 1 [See above, vol. i. pp. G-11, 29-40, 73-80.] 
 
 2 Booth, PiedohapL Exam. Lond. 1829, vol. i. pp. 19-23, 303-367. 
 Catech. Racov. De Boptistno, qu. 2. 
 
Div.ir.IV.CH.il.] OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM. 101 
 
 It is readily admitted that Baptism is a positive institution ; 
 and that in regard to the nature and use of positive institutions 
 in the Church of Christ we must be guided solely by the commu- 
 nications of the Word of God in regard to them. But that the 
 objection to infant Baptism from the absence of a positive and 
 articulate formula, enjoining the administration of the Sacrament 
 to infants, is of no real force, can be readily evinced. 
 
 First, the absence in Scripture of an express formula enjoin- 
 ing any duty, is no proof that the duty is not required ; and the 
 absence of any express formula imposing the duty of infant 
 Baptism in particular, is no argument against the practice, but 
 the reverse. Looking at the proposition as a general one appli- 
 cable to all cases, it is evidently both unwarrantable and perilous 
 to lay down as a canon of Scripture interpretation, that whenever 
 there is no express and explicit injunction, in so many words, 
 requiring a duty to be performed, there the deed is unlawful, or 
 at least not commanded. It is unwarrantable ; because we have 
 no right to limit God as to the form in which He may be pleased 
 to make known to us His will, if, in one form or other, it is made 
 known. It is perilous as regards ourselves ; because there can 
 be no more dangerous position than to assume the attitude of 
 refusing to regard the will of God intimated to us, because it is 
 not intimated in the manner which we may consider the plainest 
 and the best. Whatever is laid upon us in Scripture, whether 
 it be in the way of direct and explicit commandment, or in the 
 way of indirect but necessary inference from what is commanded, 
 is equally binding and of Divine obligation.^ 
 
 But the absence of any express formula enforcing the Baptism 
 of infants in Scripture is more especially and emphatically to be 
 regarded as no argument against the practice, but rather an argu- 
 ment on its side. A positive formula for infant Baptism, parallel 
 to that which was given to the Apostles, to preach the Gospel, 
 and to baptize all nations, would have looked very much as if 
 infant Baptism was a novelty in the Church, unknown in prin- 
 ciple and substance before. To preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, 
 to baptize the Gentiles, were duties unknown to the exclusiveness 
 of the Jewish Church ; and hence a new and express formula 
 
 ^ Gumming, Grounds of present Differences among the London Mini^ter.f, 
 Part i. On the Authority of Scripture Consequences in Matters of Faith, Lond. 
 1720. [See also Append. F.] 
 
 I 
 
102 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III, 
 
 enjoining them was necessary at the outset of the new economy. 
 Had the admission of infants as members been equally unknown 
 to the Church, there would have been a no less urgent necessity 
 for an express and explicit command in regard to it. But infants 
 had been accounted and treated as members of the Church of 
 God for well nigh four thousand years ; and at the era of the 
 Gospel dispensation there was no need for the proclamation of 
 any new law in regard to their admission. Any such new law 
 formally enjoining it might well have given rise to the idea that 
 the practice had never been heard of before ; that it was as much 
 a new thing in the Church as seeking to proselytize and baptize 
 the Gentile nations was. All that was necessary was a positive 
 intimation that the outward manner of admitting infants into the 
 Church was to be different under the Gospel from what it was 
 before, — that the ordinance of Baptism was to be used instead of. 
 circumcision ; and such an intimation is very expressly given both 
 in the way of precept and example in the New Testament. Any- 
 thing beyond this in the shape of an express formula to admit 
 infants into the Church would reasonably have led to the belief 
 that they had been excluded before. 
 
 Second, in reply to the objection to infant Baptism taken from 
 the absence of any explicit injunction of the practice, it may 
 be remarked that exactly the same objection may be brought 
 against other Christian duties, which notwithstanding are gene- 
 rally or universally acknowledged to be duties, because, in the 
 absence of an express command, the aathority of Scripture 
 imposing them can be certainly learned by " good and necessary 
 inference." For example, the duty of females to commemorate 
 the Lord's death at His table, and the duty of keeping the Sabbath 
 under the Gospel, are not, it has often been remarked, expressly 
 enjoined by any separate formula in the New Testament Scrip- 
 tures. The duty of females to join in the Lord's Supper is only 
 to be gathered inferentially by a process of reasoning not more 
 direct than that which establishes the lawfulness and duty of 
 infant Baptism. In like manner, the duty of keeping the first 
 day of the week holy unto the Lord can claim no express or 
 separate injunction in the New Testament any more than the 
 practice of infant Baptism can. 
 
 There is a marked resemblance, indeed, between the sanctiii- 
 cation of the first day of the week and the practice of baptizing 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. II.] OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM. 103 
 
 infants, in regard botli to what is enjoined and what is left to be 
 inferred in respect of each, in the New Testament. Tlie sancti- 
 fication of one day in seven was not a new appointment in tlie 
 Christian Church, but rested on the practice and authority of the 
 more ancient dispensation of God ; and lience there is no re- 
 enactment in the New Testament of the general Sabbath law. 
 But the change in the circumstance of the time when the Sab- 
 bath was to be kept, was a new appointment under the Gospel ; 
 and hence, by explicit examples of an authoritative kind, the 
 change of the day is intimated and fixed in the New Testament. 
 Exactly parallel to this, the admission of infants as members of 
 the Church was no new appointment in the Church of God at 
 the introduction of the Gospel dispensation ; and hence it was 
 left very much to rest for its authority on the previous law and 
 practice of the Church, without any re-enactment of what was 
 binding before. But the change in the /brm of admitting infants 
 into the Church, — the change from circumcision to Baptism, — was 
 a new appointment ; and hence, by explicit command and example 
 in the New Testament, we have authority for the change.^ 
 
 Third, in reply to the objection against infant Baptism, drawn 
 from the absence of any separate authority for the practice, it 
 might be enough to challenge the Antipaedobaptist upon his own 
 })rinciples to prove his own practice to be scriptural ; and show 
 an explicit precept or explicit precedent for baptizing the child of 
 a Church member not along with the parent in his infancy, but 
 afterwards when the child has grown to manhood. The inspired 
 history of the Christian Church contained in the Acts of the 
 Apostles embraces a period of more than twice the number of years 
 required to allow the infants of a baptized convert themselves to 
 grow up to the years of discretion, wdien they might have been 
 accounted able to make a personal profession of their faith, as 
 their parents had done before ; and yet there is neither precept 
 nor example in Scripture giving express authority for baptizing 
 the children of Christian parents, after they had grown up to 
 years of maturity, apart from the case of adult converts, which 
 forms common ground to both parties in this controversy. Tried 
 by their own principles, the practice of Antipaedobaptists would 
 be found wanting in Scripture authority. 
 
 ^ AVilliams, Antlpiefl. Exam. Shrewsb. 1789, vol. i. pp. 70-OG, vol. ii. 
 193-200. AVardlaw, Dissert, on Inf. Baptism, od ed. pp. 1U9-I17, 127-1 34. 
 
104 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 2d, Under the lieacl of objections to the conclusiveness of our 
 reasoning for infant Baptism, I remark further, that it is commonly 
 or universally objected by Antiptedobaptists against the practice 
 of infant Baptism, that faith, or at least a profession of faith, in 
 Christ, is positively demanded as a prerequisite to Baptism in all 
 cases ; and that as infants cannot have such faith, or make such 
 a profession, they cannot be admitted to the ordinance.^ Of the 
 fact asserted in this objection, namely, that a profession of faith 
 is required, both by the scriptural commission given to the Apostles 
 to baptize, and by the apostolic examples in this matter, on the 
 part of the person to be baptized in all ordinary cases, there is no 
 room for doubt. We have already had occasion to illustrate and 
 assert the fact against the doctrine and practice of indiscriminate 
 Baptism. But the fact there asserted is too narrow a foundation 
 to build an objection on against infant Baptism. 
 
 In the first place, the demand of Scripture for faith or a pro- 
 fession of faith, as a prerequisite for Baptism, is a demand that 
 has respect to adults, and is not addressed to infants ; and not 
 being addressed to infants, it cannot be regarded as laying down 
 the conditions or terms on which infants are to be made partakers 
 of the ordinance. It is quite plain that those passages of Scrip- 
 ture in which a profession of faith is connected with Baptism, 
 like the Scriptures at large, are intended for adults and not for 
 infants, — for the common and general case of men in the full 
 possession of their intellectual and moral powers, and not for the 
 exceptional case of infants not in full possession of those powers. 
 That this is the case, the single consideration that the Bible is 
 God's message to men and not to infants, is enough to prove ; 
 unless it could be shown, which it cannot, that in those passages, 
 not men but infants are specifically referred to. The passages 
 usually quoted by Antipsedobaptists in support of their objection, 
 are the commission to the Apostles, as recorded in Mark, and the 
 saying of Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch, recorded in the Acts 
 of the Apostles. The apostolic commission in Mark is to this 
 effect : " Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every 
 creature. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved ; he 
 that believeth not shall be condemned."'" It is abundantly obvious 
 that this language applies primarily to the ordinary case of adults, 
 
 ^ Carson, Baptism in its Mode and Suhjects, Loud. 1844, pp. 169, 253-261. 
 - Mark xvi. 16. 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. II.] OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM. 105 
 
 and not to the exceptional case of infants ; and while the order — 
 first belief, and then Baptism — refers to adults, it cannot apply to 
 infants, to whom the Gospel cannot be preached, and who cannot 
 be expected to believe it. Are infants, then, in virtue of this 
 passage, to be excluded from Baptism, because in consequence of 
 their infancy they are excluded from believing '? Certainly not ; 
 for by the very same argument they would be excluded also from 
 salvation. The order of the passage is, first, belief ; second. Bap- 
 tism ; third, salvation. And if, on the strength of this passage, 
 infants, as Antipjedobaptists assert, are to be excluded from Bap- 
 tism because they are excluded from believing, they must, in like 
 manner, be excluded from salvation too. 
 
 The saying of Philip addressed to the Ethiopian eunuch, is 
 quite as little available for the Antipgedobaptlst objection. " If," 
 said Philip, addressing the man upon whose understanding and 
 heart there had dawned, through the evangelist's preaching, a 
 saving knowledge of Christ, — " if thou believest with all thine 
 heart, thou mayest be baptized."^ The language was addressed 
 to an adult in the full possession of all his powers of mind, and 
 laid down for him the order of faith as preceding Baptism. But 
 Philip never applied the same language, nor laid down the same 
 order, in the extraordinary case of infants, whose salvation must 
 be according to a different order and a different method. The 
 announcements of Scripture which imply the necessity of faith 
 or a profession of faith in order to Baptism, are framed upon the 
 principle of adult Baptism, not upon the exceptional case of infant 
 Baptism. 
 
 In the second place, the objection of Antipaedobaptists, 
 grounded on the impossibility of infants complying with the con- 
 ditions on which Baptism ought to be administered, maybe proved 
 to be fallacious by a consideration of the case of circumcised in- 
 fants. That infants were circumcised, and had a title to be so, 
 will not by any party be denied. And yet circumcision involved 
 in it the very same profession of faith, in all its essential respects, 
 that Baptism now does. Substantially, it is the same ordinance 
 as Baptism. It expressed the same truths. It implied on the 
 part of the worthy recipient essentially the same spiritual quali- 
 fications. That this was the case is very expressly asserted by 
 the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians. " Every man," 
 ^ Acts viii. 37. 
 
106 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [rARTlII. 
 
 says he, " tliat is circumcised is a debtor to do the whole law." ^ 
 In other words, circumcision in the case of the person circumcised 
 •involved a profession of his obligation to keep God's law, very- 
 much in the same manner as Baptism involves such a profession 
 now. And yet infants, incapable of making such a profession, 
 were circumcised. And exactly on the same principle, infants 
 incapable now of making such a profession are to be baptized. 
 
 In the third place, the objection of Antipsedobaptists may be 
 proved to be groundless by a consideration of the case of infants 
 saved. The very same difficulty, if difficulty it can be called, 
 alleged to stand in the way of the doctrine of infant Baptism, 
 applies with undiminished force to the case of infant salvation. 
 " He that beheveth shall be saved ; he that believeth not shall be 
 condemned," ■ Such is the simple and unchangeable formula 
 that declares in Scripture the order and connection of faith and 
 salvation. It is a formula adopted and intended to apply to the 
 case of adults, responsible for their belief ; and it makes the salr 
 vation of their souls to be suspended on the existence of their 
 faith. Interpreted in the same manner, and applied in the same 
 unlimited extent to infants, it would close against them the door 
 of the kingdom of heaven, and exclude the possibility of their 
 salvation ; for they are incapable, by reason of their infancy, of 
 that faith which stands connected with the justification of the 
 sinner before God. Shall we, in virtue of the Antipsedobaptist 
 canon of criticism, proceed to reverse the Saviour's words, and 
 turn His blessing into a curse, and say in regard to infants, that 
 of such is not the kingdom of heaven ? Or shall we not, on the 
 contrary, reject a canon of interpretation that would lead to such 
 results, and rather say that infants are subjects both of Baptism 
 and salvation? ^ 
 
 SECTION V. — THE EFFICACY OF INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 The efficacy of Baptism in the case of adults may be under- 
 stood from what has been already said of the nature of the Sacra- 
 
 1 Gal. V. 3. - Mark xvi. 16 ; John iii. 36. 
 
 3 Williams, Antipxd. Exam. Shrewsb. 1789, vol. i. pp. 214-224, 303-311. 
 Wilson, Inf. Baptism., Lend. 1848, pp. 415-498. Wardlaw, Dissert, on Inf. 
 Baptism, 3d ed. 186-188. 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. II.] EFFICACY OF INFANT BAPTISM. 107 
 
 ments in general. Baptism, like the Lord's Supper, is a sign and 
 seal of a federal enoaffement between the receiver and Christ. 
 It presupposes the existence of justifying and saving grace in the 
 })erson baptized ; and it seals or attests that grace to the soul, in 
 this manner becoming the means of further grace. 
 
 There is a meaning in the fact that the person receiving the 
 Sacrament has a part to perform in the ordinance, — that in the 
 Lord's Supper he personally takes and partakes of the elements 
 of bread and wine, and that in Baptism he personally submits 
 himself to and receives the sprinkling of water. In both Sacra- 
 ments there is a personal act on the part of the participator, which 
 has its spiritual meaning, Avhich cannot and ought not to be over- 
 looked in the transaction. That act forms the link that connects 
 the receiver of the ordinance with the ordinance itself ; and the 
 spiritual faith embodied in the act forms the link which connects 
 his soul with the covenant blessings which the ordinance repre- 
 sents. The Sacrament is a seal, then, of more than the covenant 
 generally ; it is a seal of the covenant in its appropriation by the 
 believer to himself personally in the ordinance. 
 
 There are some theologians indeed who in their'explanation of 
 the Sacraments make them seals of the covenant in general, and 
 not seals of the believer's own personal interest in the covenant. 
 They make the Sacraments attestations vouching for God's pro- 
 mises of grace at large, but not vouching for those promises as 
 appropriated by the believer and realized in the experience of the 
 worthy receiver of the Sacrament. This explanation of the 
 Sacraments, however, is, I think, much too narrow and limited. 
 It overlooks the personal act of the receiver in the Sacrament, 
 and the spiritual meaning of that act. It disowns or neglects as 
 not essential to the ordinance, the part which the participator has 
 to perform, when in the case of the Lord's Supper he personally 
 takes of the bread and wine, or when in the case of Baptism he 
 personally presents himself to be sprinkled with water in the name 
 of the Trinity. There is a spiritual meaning in these personal 
 acts not to be overlooked in our explanation of the Sacraments, 
 and essential to a right understanding of them. These personal 
 acts constitute the part performed by the believer in the covenant 
 transaction between him and Christ in the ordinance, and are 
 necessary to make up the covenant. And the Sacrament, as a 
 seal, is applicable to that part of the covenant transaction by 
 
108 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 which the believer appropriated the blessing to himself, not less 
 than to that other part of the covenant transaction by which 
 Christ exhibits or makes offer of the promise of grace to the be- 
 liever. In other words, the Sacrament is not merely a seal of 
 the covenant offered, or exhibited, or declared in general, but a 
 seal of the covenant appropriated by the believer in particular, 
 and, through means of his own sf)iritual act in the ordinance as 
 well as Christ's, received in his personal experience. 
 
 In the case of Baptism administered to a believing adult, his 
 own personal part in the ordinance, when he presents himself to 
 the sprinkling of water, is the sign of that spiritual act of his 
 through which the blessings of justification and regeneration, 
 represented in the Sacrament, have previously become his ; and 
 Baptism is to him a seal not merely of these blessings as exhibited 
 and promised in the covenant generally, but of these blessings 
 realized and enjoyed by himself. Through the channel of his 
 faith, and by means of the Spirit in the ordinance. Baptism be- 
 comes a seal in his justification and regeneration, and so a means 
 of grace and spiritual blessing to his soul.^ 
 
 Such is the efficacy of Baptism administered to an adult 
 believer. What is the virtue or efficacy of the ordinance when 
 administered to infants incapable of faith, although not incapable 
 of being made partakers in the grace which the Spirit confers? 
 In entering on the consideration of this delicate and difficult sub- 
 ject, it is necessary, in order to clear our way to it, to lay down 
 one or two preliminary propositions of much importance in the 
 discussion. 
 
 First, The proper and true type of Baptism, as a Sacrament 
 in the Church of Christ, is the Baptism of adults, and not the 
 Baptism of infants. In consequence of the altered circumstances 
 of the Christian Church at present, as compared with the era 
 when Baptism was first appointed, we are apt to overlook this 
 truth. The growth and prevalence of the visible Church, and 
 the comparative fewness of the instances of adult conversion to 
 an outward profession of Christianity amongst us, have led to 
 the Baptism of infants being almost the only Baptism with 
 which we are familiar. The very opposite of this was wit- 
 nessed in the Church of Christ at first. And the true type of 
 Baptism, from examining which we are to gather our notions 
 ^ Turrettin, Op. torn. iii. loc. xix. qu. xix. 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. II.] EFFICACY OF INFANT BAPTISM. 109 
 
 of its nature and efficacy, is to be found in the adult Baptisms 
 of the early days of Christianity, and not in the only Baptism 
 commonly practised now in the professing Church, the Baptism 
 of infants. It is of very great importance, in dealing with 
 the question of the nature and efficacy of Baptism, to re- 
 member this. Both among the enemies and the friends of infant 
 Baptism the neglect of this distinction has been the occasion of 
 numberless errors in regard to the import and effects of the 
 Sacrament. Men have judged of the nature and efficacy of Bap- 
 tism from the type of the ordinance, as exhibited in the case of 
 baptized adults. They have reversed the legitimate order of the 
 argument, and argued from the case of infants to that of adults, 
 and not from the case of adults to that of infants. It is abun- 
 dantly obvious that adult Baptism is the rule, and infant Baptism 
 the exceptional case ; and we must take our idea of the ordinance 
 in its nature and effects not from the exception, but from the 
 rule. The ordinance of Baptism is' no more to be judged of from 
 its ministration to children, than is the ordinance of preaching to 
 be judged of from its ministration to children. The Sacrament in 
 its complete features and perfect character is to be witnessed in 
 the case of those subjects of it whose moral and intellectual nature 
 has been fully developed and is entire, and not in the case of 
 those subjects of it whose moral and intellectual being is no more 
 than rudimental and in embryo. Infants are subjects of Baptism 
 in so far as, and no farther than their spiritual and intellectual 
 nature permits of it. And it is an error, abundant illustration of 
 which could be given from the writings both of the advocates and 
 opponents of infant Baptism, to make Baptism applicable in the 
 same sense and to the same extent to infants and to adults, and 
 to form our notions and frame our theory of the Sacrament from 
 its character as exhibited in the case of infants. It is very plain, 
 and very important to remember, that the only true and complete 
 type of Baptism is found in the instance of those subjects of it 
 who are capable both of faith and repentance, not in the instance 
 of those subjects of it who are not capable of either. The Bible 
 model of Baptism is adult Baptism, and not infant. 
 
 Second, The virtue of infant Baptism, whatever that may be, 
 is not more mysterious than the virtue ascribed to adult Baptism, 
 although it may have the appearance of being so. It is a very 
 common idea, that the difficulty in framing an explanation of the 
 
110 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 efficacy of Baptism in the case of infants, is peculiar to the 
 ordinance in its administration to them, and does not attach to it 
 in its administration to adults. I believe that this is not the case. 
 There may be greater difficulty in gathering from the statements 
 of Scripture what the virtue of Baptism really is in its application 
 to infants, than in ascertaining what it is in its application to 
 adults. But to explain the supernatural virtue itself is just as 
 difficult in the one case as in the other, and simply from this 
 reason, that it is supernatural. Up to a certain point it is easy 
 enough to explain the efficacy of adult Baptism, but beyond that 
 fixed point it is impossible to explain it. That point is where the 
 natural efficacy of the ordinance passes into the supernatural 
 efficacy. There is a certain natural influence which Baptism, as 
 expressive of certain spiritual truths, and through means of these 
 truths, is fitted to exert upon the adult, because he is a moral 
 and intelligent being, with his faculties developed and complete. 
 And this natural influence of Baptism, through means of the 
 truths expressed by it, cannot be exerted upon the infant, because, 
 although he is a moral and intelligent being, his faculties are not 
 developed or complete. As a sign of spiritual truths understood 
 by the adult, and not understood by the infant. Baptism has a 
 certain natural effect on the one and not on the other, which it is 
 not difficult to explain. But this effect is moral or natural, and 
 not, properly speaking, the sacramental efficacy that is peculiar to 
 the ordinance. The sacramental efficacy peculiar to the ordinance 
 is not natural, but supernatural, — an efficacy not belonging to it 
 from its moral character, but belonging to it in consequence of 
 the presence and power of the Spirit of God in the ordinance. 
 This distinctive efficacy of Baptism as a Sacrament, we cannot 
 understand or explain, either in the case of adults or the case of 
 infants. It is a supernatural effect of a gracious kind, wrought 
 by the Spirit of God in connection with the ordinance ; and 
 because it is supernatural, it is not more and not less a mystery 
 in the case of infants than in the case of adults. 
 
 The supernatural efficacy connected with Baptism, and owing 
 to the presence of the Spirit of God with the ordinance, is an 
 efficacy competent to infants as much as to adults. Even upon 
 their unconscious natures the Spirit is free to work His work of 
 grace, not less than upon the natures of adults whose under- 
 standings and hearts are consciously consenting to the work. The 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. II.] EFFICACY OF INFANT BAPTISM. 1 1 1 
 
 work of regeneration by the Holy Gliost is a work which it is as 
 easy for Him to accompHsh upon the infant of days as upon the 
 man of mature age, — upon tlie chikl who enjoys but the rudiments 
 of his moral and intellectual life, as upon the adult whose moral 
 and intellectual powers are co-operating in and consenting to the 
 gracious change. But broadly marked although the regeneration 
 of the infant and the regeneration of the adult be, by the absence 
 in the one instance, and the presence in the other, of a capacity 
 moral and intellectual for faith and repentance, yet it is never to 
 be lost sight of or forgotten that the work is the work of the 
 Spirit of God, and not to be explained on any natural principle 
 either in the former case or in the latter. The presence of his 
 complete and perfect intellectual and moral powers in the case of 
 the baptized adult, and the exercise of those powers in connection 
 with the truths represented and signified in the Sacrament, afford 
 no adequate explanation of the sacramental grace or efficacy con- 
 nected with the ordinance in consequence of the powder of the 
 Spirit in it. At this point we have got beyond the limits of the 
 natural, and into the region of the supernatural ; and it is not 
 more and not less supernatural in the case of infants than in the 
 case of adults. Sacramental grace, properly so called, is a mystery 
 of which there is no explanation, except that it is the grace of the 
 Spirit of God. Admit that this grace is conveyed in any given 
 case through the channel of Baptism to the believing adult, and 
 you admit a mystery, which the presence and active exercise of 
 his moral and intellectual powers do not in the least explain. 
 Admit that this grace is conveyed in any given case through the 
 channel of Baptism to the infant incapable of believing, and you 
 admit a mystery too, but one not more mysterious than the former, 
 and not more difficult to explain, from the absence or incapacity 
 of his moral and intellectual faculties. In one word, the efficacy 
 of infant Baptism, whatever that may be shown from Scripture 
 to be, is not more mysterious than the sacramentalvirtue ascribed 
 to adult Baptism. 
 
 Bearing in mind these preliminary remarks, what, I ask, are 
 the effects of Baptism in so far as regards infants baptized ? I do 
 not pause at present in order to examine into the nature and 
 benefit of the ordinance in so far as regards parents, who, in the 
 exercise of a parent's right to represent their unconscious children, 
 claim the administration of the ordinance for their offspring. In 
 
112 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 acting as the substitute for the infant, who cannot act for itself, 
 in the solemn federal transaction between it and Christ, — in 
 becoming a party in its name to the covenant made between the 
 baptized infant and its Saviour through the ordinance, — the 
 parent comes under a very great and solemn obligation on behalf 
 of the child, thus pledged and given to the Redeemer through the 
 parent's deed and not its own. But passing by this, let us con- 
 fine our attention to the case of the infant, and proceed to inquire 
 what are the benefits and efficacy of Baptism to the infant par- 
 ticipators in the ordinance ? In the case of adults, we know that 
 Baptism is fitted and designed not to confer faith, but rather to 
 confirm it, — not to originate grace, but to increase it, — not to effect 
 that inward change of regeneration by which we are numbered 
 with the children of God, or that outward change of justification 
 by which we are accepted of Him, but to seal these blessings 
 before bestowed. With adults, Baptism is not regeneration or 
 justification, but the seal of both to the regenerated and justified 
 man. And in the case of infants, the Sacrament cannot be 
 regarded as accomplishing ivithout their faith, what in the case of 
 adults ivith their faith, it fails to accomplish. In other words, 
 infant Baptism is not infant regeneration or justification, any 
 more than in the instance of adults. The Baptism with water to 
 a child is not the same thing as the birth by the Spirit. It is not 
 a supernatural charm. It is not a magic spell to confer the 
 washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Ghost. 
 Sacraments in the case of infants, as in the case of adults, have 
 no mysterious and supernatural power of their own to impart, by 
 the bare administration of them, spiritual life. Let us endeavour 
 to understand what ((re the effects of Baptism in the case of 
 infants. 
 
 I. Baptism, in the case of all infants baptized, gives to them 
 an interest in the Church of Christ, as its members. 
 
 Circumcision gave to infants in other days a place in the 
 ancient Church as its members ; and they grew up within its pale 
 entitled to all its outward privileges and rights, needing no other 
 admission in after life. And what circumcision did during the 
 time when it was in force, that Baptism does now in regard to 
 infants baptized. It constitutes the door of admission into that 
 visible Church of God on earth of which the parent himself is a 
 member ; and the baptized one grows up within the pale of its 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. II.] EFFICACY OF INFANT BAPTISM. 113 
 
 distinctive communion, needing no other admission, marked off 
 at least outwardly from a world that has no interest in God, and 
 having a right to the enjoyment of privileges which, as an out- 
 ward provision for His own in this earth, God has given to them 
 and not to the world. And this of itself is no small privilege, 
 outward and temporal though it be, and not inward and spiritual. 
 That outward provision of the means of grace, which has been 
 given to the visible Church in this world for its establishment 
 and benefit, is always represented in Scripture as a gift of Christ 
 to His people, not to be undervalued or despised because it comes 
 short, in those who enjoy it, of a saving blessing, but rather to 
 be accounted exceeding great and precious. It is a gift of Christ 
 to His Church which is of such worth and moment that the 
 giving of it is spoken of in the Word of God as one of the great 
 purposes for which the Saviour ascended up on high. " When 
 He ascended up on high," says the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to 
 the Ephesians, — " when He ascended up on high, He led captivity 
 captive, and gave gifts unto men. And He gave some, apostles ; 
 and some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and some, pastors 
 and teachers ; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of 
 the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." ^ That 
 outward provision of ordinances and means of grace for the 
 visible Church, the bestowment of which is thus represented as 
 one of the grand objects for which Christ left this world and 
 ascended to the Father, must be to that Church of no ordinary 
 importance and value. It is a right to this provision of outward 
 ordinances and means of grace which the baptized infant receives, 
 when by his Baptism he becomes formally a member of the visible 
 Church ; and growing up in the use and enjoyment of them, the 
 benefit to him, although short of a saving benefit, is beyond 
 all price. Baptism as the sign of membership and the pass- 
 port to the infant into the sanctuary of the visible Church, 
 does not bestow the saving blessing, but brings him in after 
 life into contact with the blessing ; it does not constitute him 
 a member of the kingdom of heaven, but it brings him to the 
 very door, and bids him there knock and it shall be opened 
 unto him. 
 
 II. Baptism, in the case of all infants baptized, gives them a 
 right of property in the covenant of grace ; which may in after 
 1 Eph. iv. 9, 11, 12. 
 VOL. II. H 
 
114 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [PartIH. 
 
 life, by means of their personal faith, be supplemented by a right 
 of possession. 
 
 In regard to this matter, I would have recourse again to a 
 distinction, which in other discussions we have found it necessary, 
 to adopt, and which has more than once helped us to clear our 
 way to a right understanding of the question in debate. A man 
 may have a right of property in an estate, and yet a stranger may 
 be in possession of it ; and he may require to add to his right 
 of property a right of possession, acquired by making good the 
 former in a court of law, before the stranger is extruded, and he 
 himself introduced into the enjoyment of the inheritance. Now, 
 to apply this distinction to the case in hand, a right of property 
 in the blessings of the covenant of grace is conferred by the gift 
 and promise of God, made over to every man who hears the 
 Gospel message addressed to him. "And this is the record, that 
 God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."^ 
 This right of property in the blessings of the covenant of grace, 
 belonging to every man, is written down in these words. The 
 ciiarter which every man has, bearing in it inscribed his right of 
 property to these blessings, is the revealed Word of God. This 
 is the first and superior title. But in itself it is incomplete, and 
 inadequate to put him into the personal possession of his heritage. 
 It requires to be supplemented by another title, before he can 
 actually enjoy the salvation so made over to him by right of pro- 
 perty, and certified by God's word and promise. To his right of 
 property there must be added a right of possession ; and this 
 latter is obtained by means of his own personal act of faith, ap- 
 propriating to himself the salvation before made over to him. 
 The Word of God addressed to him, giving him a right of pro- 
 perty in the blessings of the covenant, and his faith receiving 
 that Word, giving him a right of possession, complete the full 
 and perfect title to the blessing ; and both together admit him to 
 the enjoyment of it. There are many, who have the right of 
 property in the covenant of grace, who never complete their title 
 by seeking for themselves a right of possession in it. The Word 
 of God giving the one, is not supplemented by the faith in that 
 Word which would confer the other ; and hence they are never 
 put in actual possession of the salvation of which they are invited 
 to partake. 
 
 >■ 1 John V. 11. 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. II.] EFFICACY OF INFANT BAPTISM. 115 
 
 Now, what the Word of God addressed to tlie intelh'gent and 
 responsible adult is, that Baptism is when administered to the 
 unconscious and irresponsible infant. The word of God's promise, 
 giving a right of property in His covenant to all who hear it, can- 
 not penetrate the silent ear, nor reach the unconscious spirit of 
 the little child. That word cannot convey to its mind the glad 
 tidings of its covenant right to God's grace. But is it therefore 
 denied that right, which adults have by the hearing of the ear 
 and the perception of the understanding, in connection with the 
 word of promise addressed to them ? Not so. If the outward 
 word that speaks the promise of God cannot pierce to its dormant 
 spirit, — sleeping in the germ of its moral and intellectual being, 
 — the outward sign, that represents the promises of God, can be 
 impressed upon it, giving to the unconscious infant, as the word 
 gives to the intelligent adult, a right of property in the blessing 
 of the covenant. And that is much. The infant, sprinkled with 
 the water of that Baptism which is a sign of the covenant, has^ — 
 even as the adult addressed with the word of the covenant has— 
 a right of property in the blessings which the covenant contains ; 
 and in after life he may, by his own personal act, supplement his 
 right of property by a right of possession obtained through faith. 
 When the period of infancy is passed and he is a child no longer, 
 he bears about with him, in virtue of his Baptism, a right of pro- 
 perty in the promise of his God ; and laying his hand upon that 
 right, and pleading it with God in faith, he may add to it the 
 right of possession, and so enter into the full enjoyment of the 
 salvation that he requires for his soul. The written or preached 
 Word cannot speak to the mute and insensible infant, as it speaks 
 to the hearing ear and understanding mind of the adult, making 
 over to him in conscious possession a right of property in the 
 blessings of the everlasting covenant. But the little one is not 
 thereby shut out from all interest in the covenant. The outward 
 sign suited to his state of infancy, the outward mark impressed 
 upon his outward person, when the significant Word were in vain 
 addressed to his ear, have been given by God in gracious con- 
 descension to supply to him the want of that Word heard and 
 understood. By the act of Baptism, suited and appropriate to his 
 wholly sensitive condition of being and life, his name is put into 
 the covenant with his God. And after years may witness the 
 infant, — then an infant no more, — reading in faith his name 
 
116 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 there, and with the charter of his right in his hand making good 
 liis right, not of property merely, but of personal possession in all 
 the blessings which are written in it. 
 
 Baptism, then, in the case of all baptized infants, gives them 
 a right of property in the covenant of grace ; which may in after 
 life, by means of their personal faith, be supplemented by a right 
 of possession, so that they shall enter into the full enjoyment of 
 all the blessings of the covenant. The benefits of Baptism in the 
 case of infants are not fully experienced by them until in after 
 years they add to Baptism their personal faith, thereby really 
 making out a complete title, not only to the property, but also to 
 the possession of salvation. In this respect there is an obvious 
 distinction between the Baptism of infants and the Baptism of 
 adults. Infants are not capable of faith and repentance ; and 
 Baptism can be to infants no seal of the blessings which these 
 stand connected with, at the time of its administration. But it 
 may become a seal of such blessings afterwards, when the child 
 has grown to years of intelligence, and has superinduced upon' 
 his Baptism a personal act of faith, and thereby become possessed 
 of the salvation which he had not before. In such a case, he can 
 look back upon his Baptism with water, administered in the days 
 of his unconscious infancy ; and through the faith that he has 
 subsequently received, that Baptism which his own memory can- 
 not recall, and to which his own consciousness at the time was a 
 stranger, becomes to him a seal of his now found salvation. In 
 adults it is otherwise ; and the difference is appropriate to their 
 condition as adults. Baptism to the believing adult is a seal at 
 the moment of his interest in the covenant of grace ; a sensible 
 attestation of the blessings of justification and regeneration, of 
 which at the time he is in possession, through the exercise of his 
 faith contemporaneously with his Baptism. In the case of the 
 adult. Baptism is ?l present seal in connection with the faith which 
 he presently has. In the case of the infant, it is a prospective 
 seal in connection with the faith which he has not at the moment, 
 but which he may have afterwards. The full enjoyment of the 
 benefits of the ordinance the adult experiences at the moment of 
 its administration, in virtue of the faith which at the moment 
 makes him a partaker in the blessings of the covenant. The full 
 enjoyment of the benefits of the ordinance the infant cannot 
 experience at the moment of its administration, in virtue of his 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. II .] EFFICACY OF INFANT BAPTISM. 1 1 7 
 
 incapacity of faith ; but it may be experienced afterwards, when, 
 in consequence of his newly formed faith in Christ, he too is 
 made partaker of the covenant, and can look back in believing 
 confidence on his former Baptism as a seal. " The efficacy of 
 Baptism," says the Confession of Faith, " is not tied to that 
 moment of time wherein it is administered ; yet notwithstanding, 
 by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only 
 offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, 
 to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, 
 according to the counsel of God's own will in His appointed 
 time." ^ 
 
 III. There seems to be reason for inferring that, in the case 
 of infants regenerated in infancy. Baptism is ordinarily connected 
 with that regeneration. 
 
 To all infants without exception. Baptism, as we have already 
 asserted, gives an interest in the Church of Christ as its members. 
 To all infants without exception. Baptism, as we have also already 
 asserted, gives a right of property in the covenant of grace, which 
 may, by their personal faith in after life, be completed by a right 
 of possession, so that they shall enter on the full enjoyment of all 
 the blessings sealed to them by their previous Baptism. And 
 beyond these two positions, in so far as infants are concerned, it 
 is perhaps hazardous to go, in the absence of any very explicit 
 Scripture evidence ; and certainly, in going further, it were the 
 reverse of wisdom to dogmatize. But I think that there is some 
 reason to add to these positions the third one, which I have just 
 announced, namely, that in the case of infants regenerated in 
 infancy. Baptism is ordinarily connected with such regeneration. 
 I would limit myself to the case of baptized infants regenerated 
 in infancy, — a class of course to be distinguished broadly from 
 baptized infants who never at any time in their lives experience 
 a saving change ; and also to be distinguished from baptized 
 infants who experience that change, not in infancy, but in 
 maturer years. There are these three cases, plainly to be dis- 
 
 1 Conf . chap, xxviii. 6. Williams, Antipied. Exam. vol. i. pp. 208-214, 
 220-224. Goode, Doct. of the Church of Em/l. a.s to the Effects of Baptism in 
 the case of Infants, 2d ed. pp. 9-26, 143-162, etc. [Goode, Vind. of Defence 
 of the XXXIX Articles, etc., in reply to the Bishop of Exeter, 2d ed. pp. 
 19-21. Letter to the Bishop of Exeter, Lond. 1850, pp. 11, 23-44, 72-78. 
 Review of Sir H. J. Fust's Judgment in the Gorham Case, Lond. 1850, pp. 
 23-31, 34.] 
 
118 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCPI POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 tinguished from one another. There are, first, those infants 
 baptized with an outward Baptism who never at any period come 
 to know a saving change of state or nature. To such Baptism 
 may be an ordinance giving them a place in the visible Church, 
 and giving them also a right of property in the covenant of grace, 
 never completed by a right of possession, and therefore given to 
 them in vain ; but it can be nothing more. There are, secondly, 
 those infants baptized with water in infancy, but not regenerated 
 in infancy by the Spii'it of God, whose saving change of state 
 and nature is experienced by them in after life. To such Baptism 
 is an ordinance giving them a place in the visible Church, and 
 giving them also a right of property in the covenant, at the 
 moment of its administration ; and in after years, when born 
 again by the Spirit through faith, Baptism becomes to them, in 
 addition, the seal, as it had previously been the sign, of the cove- 
 nant, — their right of property having been completed by the right 
 of possession, and the Sacrament, although long past, having 
 become in consequence a present grace to their souls. But there 
 are, thirdly, those infants baptized with water in infancy and also 
 regenerated in infancy ; and with regard to them I think there 
 is reason to believe that this Baptism with water stands con- 
 nected ordinarily with the Baptism of the Spirit. 
 
 That many an infant is sanctified and called by God even 
 from its mother's womb, and undergoes, while yet incapable of 
 faith or repentance, that blessed change of nature which is 
 wrought by the Spirit of God, there can be no reason to doubt. 
 There are multitudes born into this world who die ere their 
 infancy is past, — who open their unconscious eyes upon the light 
 only to shut them again ere they have gazed their fill, — and who, 
 in the brief moment of their earthly being, know nothing of life 
 save the sorrow which marks both its beginning and its close. 
 And with regard to such infants dying in infancy, there is a 
 blessed hope, which the Scriptures give us to entertain, that they 
 are not lost but saved, — that they suffer, and sorrow, and die 
 here from their interest in Adam's sin, but that, not know- 
 ing sin by their own personal act or thought, they are redeemed 
 through their interest in Christ's righteousness.^ But saved 
 though infants dying in infancy mny be, yet there is no exemp- 
 
 * [Du kamst, du giengst mit leiser Spur, 
 Ein flUcht'ger Gast im Erdenland ; 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. II.] EFFICACY OF INFANT BAPTISM. HO 
 
 tion, even in their case, from the universal law of GocVs spiritual 
 dispensation towards men, that " except a man be born again, he 
 cannot see the kingdom of God." Within the brief hour of an 
 infant's life, and ere the unconscious babe passes through the 
 avenue of death into the Divine presence, must that mighty 
 change of regeneration be undergone, which none but the Spirit 
 of God can work ; and among the rudiments of its intellectual 
 and moral life, sleeping in the germ, there must be planted the 
 seed of that higher hfe, which in heaven is destined to expand 
 and endure through all eternity. And where, in the brief history 
 of the young life and early death of these baptized little ones, 
 shall we say that this mysterious work is wrought ? At what 
 moment, rather than another, is this regeneration by the Spirit 
 accomplished ? We dare not limit the free Spirit of God. The 
 beginning of the life that comes from Him may be contempo- 
 raneous with the commencement of natural life in the infant, or 
 it may be contemporaneous with its close. The Spirit of God is 
 free to do His own work at His own time. But in the appoint- 
 ment of an ordinance to signify and represent that very work, — 
 in the command to administer that ordinance as a sign to the 
 little infant daring the brief hour of its earthly life and ere it 
 passes into eternity, there does seem to me some ground to believe 
 that in such a case, of infants regenerated in infancy, the sign is 
 meant to be connected with the thing signified, — that the moment 
 of its Baptism is the appointed moment of its regeneration too, — 
 and that, ordinarily, its birth by water and its birth by the Spirit 
 of God are bound in one. It is Baptism which gives the baptized 
 infant a right of property in the blessings of the covenant of 
 grace ; and when the infant is placed, — not from its own fault, 
 — in such circumstances as to bar the possibility of its completing 
 .its title to those blessings by seeking through its personal faith 
 a right of possession in them also, then it is consistent with 
 the analogy of God's appointments in other departments of 
 His Church, that in such extraordinary cases the absence of a 
 right of possession should not exclude from the blessings, but 
 that the right of property alone should avail to secure them ; or 
 in other words, that in the case of infants regenerated and dying 
 
 Woher? AVohin? wir wissen nur : 
 Aus Gottes Hand in Gottes Hand. 
 
 — Uhland, Auf den Tod eines Kindes.l 
 
120 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 in infancy, their Baptism should coincide with their regenera- 
 tion.^ 
 
 I do not wish to speak dogmatically on such a question as 
 this, when Scripture has given us so little light to enable us to 
 read the truth with certainty. But in the particular case of in- 
 fants regenerated in infancy, there does seem to be some reason 
 to believe, that the washing with water in virtue of God's own 
 appointment stands ordinarily connected with the renewing of 
 nature by God's own Spirit. In the instance of believing adults, 
 regeneration is linked inseparably with the Word believed. In 
 connection with the Word, — although the Spirit of God is free 
 to work without it, — He does His mysterious work of regenera- 
 tion upon the adult's nature. But that Word cannot profit the 
 little infant who is to die ere his eyes can look upon it. The 
 Sj)irit of God cannot, therefore, do His gracious work of spiritual 
 renewal and cleansing on the unconscious babe in connection 
 with the Word believed. But there is another ordinance adapted 
 to the infant nature, which needs to be regenerated ere it passes 
 into another state of being. There is another ordinance, not the 
 Word, which we are commanded to administer to the babe, in- 
 capable of receiving or profiting by the Word. There is the 
 Baptism with water, expressive of that very regeneration which, 
 before the little one shall pass from us to eternity, its unconscious 
 nature must undergo. And when the infant carries with it to 
 the tomb the sign of the covenant, administered in faith, shall we 
 not say that with the sign, and mysteriously linked to it, there 
 was also the thing that was signified ; and that in such a case of 
 a dying babe regenerated in infancy, the laver of Baptism was 
 the laver of regeneration too ? In the sign of the covenant thus 
 
 ^ [" Quos electione sua dignatus est Dominus, si, accepto regeneration is 
 signo, prfcsenti vita ante demigreut quam adoleverint, eos virtute sui Spiritus 
 nobis iucomprehensa renovat, quo modo expedire solus Ipse providet." 
 " Quoniam autem valde absurdiun fore putant si infautibus tribuatur ulla 
 cognitio Dei, quos boni et mali intelligeutia Moses (Deut. i. 39) privat : re- 
 spondeant quseso mihi, quid periculi sit si aliquam Ejus gratise jjartem niuic 
 accipere dicautur cujus plena largitate paulo post perfruentur ? Nam si 
 vitse plenitudo pcrfecta Dei cognitions constat, quum eorum nonnulli, quos 
 prima statim infantia hinc mors abripit, in vitam feternam transeant, ad con- 
 templandam certe Dei faciem praiseutissimam recipiuntur. Quos ergo pleno 
 lucis Suae fulgore illustraturus est Dominus, cur non iis quoque in prsesens, 
 si ita libuerit, exigua scintilla irradiaret : prsesertLm si non ante exuit ipsos 
 ignorantia quam eripit ex carnis ergastulo ? " — Calvin, Inst. lib. iv. cap. xvi. 
 19, 21. Turrettin, Op. loc. xix. qu. xx. 15-20. AVitsius, Miscell. Sacr. torn, 
 ii. Exercit. xix. 1.] 
 
Div. II.IV. Ch. II.] THE MODES OF BAPTISM. 121 
 
 administered to the child, and hnked, as we believe, in such a 
 case to a new and spiritual life, there is a ground of hope and 
 consolation to a bereaved but Christian parent beyond all price. 
 There is a joy at its birth, which none but a mother can feel, 
 when it is said untjo her that a man-child is born into the world ; 
 and there is a bitter sorrow at its early death, which none but a 
 mother can know, when she is called upon to resign the little one 
 wdiom she brought forth in sorrow, and to give it to the dust in 
 sorrow deeper still. And when a Christian mother has been 
 called upon thus to weep at the open grave of many of her in- 
 fants, ere it close in peace upon herself, it is an unspeakable con- 
 solation for her to know, that the little one, whom she took from 
 off her bosom to lay in the tomb, was indeed signed with the sign 
 of a Christian Baptism ; and that in its case the Baptism with 
 Avater and the Baptism with the Spirit were bound up in one. 
 
 " Oh when a mother meets on high 
 The babe she lost in infancy, 
 Hath she not then for pains and fears, 
 
 The day of woe, the watchful night, 
 For all her sorrows, all her tears, 
 
 An over-payment of delight ? " ^ 
 
 SECTIOX VI. — THE MODES OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Before passing altogether from the subject of Baptism, it 
 may be desirable briefly to consider the mode or modes in which 
 the ordinance may lawfully be administered. It may seem, 
 indeed, at first sight, a question of no great importance whether 
 we baptize by sprinkling or by immersion, — 'the former being the 
 method adopted by almost all Protestant Churches and by Western 
 Christendom generally, the latter prevailing to a great extent in 
 the early centuries, and still practised largely in the East. The 
 almost unanimous opinion of orthodox theologians has always 
 been, that Baptism in the name of the Trinity was equally valid 
 in whichever of the two ways referred to it was administered. 
 The position, however, taken up in our own day by many of the 
 advocates of Baptism by immersion has given to the question an 
 importance not properly belonging to it."^ The Evangelical 
 
 1 Southey, Curse of Keliama. 
 
 2 [" How abmidant and copious in the faculty of lying and inventing of 
 errors the spirit of Anabaptism was of old, — how much superior in an ex- 
 
122 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 Baptists in America, for example, — a numerous and energetic 
 denomination, — deny the validity of Baptism by sprinkling, and 
 declare that all persons thus baptized are living in open sin, 
 should not be regarded as members of the Church of Christ, nor 
 be admitted to the Lord's table. Further, they aver that the 
 English authorized version of the Scriptures is false and unfaith- 
 ful on the subject of Baptism, — purposely so, many of them add. 
 They have issued accordingly a translation of their own with the 
 requisite changes, and consider, — to use the words of a resolution 
 of the Baptist American and Foreign Bible Society, — " That the 
 nations of the earth must now look to the Baptist denomination 
 alone for faithful translations of the Word of God."^ 
 
 Our translators, in point of fact, seeing that they had to frame 
 their version of the Bible in the very heat of a controversy about 
 Baptism, strove carefully to stand neutral on the subject. They 
 simply gave the Greek word an English dress ; instead of ^airTL^w 
 and ^aTTTio-fia, they wrote " baptize" and " baptism," thereby 
 deciding nothing either way. 
 
 The real question at issue has been very clearly stated by 
 President Beecher, to whose valuable work on the Mode of 
 Baptism I would refer you for an exceedingly able and exhaustive 
 discussion of this whole subject. " The case," he says, " is this : 
 
 tremely malignant fruitfulness he hath been to any evil spirit that ever 
 appeared in the Christian Church before him, — we have, I hope, demonstrated 
 in our first two chapters (which contain a formidable catalogue of the errors 
 and heresies prompted by the said spirit). That the younger Anabaptists 
 who now trouble the Church of England are nothing inferior to their fathers 
 in the art of erring, being sure, wherever they are ashamed of any one of 
 their predecessors' tenets, to give us two much worse in the place thereof, we 
 have endeavoured to make appear in our third and fourth chapters. Among 
 the new inventions of the late Anabaptists, there is none which with greater 
 animosity they set on foot than the necessity of dipping over head and ears — 
 than the nullity of affusion and sprinkling in the administration of Baptism. 
 Among the old Anabaptists, or these over sea to this day, so far as I can learn, 
 by their writs, or any relation that has yet come to my ears, the question of 
 dipping and sprinkling came never upon the table. . . . The question about 
 the necessity of dipping seems to be taken up only the other year by the Ana- 
 baptists in England, as a point which alone, as they conceive, is able to carry 
 their desire of exterminating infant Baptism ; for they know that parents 
 upon no consideration will be content to hazard the life of their tender infants 
 by plunging them over head and ears in a cold river. Let us, therefore, con- 
 sider if this sparkle of new light have any derivation from the lamp of the 
 Sanctuary, or the Sun of righteousness, — if it be according to scriptural truth, 
 or any good reason." — Baillie, Aiiabaptism, Lond. 1647, p. 163.] 
 
 ^ Beecher, Baptism icith ref. to its Import and Modes, New York 1849, 
 pp. 117-120. 
 
Div. II. lY. Cii. II.] THE MODES OF BAPTISM. 123 
 
 Christ lias enjoined the performance of a duty in the command 
 to baptize. What is the duty enjoined? or, in other words, 
 What does the word ' baptize,' in which the command is given, 
 mean ? One of two things must be true : Either it is, as to mode, 
 ijeneric, denoting merely the production of an effect (as purity), 
 so that the command may be fulfilled in many ways; or it is 
 so specific^ denoting a definite mode, that it can be fulfilled in 
 but one. To illustrate by an analogous case, Christ said : ' Go, 
 teach all nations.' Here the word go is so generic as to include 
 all modes of going which any one may choose to adopt. If a 
 man walks, or runs, or rides, or sails, he equally fulfils the com- 
 mand. On the other hand, some king or ruler, for particular 
 reasons, might command motion by a word entirely specific, as, 
 for example, that certain mourners should walk in a funeral pro- 
 cession. Now it is plain that such a command could not be ful- 
 filled by riding or by running, for, though these are modes of 
 going, they are not modes of walking, and the command is not to 
 go in general, but specifically to walk. ... So likewise, when 
 Christ said, ' baptize^ He either used a word which had a generic 
 sense, denoting the production of an effect, in any mode, such 
 as 'purify,' 'cleanse;' or a specific sense, denoting a particular 
 mode, such as 'immerse,' 'sprinkle,' 'pour.'"^ 
 
 Now the scriptural meaning of the term ^airri^Q), I believe 
 there is abundant evidence to show, is generic and not specific ; 
 it denotes the production of an effect which can be brought about 
 equally well in more ways than one. The adherents of Baptist 
 views, on the other hand, consider that the word is so specific in 
 its signification as to fix down the lawful performance of the duty 
 enjoined to one method only ; they hold that " in Baptism the 
 mode is the ordinance ; and if the mode is altered, the ordinance 
 is abolished."^ 
 
 The word /SaTrrw, from which ^aimt.oi is derived, was long 
 maintained by Dr. Gale and other advocates of the Baptist theory 
 to have one meaning, and only one, alike in classic, Hellenistic, 
 and ecclesiastical Greek. It meant, they held, to immerse or 
 dip ; and it never meant anything else. This view, however, was 
 with good reason abandoned by Dr. Carson, probably the ablest 
 defender of the Baptist theory in our own days. It is now very 
 
 ' Beecher, p. 3. 
 
 2 Prim. Church Magazine, Oct. 1844, quoted by Wilson, ////. Bapt. p. 4. 
 
124 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 generally admitted by our opponents on this question that ySaTrrw 
 has at least two meanings; first, to immerse, and second^ to dye or 
 colour. The same is true of the Latin " tingo," and various 
 similar words in other languages. It will not therefore be thought 
 improbable that the derivative /SaTrrt^eo should also have a pri- 
 mary and a secondary meaning. In point of fact, we find that, 
 especially in later Greek, while often denoting to immerse or over- . 
 whelm, it means also, in many cases, to wash, sprinkle, cleanse.^ 
 It is natural, however, to suppose that when transferred from 
 common to ecclesiastical use, and applied in Scripture to a reli- 
 gious ordinance which is confessed by all parties to symbolize 
 regeneration or spiritual purification, the meaning of the word 
 might undergo some change. The question therefore comes to 
 be. What is the iisus loquendi of the New Testament as regards 
 the term /SaTrri^o)'? Looking, then, to all the passages in which 
 the word occurs, it becomes plain, I think, that the only meaning 
 which will carry us consistently through all of them is that of 
 purification or cleansing. It is perfectly clear that whatever 
 signification of the word we adopt, we must adhere to it through- 
 out. It is quite true that j3airTLt,a) may have, and has, more 
 meanings than one in ordinary Greek ; but that is when it is 
 applied to different things, and used under different circum- 
 stances. It can have but one meaning when used with respect to 
 one definite appointment or rite, and under the same circum- 
 stances. This test can be easily applied to the various inter- 
 pretations of the word in question. Take, for example, the first 
 passage in the New Testament in which the term baptize occurs, 
 the third chapter of Matthew, and substitute for it first the ren- 
 dering which I have adopted, and then that of our Baptist 
 brethren. It is not difficult, I think, to see which of the two best 
 suits the whole scope of the passage : " Then went out unto John 
 Jerusalem, and all Judsea, and all the region round about Jordan, 
 and were purified (immersed, or plunged) of him in Jordan, con- 
 fessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and 
 Sadducees come to his purification (immersion, or plunging), he 
 said, ... I indeed purify (immerse or plunge) you wit'i water 
 unto repentance : but He that cometh after me is mightier ':han I, 
 whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall purify (immerse or 
 plunge) you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. . . . Then cometh 
 1 Beecher, 40-47, 158-176, 185-202, etc. 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. II.] THE MODES OF BAPTISM. 125 
 
 Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be purified (immersed 
 or plunged) of him. But John forbade Him, saying, I have 
 need to be purified (immersed or plunged) of Thee, and comest 
 Thou to me ? And Jesus answering said unto him. Suffer it to 
 be so now : for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness."^ 
 
 That such a transition of meaning should have taken place 
 in the case of the word ^aTTTL^co, appears very natural when we 
 consider the historical circumstances connected with it. It is 
 repeatedly used in the Septuagint, and in the works of Jewish 
 writers who employed the Hellenistic or Alexandrian dialect, to 
 denote the ceremonial immersions, washings, and sprinklings with 
 water, blood, or ashes, common among the Jews. These " divers 
 baptisms," as the Apostle Paul calls them,^ were all practised for 
 the sake of purification, legal or ceremonial. The two ideas, of 
 " baptizing " and of " purifying," were therefore constantly asso- 
 ciated in the minds of the Jewish people; and nothing seems 
 more natural than that in the course of time the one should pass 
 into the other, and the words come to be used as synonymous. 
 To recur to the history of the kindred word already alluded to : 
 Men dipped objects in liquid in order to impart colour to them ; 
 and j3airroy came to signify " to dye." The Jews immersed, or 
 washed, or sprinkled, in order to attain purity ; aud so ^aTni^w 
 came to mean " to purify." In Jewish ecclesiastical language, 
 considerably before our Lord's time, /SaTrrt^eo seems to have 
 dropped all reference to mode, and to have become a general 
 term for purifying, practically equivalent to Kadapi^o). A re- 
 markable confirmation of this may be found in the third chapter 
 of John. We are there told that a dispute had arisen between 
 the disciples of John the Baptist and a Jew (as the true reading 
 seems to be ; not Jews as in the A. V.) " about purifying " {irept 
 Kadapia/xou). Now this dispute, as is shown by the context, was 
 simply about the respective Baptisms of John and of Christ. The 
 followers of the former were jealous on their master's behalf of 
 the seemingly rival claims of our Lord, which had apparently 
 been urged against them by this Jew. " They came unto John, 
 and said, Rabbi, He that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom 
 thou barest witness, behold, the same haptizeth, and all men come 
 unto Him."'' The " question about purifying" was just a "ques- 
 
 ^ Matt. iii. 5-15. - Heb. ix. 10, S/«<pooo/ (bx'Trrioy.ai. 
 
 ^ John iii. 2o-2C, * 
 
126 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 tion about baptizing;" and the Evangelist uses the words inter- 
 changeably, just because in the ecclesiastical language of his day 
 the two meant the same thing.^ 
 
 The evidence by which the position which I have laid down on 
 this subject can be still further established and strengthened, is of 
 a cumulative sort, and for the details of it I must refer you to 
 such works as that by Dr. Beecher, already referred to.^ With 
 respect to the apostolic practice In this matter, I am disposed to 
 agree with the author last named, that " it is not possible decisively 
 to prove the mode used by the Apostles ; for if going to rivers, 
 going down to the water and up from it, etc, create a presumption 
 in favour of immersion ; so does the Baptism of three thousand 
 on the day of Pentecost in a city where water was scarce, and of 
 the jailor (and his household) in a prison, create a presumption in 
 favour of sprinkling. And if a possibility of immersion can be 
 shown in the latter cases, so can a possibility of sprinkling or 
 pouring be shown in the former. The command being to purify, 
 and the facts being as stated, the decided probability is, that 
 either sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, was allowed, and Chris- 
 tian liberty was everywhere enjoyed. A tendency to formalism 
 led to a misinterpretation of Paul in Eom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 
 12 ; and this gave the ascendency to immersion, which increased 
 (in the postapostolic Church) until it became general, though 
 it was not insisted on as absolutely essential on philological 
 grounds."^ 
 
 In conclusion, I remark, that many take up what appears to 
 me a wrong ground on this question, in seeking first to prove that 
 the word ^airri^oi, in the whole wide field in which it occurs, some- 
 times means to immerse, sometimes to wash, sometimes to sprinkle 
 or pour ; and then drawing from that the inference that we may 
 lawfully baptize in any of these ways. It may be perfectly true 
 that in profane literature the word has several meanings, but it 
 by no means follows from that fact that, when used ecclesiastically, 
 and applied definitely to one thing, it has more meanings than 
 one. As employed to denote a definite religious rite, the term 
 Baptism must have but one definite signification. And whatever 
 we hold that to be, we must adhere to it throughout, and in all 
 cases in which the word occurs. The true meaning of Baptism 
 in the New Testament I believe to be purification or cleansing. 
 1 Beecher, pp. 22-25, 213 ff. ^ ibid.'^p. 211-224, etc. 3 ibid. p. 114. 
 
Div. IT. IV. Cii. II.] THE MODES OF BAPTISM. 127 
 
 That purification may be effected either by sprinkHng or by 
 immersion, according to the dictates of Christian expediency. The 
 command to baptize is a generic command, which may be carried 
 out in either way with equal lawfuhiess." 
 
 ^ Beccher, Baptism irith reference to its Import and Modes, New York 
 1849. Williams, Antipaid. Exam. vol. ii. pp. 2-189. Wardlaw, Dissert, on 
 Inf. Baptism, 3d ed. pp. 1G3-182. Wilsou, Inf. Baptism, pp. 9-18G. With 
 respect to the evidence of the Fathers as to the matter of fact of infants being 
 baptized in the early Church in postapostolic times, I may refer to Wall's 
 Historij of Inf. Baptism, 3d ed., Lond. 1720, a very complete and rehable 
 -work ; Williams, vol. ii. pp. 200-228. Neander was the first theologian of 
 any eminence to maintain, though not very confidently, that infant Baptism 
 was a novelty of the third century. {Hist. Torrey's Transl., Edui. 1847, 
 vol. i. pp. 424-429; Planting of the Christian Church, Ryland's Transl., Edin. 
 1842, vol. i. pp. 189-194.) He has been followed in this to some extent by 
 Gieseler, by Hagenbach, and others m Germany ; and by some English Church- 
 men. What Neander chiefly builds upon to establish his view of the matter 
 is the well-known statement of TertuUian, which has been usually held, and, 
 I think, with good reason, to prove the very contrary. TertuUian, — speak- 
 ing, be it observed, of the practice of the Church at the end of the second 
 century and the very beginning of the third, — advises that with respect to 
 several classes Baptism should be deferred : so of unmarried persons and 
 widows ; so in particular of mfauts. He urges this, not on the ground of its 
 being unscriptm'al or a noveltj^ but on the grovmd of reason and expediency. 
 " It would be more useful to delay." (Cimctatio Baptismi utilior est.) " Why 
 does that innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? Men act more 
 prudently in worldly matters. Why should the Divine heritage be intrusted 
 to those to whom we would not commit the keeping of their earthly goods?" 
 etc. — De Baptismo, cap. 18. It is surely very plain that we have here just a 
 specimen of that tendency to exaggerated and uuscriptural views of the Sacra- 
 ments which so soon and so fatally prevailed in the Christian Church. When 
 Baptism came to be regarded as a magic charm to wash away guilt whenever 
 it was applied, the idea was a very natural one that the wisest coirrse was to 
 reserve it as long as possible. Hence the frequency of deathbed Baptisms, as 
 in the case of Constantine ; and hence Tertullian's argument, that children in 
 " the guiltless age" of infancy had less need of the ordinance than in after 
 years. 
 
128 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 SECTION I. — NATURE OF THE ORDINANCE. 
 
 Christ, as Head of His Church, has dealt out to it with a 
 guarded hand merely outward and visible rites. In the provision 
 which He has made for it there is enough in the way of outward 
 and sensible ordinances for creatures made up of flesh as well as 
 spirit to repose upon for the strengthening and confirmation of 
 their faith ; and yet not enough to convert their religion from a 
 spiritual to a bodily service, and to transmute their faith into 
 sight. There are but two ordinances, properly speaking, that 
 link the Spirit with the flesh in the Christian Church ; and lend 
 the aid of a seen and sensible confirmation to an unseen and 
 saving faith. There is one ordinance adapted to, and, it may be, 
 specially designed for the case of infants, whose moral and intel- 
 lectual life, still in the germ, lies hidden in a merely sensitive 
 nature ; and Baptism administered to the unconscious babe, whose 
 ear cannot hear the word of salvation, becomes a visible and sen- 
 sible token and seal impressed upon its flesh, of its interest in the 
 covenant of its God. There is a second ordinance in a similar 
 manner adapted for adults, in which an outward and sensible seal 
 gives witness to their inward and unseen faith ; and the Lord's 
 Supper, preaching Christ by sign as well as word, is a fleshly 
 witness, speaking to the flesh as well as to the spirit of the 
 believer, of the blessings of the covenant of grace. There are 
 these two, but no more than these two, outward and visible ordi- 
 nances in the Church of Christ, like material buttresses, to 
 strengthen and confirm a spiritual and immaterial faith, — the 
 guarded and sparing acknowledgments of the fleshly nature, as 
 well as the spiritual, which in the person of the Christian has 
 
Div. II. IV. Cir. III.] THE LORD'S SUPPER. 129 
 
 shared in the shi, and shared also in the salvation from sin, wliicli 
 he knows. 
 
 We cannot doubt that a religion with these two, and neitlier 
 more nor less than these two, outward rites is divinely proportioned 
 and adapted to the need and benefit of our twofold nature, made 
 up as it is of the fleshly and the spiritual, and both partners in 
 the redemption, as they were formerly partners in the ruin, that 
 belong to us. More than this in the way of the outward and 
 sensible in the religion of Christ would have ministered all too 
 strongly to the carnal and sensuous propensities of our nature, 
 and would have tended towards a system which would have been 
 " meat and drink," and not " righteousness, and peace, and joy in 
 the Holy Ghost." Less than this in the way of outward and 
 sensible ordinance would have left no room in the provision made 
 in the Church for the adequate acknowdedgment of our fleshly 
 nature ; and denied to our spiritual faith the benefit and sup- 
 port which it derives from some visible witness and confirmation 
 of what it surely believes. Again, Baptism, as commonly ad- 
 ministered to entrants into the Church, takes infeftment, so to 
 speak, of our flesh when we enter into covenant with Christ, that 
 not even the lower part of our being may be left without the 
 attestation that He has redeemed it. The Lord's Supper, as 
 administered from time to time to those who have been admitted 
 into the Church before, renews this infeftment at intervals, and 
 attests that the covenant by which we are Christ's still holds good 
 both for the body and spirit which He has ransomed to Himself. 
 The Sacrament of union to and the Sacrament of communion 
 with Christ, tell that our very dust is precious ill His sight, and 
 has shared with the spirit in His glorious redemption. Other 
 ordinances address themselves to the intellectual and moral nature 
 exclusively, and speak of the care of Christ and the provision He 
 has made for the growth and advancement of the spirit in all 
 spiritual strength and life. The two ordinances of Baptism and 
 the Lord's Supper, at different periods of our natural existence, 
 and commonly in infancy and age, address themselves to both our 
 outward and inward nature; and speak to us the testimony that 
 both body and soul are cared for and redeemed by Christ, and 
 that both in body and in soul we are His. 
 
 In formerly dealing with the case of Baptism as a sacramental 
 ordinance, I endeavoured to ascertain its nature by an appeal to 
 
 VOL. II. I 
 
130 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 those marks or characteristics, in their apphcation to Baptism, 
 which we have found to define a Sacrament generally. Let us 
 endeavour, by the same process, to make out the true nature and 
 import of the Lord's Supper as a sacramental ordinance. 
 
 I. The first mark or characteristic of a Sacrament which we 
 laid down is, that it be a Divine institute appointed by Christ 
 for His Church. There is no religious party, whatever be their 
 opinions in regard to the meaning of the ordinance, who do not 
 hold the Divine appointment of the Lord's Supper as a permanent 
 institution in the Christian Church, with the single exception of 
 the Quakers. According to their view, the Lord's Supper, like 
 Baptism, is to be regarded as a Jewish ordinance, and the practice 
 of it in early times as an accommodation to Jewish prejudices 
 and customs, but an ordinance really opposed in its nature to 
 the spirituality of the Gospel dispensation, and not intended for 
 continuance in the Gospel Church. 
 
 Now, in reference to this averment by the Quakers, it cannot 
 be denied that, in the case of the Lord's Supper, as in the case of 
 Baptism formerly noticed, our Lord adopted a Jewish practice or 
 observance, and consecrated it as an ordinance in the Christian 
 Church. The parts and ritual of the Supper are evidently derived 
 from the observances connected with the passover as practised 
 among the Jews. The Christian ordinance seems to be grafted 
 upon the Jewish. We know from the Jewish accounts that we 
 have of the passover service, that the master of the family or 
 priest took unleavened bread, and broke it, and gave thanks to 
 God, in much the same manner as we find it recorded of our 
 Lord at the institution of the Supper. We Tvnow also from the 
 same quarter, that there was one particular cup called " the cup 
 of blessing," or of " thanksgiving," used at the paschal feast, of 
 which the guests partook ; and this was followed by the singing 
 of psalms. These usages, connected with the Jewish passover, 
 Christ adopted and accommodated to the ritual of that ordinance 
 which we regard as the commemoration of His own death, — very 
 much in the same manner as the washing with water employed 
 in the Jewish baptisms or purifications was adopted and accommo- 
 dated by Him to the other Sacrament which He established in 
 the Christian Church.^ All this must be conceded to the Quaker 
 
 1 [Waterland, Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist^ Cambridge 1737, 
 pp. 58-71.] 
 
Div. II. IV. Cn. III.] THE LORD'S SUPPER. 131 
 
 theory in regard to the orighi of the Christian Sacrament of the 
 Supper. Bat all this, so far from making the ordinance a Jewish 
 one, or justifying the explanation given by Quakers of the apos 
 tolic practice of administering it, as a mere accommodation to 
 Jewish customs or feelings, is very evidently calculated to demon- 
 strate the reverse. The adoption of some parts of the paschal 
 feast without the rest, — the eating bread and drinking wine as at 
 the passover by Christians, without the slaying of the paschal 
 lamb, — the observance of the practice at other times than once a 
 year on the return of the anniversary of its first institution, — must, 
 so far from being an accommodation or concession to Jewish 
 feeling or prejudice on the part of the Apostles and first Chris- 
 tians, have been in reality a usage most repugnant to all the 
 habits and prepossessions of the Israelites. The withdrawment 
 of the outward ritual of the paschal service from the object of 
 its original institution, and its destination to the purposes of a 
 feast in commemoration of an event by which that service w-as 
 abolished, were the very circumstances, above all others, calculated 
 to make the ordinance not acceptable, but revolting, to Jewish 
 feeling. 
 
 There is no truth, therefore, but the reverse, in the Quaker 
 assumption, that the temporary continuance of the Lord's Supper 
 in the Christian Church is to be accounted for on the theory of a 
 concession to prejudices on the part of the Jewish converts. Add 
 to this, that both in the statements of Scripture, and in the prac- 
 tice of apostolic men as recorded in Scripture, there is abundant 
 evidence to prove that the Lord's Supper was no temporary ordi- 
 nance, destined to pass away with the first merging of the Jewish 
 into the Christian Church ; but, on the contrary, was intended to 
 be an abiding appointment for the use of its members. The 
 command of our Lord to the disciples at the moment of the 
 institution of the ordinance, spoke of its standing and permanent 
 observance : " This do in remembrance of me." ^ The connec- 
 tion intimated by the Apostle Paul, in his account of the Supper, 
 between the keeping of it and the second coming of Christ, evinces 
 his opinion of the perpetual duration of the ordinance : " As often 
 as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show forth the 
 Lord's death till He comeP " The practice in the pi'imitive 
 Church, while under inspired direction in regard to the Lord's 
 1 Luke xxii. 19. - 1 Cor. xi, 20. 
 
132 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 Supper, taken in connection with the absence of the faintest indi- 
 cation that it was meant for no more than a temporary purpose, 
 is decisiv'C evidence of the same conclusion. In short, the nature 
 of the ordinance, as a memorial of Christ until that memorial shall 
 be no more required on earth, in consequence of His second 
 appearing, — the command to Jew and Gentile alike to keep the 
 feast, — the universal practice of the Church under apostolic guid- 
 ance, — and the absence of any statement express or implied in 
 regard to the temporary character of the ordinance, — very clearly 
 and abundantly demonstrate that the Supper of our Lord was a 
 Divine and permanent appointment for the Church.^ 
 
 II. The next mark laid down by us as characteristic of sacra- 
 mental ordinances, was, that they be sensible and outward signs of 
 spiritual truths ; and this mark applies to the ordinance of the 
 Lord's Supper. 
 
 Simple and obvious although the idea be, that in the Lord's 
 Supper we are commemorating, by appropriate and sensible images 
 and actions, the grand spiritual truths characteristic of the Gospel, 
 yet it is the omission or denial of this that has been the primary 
 cause of numberless errors in regard to the nature of the ordi- 
 nance. The Lord's Supper is not merely sl commemoration; it 
 is much more. But the fundamental idea which must be carried 
 along with us in all our explanations of its nature and meaning 
 is, that it is in the first instance a commemoration of the great 
 truths connected Avith the death of Christ, as the sacrifice for the 
 sins of His people. Nothing is easier, indeed, than to confound 
 the sign with the thing signified ; and nothing is more common 
 in theological argument in reference to this matter. The nature 
 and necessities of language lead us to attribute to the type what 
 is only actually and literally true of the thing imaged or repre- 
 sented by the type ; and in the frequent or common identification 
 of the one with the other, we may be led not unnaturally to one 
 or other extreme, — that of sinking the sign in the thing signified, 
 or that of sinking the thing signified in the sign. The result is, 
 either that we make the Sacrament to be nothino; more than a sitjn, 
 with no spiritual reality ; or that we make it a mysterious spiritual 
 reality, without being a sign at all. The identifying of the sign 
 with the supernatural grace, and making them one and the same 
 thing, must either lead to the Socinian notion that the Sacraments 
 1 Halley, The Sacraments, Lond. 18^^, vol. i. pp. 66-74, 86-92. 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. III.] THE LORD'S SUPPER. 133 
 
 are nothing but symbols, — thereby evacuating the ordinance of all 
 sacramental grace ; or must lead to the Romanist or semi-Romanist 
 notion that they are charms embodying and conveying spiritual 
 grace, without regard to the spiritual meaning realized and ap- 
 propriated by the believer in the ordinance. Hence the neces- 
 sity and importance of bringing out distinctly, and laying down 
 broadly, the character which Sacraments possess as signs of 
 spiritual truths. 
 
 In regard to the Lord's Supper, nothing can be more distinct 
 or conclusive than the commemorative character which is im- 
 pressed upon the original institution of the ordinance by our Lord. 
 With regard to the bread, the commandment was : " Take, eat : 
 this is my body broken for you : this do in remembrance of me." 
 With regard to the second element in the ordinance — the cup — the 
 appointment was no less explicit : " This is the New Testament 
 in my blood : this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of 
 me." ^ And in entire accordance with these declarations of our 
 Lord as to the grand object of the Supper as commemorative, we 
 have the further statement by the Apostle Paul, received by im- 
 mediate revelation, as to the nature of the institution : " For as 
 often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show forth 
 the Lord's death till He come." In addition to all this, which 
 very clearly exhibits the Sacrament of the Supper as in its first 
 and most obvious character commemorative, we have the natural 
 significance or pictorial meaning of the elements and actions in the 
 ordinance. A rite may be in its sole or primary character com- 
 memorative in consequence of arbitrary appointment, although it 
 may have nothing in itself naturally representative of the event 
 commemorated. But this is not the case with the ordinance of 
 the Communion Table. Over and above its positive institution in 
 remembrance of the death and crucifixion of our Lord, there is 
 a pictorial significance in the actions and elements of the Sacra- 
 ment, fitted to keep constantly in view the grand and essential 
 idea of the rite, as a rite of commemoration. The broken bread 
 representing the broken and crucified body, — the wine poured out, 
 the shed blood, — the eating and drinking of them, the participa- 
 tion in Christ's blessings to nourish the soul and make it glad, — 
 the " one bread " and " one cup," the communion of Christ with 
 His people, and of them with each other,^ — all these are no 
 
 1 Luke xxii. 19 ; 1 Cor. xi. 22-26. - 1 Cor. x. 17. 
 
134 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 dumb or dark signs, but speaking and expressive of what it is in- 
 tended to commemorate. This obvious characteristic of a sacra- 
 mental ordinance, then, is most clearly seen in the Lord's Supper, 
 that it is an outward and sensible sign of an inward and spiritual 
 truth. It is the primary idea of the institution, never to* be for- 
 gotten without infinite damage done to our understanding of its 
 meaning, that, both naturally and by express Divine appointment, 
 it is a symbolical and commemorative observance.^ 
 
 That the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is an outward and 
 sensible sign expressive of the grand and central truths connected 
 with His death and sacrifice, is professedly held by all parties 
 who hold that it is a Christian ordinance at all, and consider it 
 to be binding upon Christians. And yet, notwithstanding of this 
 professed and apparent unanimity upon the point, there is one 
 religious denomination whose principles amount to a denial of 
 this simple truth ; and who virtually and really make the Lord's 
 Supper to be not a sign, and not a commemorative ordinance at 
 all, — thereby denying to it the proper character of a Sacrament. 
 I allude to the Church of Rome. I do not mean to enter upon a 
 consideration of the doctrine of that Church with regard to the 
 Lord's Supper at present — for I intend to take up that subject 
 afterwards, — but it may be not unsuitable or unimportant, mean- 
 while, to remark, that many of the errors of the Church of Rome 
 in regard to this Sacrament are to be traced back to the neglect 
 or denial of the simple but fundamental truth, that in its primary 
 and essential character the Lord's Supper is a commemorative 
 ordinance, — a remembrance of a sacrifice, and not a sacrifice 
 itself, — a memorial of the great atonement and offering up of 
 Christ on the Cross, and not a repetition of that atonement. By 
 the doctrine of transubstantiation held by the Church of Rome, 
 the elements of bread and wine are asserted to be changed into 
 the actual body and blood of Christ, the Son of God ; so that the 
 use of these elements in the Sacrament is not to represent, but 
 to repeat or continue the offering once made for sinners upon the 
 Cross. The sign is identified with the thing signified ; the symbol, 
 instead of remaining a symbol, becomes one and the same with 
 what was symbolized ; the image and the reality are not two 
 separate and independent things, but are confounded together. 
 This is the unavoidable consequence of the doctrine of transub- 
 1 [Waterlaud, Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, pp. 71-112.] 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. III.] THE LORD'S SUPrER. 135 
 
 stantiation held in regard to the communion elements. The 
 bread in the ordinance ceases to be the sensible sign of the Lord's 
 body, and actually becomes that body ; the wine in the cup ceases 
 to be the representation symbolically of the blood of the Lord, 
 and is transmuted into that very blood. There is no separating 
 idea which continues to divide the symbol from the reality repre- 
 sented. The two are lost in one. The grand and fundamental 
 characteristic of a Sacrament — that it is the outward and sen- 
 sible sign of an inward and spiritual truth — is utterly forgotten or 
 denied ; and the consequence is the subversion of every idea 
 essential to a Sacrament. While professedly, in some sort of way 
 not easily understood, the Church of Rome holds that the Lord's 
 Supper is a commemorative Sacrament,^ it in reality does away 
 with the fundamental characteristic of a Sacrament as a sensible 
 sign of spiritual truth.^ 
 
 III. The third mark laid down by us as characteristic of 
 sacramental ordinances, is, that they are the seals of a federal 
 transaction between the believer and Christ through means of the 
 ordinance ; and this mark is applicable to the Lord's Supper. 
 
 There are not a few who rest contented with the position 
 already laid down in regard to the Lord's Supper, and restrict 
 themselves to the view which makes it a sensible sign of spiri- 
 tual truth. At the date of the Reformation the subject of the 
 Lord's Supper was very keenly canvassed amongst the Protestant 
 Churches ; and the Sacramentarian controversy, or the dispute 
 as to the true meaning and nature of the Lord's Supper, went 
 further than any other to divide the opinions of the early Re- 
 formers.^ While Luther held views approximating to those of 
 the Church of Rome on this subject, although denying the doc- 
 trine of transubstantiation, there was another party among the 
 first Reformers, especially in Switzerland, headed by Zwingli, 
 who advocated principles differing very widely from those of 
 Luther. Zwingli, the chief founder of the Protestant Churches 
 in Switzerland, and the predecessor of Calvin in the Swiss Refor- 
 mation, is not uncommonly regarded as the originator of those 
 views of the Lord's. Supper which represent it as a symbolical 
 
 1 Condi. Trident. Canones et Decreta, Sess. xiii. cap. ii. Sess. xxii. cap. i, 
 
 2 [Bruce, Sei-mons on the Sacraments, Wodrow Soc. ed. p. 84 f.] 
 
 3 Beveridge, Pref. to vol. ii. of Calvia's Tracts, Edin. 1849, pp. xviii.-xxx. 
 [Hospinian, Historia Sacramentaria, Tiguri 1602, Pars ii. pp. 5-18, etc.] 
 
136 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 action commemorative of the death of Christ, and as nothing more 
 than this. There seems to be good ground to question this 
 opinion, and to doubt whether Zwingli ever reallj meant to deny- 
 that the Lord's Supper is a seal, as well as a sign of spiritual 
 grace, — the outward voucher as well as representation of a 
 spiritual and federal transaction between the believer and Christ 
 throuo;h means of the ordinance. Under the strono; reaction 
 then felt from the views of the Lord's Supper entertained by the 
 Church of Rome, which virtually set aside and denied the sym- 
 bolical character of the ordinance, and superseded the outward 
 sign by the thing signified, Zwingli and others felt that the true 
 source of the doctrine of transubst'antiation was the denial of the 
 primary character of the ordinance as a commemorative sign, and 
 the making the symbol give place to the reality symbolized under 
 it. Li other words, Zwingli and his associates in Switzerland 
 held that the root of the evil lay in denying that the bread and 
 wine in the Lord's Supper were signs, and constituting them the 
 tiling signified, — the very body and blood of the Lord. And in 
 bringing out this principle as against the dogma of transubstan- 
 tiation, they were led in their argument to speak somewhat un- 
 guardedly, as if, while Scripture represented the Sacrament as 
 symbolical, it did not represent it as anything more than sym- 
 bolical. Notwithstanding the violent controversy which the 
 opinions of Zwingli and his followers excited, and the opposition 
 they encountered from Luther and others of the German section 
 of the Reformation, it is very doubtful indeed whether their 
 opinion really excluded or denied the idea of a seal of a federal 
 transaction, as well as a sign, as really belonging to the character 
 of the Lord's Supper.^ However this may be, it was reserved for 
 the successor of Zwingli, as the leader in the Swiss Reformation, to 
 bring out from Scripture, and to establish on its true foundation, 
 the proper notion of the Lord's Supper as more generally enter- 
 tained by Protestant Churches since his time ; and it is not the 
 least of the many debts due by the Church to the illustrious 
 Calvin, that we owe to him the first full and accurate develop- 
 ment and decided maintenance of the true doctrine of the ordi- 
 nance, as neither a sign alone, nor yet the thing signified alone, 
 — as neither an empty symbol, nor yet the transubstantiated body 
 
 ^ Cunningham, Work.^i, vol. i. pp. 225-231. [Nitzsch, prot. Beant. Ham- 
 burg 1835, pp. 1G2-1GG.] 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. III.] THE LORD'S SUPPEE. 137 
 
 and blood of Christ, — but as a sign and, at the same time, a seal 
 of spiritual and covenant blessings, made over in the ordinance 
 to the believer. The doctrine of the Sacrament of the Lord's 
 Supper as a sign or symbol, and nothing more, has become the 
 characteristic system of the Socinian party. More recently still, 
 it has become the theory of not a few of the Independent body in 
 England, as represented by Dr. Ilalley.^ 
 
 That the Lord's Supper, in addition to being a sign, is also a 
 seal of a federal transaction, in which the believer through the 
 ordinance makes himself over to Christ, and Christ makes Him- 
 self over with His blessings to the believer, may be satisfactorily 
 evinced from a brief review of the statements of Scripture on the 
 subject. There are four different occasions on which the Lord's 
 Supper is more especially referred to in Scripture ; and from the 
 statements made in regard to it on these occasions, it may be 
 conclusively proved that much more is attributed to the ordi- 
 nance than merely the character of a sign. 
 
 Isf, There is the description given of the nature and meaning 
 of the ordinance in connection with the history of its institution, 
 as given by the different evangelists, and educed from a com- 
 parison of them, which seems not indistinctly to intimate that the 
 Lord's Supper is more than a commemorative sign. In the 
 words of the institution, our Lord calls the cup " the New Testa- 
 ment or covenant in His blood,"" — language which can be inter- 
 preted, and apparently requires to be interpreted, so as to assert 
 a more intimate connection than any between a symbol and the 
 thing signified, between the cup drunk in the Supper and the 
 covenant of grace which secures the blessings represented. Add 
 to this, that our Lord asserts the bread to be His body, and the 
 wine to be His blood,'^ in such terms as certainly imply that the 
 one was a sign of the other, but apparently imply more than this, 
 — the words seeming to intimate a sacredness in the symbols more 
 than could belong to mere outward signs, and unavoidably sug- 
 gesting a more intimate relationship between the elements of the 
 ordinance and the spiritual blessings represented, — even such a 
 
 ^ Catech. Racov. de Prophet. Je.iu Ch'isti Mnn. cap. iii. Hoadly, Plain 
 Account of the Nature and End of the Sacrament of the Lord''s Supper, 2d ed. 
 pp. 24, 58, 164-177. Halley, the Sacraments, Lond. 1844, vol. i. pp. 94- 
 110 ; vol. ii. pp. 63 f. 227-239. 
 
 - Matt. xxvi. 28 ; Luke xxii. 20. 
 
 ^" Matt. xxvi. 26, 28 ; Mark xiv. 22-24 ; Luke xxii. 19 f. 
 
138 MATTEES WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 connection as that which would make the use of the one by the 
 worthy receiver stand connected with the actual enjoyment spiri- 
 tually of the other.^ 
 
 2t/, There is a separate account of the institution of the 
 Lord's Supper given by the Apostle Paul in the 11th chapter 
 of 1st Corinthians, in which the intimacy and sacreduess of the 
 connection between the symbols of the ordinance and the blessings 
 represented are still more strongly brought out. The "eating 
 and drinking unworthily" is represented as the sin of being 
 "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord ;" a second time it is 
 spoken of by the apostle as the guilt on the part of the unworthy 
 participator of " eating and drinking judgment to himself," — the 
 reason assigned for the heinousness of the offence being, that 
 he "has not discerned the Lord's body;" and, as a precaution 
 against the danger of such transgression, a man is commanded to 
 " examine himself " before he partake of the Supper.^ It seems 
 impossible, with any show of reason, to assert that the " discern- 
 ment" (Sia/cpicTi?) here spoken of is the mere power of inter- 
 preting the signs as representative of Christ's death ; or that the 
 " guilt " incurred is nothing more than the danger of abusing 
 certain outward symbols; or that the "examination" enjoined is 
 no more than an inquiry -into one's knowledge of the meaning of 
 the commemorative rite. All these expressions evidently j)oint 
 to a spiritual discernment and participation by the believer, not 
 of the sign, but of the blessing signified ; and to a spiritual and 
 awful sin, not of misusing and profaning outward symbols, but of 
 misusing and profaning Christ actually present in them.'^ 
 
 3f7, There is a brief but most emphatic reference to the Lord's 
 Supper in the 10th chapter of 1st Corinthians, which can be 
 interpreted upon no principle which limits the meaning of the 
 ordinance to a mere sign, but which very plainly asserts a federal 
 transaction between the believer and Christ in the ordinance, and 
 the communication through the ordinance of spiritual blessings. 
 " I speak as to wise men," says the apostle ; " judge ye what I 
 say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion 
 of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the 
 
 1 [Cf. Calvin in Inc.'] - 1 Cor. xi. 27-59. 
 
 3 Hodge, Expns. of 1st Cor. Lond. 1857, pp. 214-236. [Calvin, In Nov. 
 Test. ed. Tholuck, vol. v. pp. 379-381, 397-406. Meyer, krit. execjet. Hancl- 
 hucli ilher den erst. Korintlierbrief, 4te Aufl. pp. 267-280.] 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. III.] THE LOllD'S SUPPER. 139 
 
 communion of the body of Christ ^'"^ The koivcovlu — the com- 
 munion, or participation, or interchange, or mutual fellowship of 
 the blood of Christ and the body of Christ — cannot possibly be 
 understood of the mere signs of the body and blood, without a 
 very violent experiment practised on the language of the apostle. 
 And if " the fellowship" does not refer to the outward symbol, it 
 can only refer to the spiritual blessings represented in the ordi- 
 nance, — to Christ Himself present after a spiritual manner in the 
 Sacrament, and giving Himself to the believer, while the believer 
 gives himself to Christ, so as to establish a true koivcovlu, or 
 fellowship, or communion between them. It is hardly possible 
 with any plausibility to interpret the language of the apostle in 
 any other way than as expressive of a federal transaction between 
 the believer and Christ in the ordinance."^ 
 
 Ath, There is a lengthened discourse in the 6th chapter of the 
 Gospel by John, in which our Lord indeed makes no express 
 reference to the Supper by name, but which it is hardly possible, 
 I think, to avoid applying in its spiritual meaning to the ordi- 
 nance. In that discourse our Saviour declares Himself to the 
 Jews to be "the bread of life which came down from heaven ;" 
 He tells them that " except they eat the flesh and drink the blood 
 of the Son of man, they have no life in them;" He asserts that 
 " His flesh is meat indeed, and His blood drink indeed;" and He 
 affirms that "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, 
 dwelleth in me, and I in him."^ Whether this discourse refers 
 directly and expressly to the ordinance of the Lord's Supper or 
 not, it is quite plain that it affords, by the parallelism of the 
 language employed to that used in connection with the ordinance, 
 a key to interpret the sacramental phraseology applied to the 
 Supper. It very plainly points to a spiritual eating and drinking 
 of the flesh and blood of the Son of God, and a spiritual parti- 
 cipation, far beyond a mere fellowship in an outward and empty 
 symbol.^ 
 
 On such grounds as these, we hold that the theory which 
 explains the Sacrament of the Supper to be no more than a com- 
 memorative sign comes very far short of the Scripture represen- 
 
 1 1 Cor. X. 15 f. 
 
 2 Hodge, Expos, of Isl Cor. pp. 185-195. [Meyer, ut svpra, pp. 237-243.] 
 
 3 John vi. 32-G3. 
 
 ^ Goode, Nature of Chrhfs Presence in the Eucharist, Lond. 1856, vol. i. 
 pp. 91-120. 
 
140 MATTERS WITPI WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 tations of the ordinance ; and that nothing but the idea of a seal 
 of a federal transaction between the believer and Christ in the 
 Sacrament will come up to the full import of the observance.^ 
 
 IV. The fourth and last mark laid down by us as character- 
 istic of a sacramental ordinance, is, that it is a means of grace ; 
 and this mark also applies to the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 After what has been said, it is not necessary to do more than ■ 
 lay down this position. As the sign and seal of a federal trans- 
 action between the believer and Christ, it is plain that it must 
 be the means of grace to his soul. It presupposes, indeed, the 
 existence of saving grace on the part of the participator in the 
 ordinance ; it is a seal to him of the covenant actually and pre- 
 viously realized and appropriated by him ; but, as a seal, it is 
 fitted to add to the grace previously enjoyed, and to impart yet 
 higher and further blessing."^ What is the manner in which this 
 grace is imparted; how the Sacrament of the Supper becomes a 
 living virtue in the heart of the participator ; what is the efficacy 
 of the ordinance, — these are questions the consideration of which 
 opens up to us those further discussions to which we have next to 
 address ourselves,. While we believe that the Sacrament of the 
 Supper is an eminent and effectual means of grace, as a seal of 
 the covenant transaction represented in the ordinance, and through 
 the faith of the participator, Romanists and semi-Romanists attri- 
 bute to the ordinance a character and an efficacy which we believe 
 that Scripture does not sanction, but, on the contrary, disowns. 
 To the unscriptural views of the Supper held by the Church of 
 Rome we shall now turn our attention. 
 
 ^ [Gillespie, Aaron''s Rod Blossoming, B. iii. ch. xii. xiii. ; CXI. Propositions., 
 15-19 ; Miscell. Quest, ch. xviii. Rutherford, Dwe Pdqlit of Presbyteries, 
 Lond. 1644, pp. 625 ff. Willison, Works, Hetheringtou's ed. pp. 466-488, 
 518-522, 578-586. Waterland, Revieiv of the Doct. of the Euch. pp. 197-214, 
 424-466.] 
 
 ^ Calvin, Inst. lib. iv. cap. xvii. ; Short Treatise on the Lord''s Supper, 
 1540, Consensus Tigurinus, 1554, with the Exposition of it. Second Def. of 
 the Orthod. Faith, cuncerninf/ the Sacr. against Westjihal. 1556. Last Admon. 
 against Westphal. Tnie Partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the 
 Holy Supper, in Calviu's Tracts, Edin. 1849, vol. ii. pp, 164-579. Turrettiu, 
 Op. torn. iii. loc. xix. qu. xxi. xxii. Compare with these works Dr. Hodge's 
 very masterly discussion of the " Doctrine of the Reformed Church on the 
 Lord's Supper," Princeton Essays and Recicws, New York 1857, pp. 342- 
 ;>92. Goode, Nat. of Christ's Pres. in the Euch. vol. i. pp. 56-129, etc. 
 [Owen, Works, Goold's ed. vol. viii. pp. 560-564. Bruce, Serm. on the Sacr. 
 Wodr. Soc. ed. pp. 34-80. Edwards, Qualifications fur Communion, P. ii. sec. 
 ix. and obj. iii.-xx. ; Works, Lond. 1834, pp. 458 ff. 464-478.] 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. III.] TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 141 
 
 SECTION II. — TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 Both the Lord's Supper and Baptism are Divine appointments 
 of perpetual authority in the Christian Church. Both are out- 
 ward and sensible signs, expressive of spiritual truths ; both are 
 seals of a federal transaction between Christ and the believer 
 in the ordinance ; and both, while they presuppose the existence 
 of grace on the part of tlie receiver, are at the same time the 
 means, by the Spirit, and through the believer's faith, of adding 
 to that grace, and imparting a fresh spiritual blessing. And thus, 
 parallel as the Sacraments of the Christian Church are in their 
 nature and efficacy, they are alike also in the misapprehensions to 
 Avhicli they have been exposed. Baptism lias been misrepresented 
 as an ordinance possessed in itself of an independent and super- 
 natural virtue, apart from the spiritual state or disposition of the 
 participator, so that, ex opere operato, it infalhbly communicates 
 saving grace to the soul. And, in like manner, the Sacrament 
 of the Loi'd's Supper has been misrepresented as an ordinance 
 embodying in itself a spiritual power, and efficacious of itself to 
 impart saving grace. The full-grown and legitimate developr 
 ment of these views in regard to the Lord's Supper is to be found 
 in the principles of the Church of Rome, and in the doctrine 
 which she propounds under the name of transubstantiation. 
 
 The Romish system of belief and instruction in regard to the 
 ordinance of the Supper is briefly this. At the original institu- 
 tion of the ordinance, it is believed by the Church of Rome that 
 our Lord, by an exertion of His almighty power, changed miracu- 
 lously the bread and wine into His body and blood, His human 
 soul and His Divine Godhead ; that this supernatural change was 
 effected in connection with the words of institution uttered by 
 Him : " This is my body; this is my blood;" that in giving the 
 appearance of ordinary elements into the hands of His Apostles, 
 He actually gave Himself, including both His humanity and His 
 Divinity ; and that they really received and ate His flesh, and 
 drank His blood, with all their accompanying blessings to their 
 souls. And what was thus done in a supernatural manner by 
 Christ Himself at the first institution of the ordinance, is repeated 
 in a manner no less supernatural every time the Lord's Supper is 
 administered by a priest of Rome with a good intention.^ The 
 
 ^ [In what is called the '• Sfcotch Commuuion Office" the words of "Invo- 
 
142 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 priest stands in the place of Christ, with an office and power 
 similar to Christ's, in every case in which he dispenses the Supper; 
 the words of institution repeated by the lips of the priest are ac- 
 companied or followed by the same supernatural change as took 
 place at first : the substance of the bread and wine used in the 
 ordinance is annihilated, while the properties of bread and wine 
 remain. In place of the substance of the natural elements, the 
 substance of Christ in His human and Divine nature is truly 
 present, although under all the outward attributes of bread and 
 wine ; and those who receive what the priest has thus miraculously 
 transubstantiated are actual partakers of whole Christ, under the 
 appearance of the ordinary sacramental elements. 
 
 Under this fearful and blasphemous system there are properly 
 two grand and fundamental errors from which the rest flow ; and 
 which it is important to mark and deal with separately, although 
 tliey are intimately connected, and form part of the same revolt- 
 ing theory of the Sacrament. There is, first of all, that super- 
 natural change alleged to be wrought upon the elements by the 
 authority of the priest in uttering the Avords of institution, — 
 the transubstantiation properly so called, — by which the bread 
 and wine become not a sign or symbol, but the actual sub- 
 stance of the crucified Saviour ; and there is, secondly, and in 
 consequence of such transubstantiation, the making of the ele- 
 ments not the signs of Christ's sacrifice, but the reality of it, — 
 the bread and wine having become Christ Himself, and the 
 priest having, in so transubstantiating them, actually made the 
 
 cation" are : " "We most humbly beseech Thee, merciful Father, to bless and 
 sanctify with Thy Word and Holy Spirit these Thy gifts and creatures of bread 
 and wine, tliat they may become the body and blood of Thy most dearly beloved 
 Son." The corresponding words in the Romish missal are : " that they may 
 become to us the body and blood of Thy most dearly beloved Son " (ut nobis 
 corpus et sanguis fiant dilectissimi Filii Tui). The words of the Scotch Office, 
 therefore — as has often been pointed out — seem to majie an even more un- 
 qualified assertion of transubstantiation than those of the Romish service, — the 
 subjective element, which may be thought to be introduced by the "nobis," 
 being in the former case entirely thrown out. By the 21st canon of the 
 Scotch Episcopal Church, it is enacted " that the Scotch Communion Office 
 continue to be held of primary authority in this Church." Compare some of 
 the recent utterances of English High Churchmen: " We are teaching men 
 to believe that God is to he worshipped tinder the form of bread ; and they are 
 learning the lesson from us, which they have refused to learn from the Roman 
 teachers who have been among us for the last three hundred years," etc. Essays 
 on the Re-union of Christendom, edited by Re-v. F. G. Lee (Secretary to the 
 A. P. U. C.) ; with Preface by Dr. Pusey, 1«*7, pp. 179 f.] 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. III.] Tr.ANSUBSTANTIATION. 143 
 
 sacrifice of the Cross once more, and offered it to God. These 
 two doctrines of real transubstantiation, and a real sacrifice in 
 the ordinance of the Supper, are both avowed as fundamental 
 iu the theory of the Church of Rome ; and from these two 
 doctrines all the others connected with the subject are derived. 
 Firsts From the doctrine of the transubstantiation of the elements 
 into the actual humanity and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 there very obviously, and perhaps not unnaturally, follows that 
 other doctrine, which declares that the elements are proper objects 
 for the worship of Christians ; and hence we have the elevation 
 and adoration of the Host in connection with the Romanist 
 doctrine of the Supper.^ Second, From the doctrine that the 
 elements, transubstantiated into a crucified Saviour, become a 
 real sacrifice, and a true repetition or continuation of the offering 
 made upon the Cross, there very obviously and naturally follows 
 that other doctrine, which teaches that the ordinance procures for 
 the participator in it atonement and forgiveness of sin ; and 
 hence we have the saving grace infallibly communicated by the 
 Sacrament wherever there is a priest to dispense it, or a soul to 
 be saved by the participation of it. We shall consider, then, the 
 doctrine of the Church of Rome in connecfion with the Supper, 
 under the twofold aspect of the real transubstantiation alleged to 
 pass upon the elements, and the real sacrifice alleged to be 
 offered in the ordinance. These two points form the grand and 
 essential features of the Romanist theory of this Sacrament ; and, 
 separately discussed, will -enable us to .review all that is of chief 
 importance connected witli it. 
 
 The doctrine of transubstantiation! is thus laid down in the 
 Canons of the Council i^J' Trent x* If any shall deny that in the 
 Sacrament of the most lioly "^ii^ucjviist there is contained truly, 
 really, and substantially ■t'^iebodjrt aid blood, together with the 
 soul and Divinity of ao~ Lopd .Xtjus (Christ, and so whole Christ, 
 but shall say that lie iS'orilyin'-it'-^fe sign, or figure, or virtue, 
 let him be accursed." " If any sliall say that in the Holy Sacra- 
 
 1 [An interesting fact regarding Jolin Knox's influence in effecting the 
 change of doctrine as to transubstantiation and adoration of the elements iu 
 the English Prayer Book of 1552, as contrasted with that of 1549, is brought 
 out by Laing in his ed. of Knox's Works, vol. iii. pp. 79 f. The Scottish 
 Reformer, however, counselled the abandonment of kneeling at the Com- 
 munion altogether, instead of a mere disavowal of the Popish interpretation of 
 the attitude, p. 279. Cf. Proctor, Hit>t. of Book of Com. Prayer, pp. oO ff.] 
 
144 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [PautIII. 
 
 ment of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and 
 wine, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the 
 whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole sub- 
 stance of the wine into the blood, while only the appearances 
 (species) of bread and wine remain— which conversion the Catholic 
 Church most aptly styles transubstantiation, — let him be accursed.". 
 " If any shall say that Christ, as exhibited in the Eucharist, is 
 only spiritually eaten, and not also sacramentally and really, let 
 him be accursed."^ 
 
 This monstrous and audacious perversion of the doctrine of 
 Scripture by the Church of Rome is founded upon and defended 
 by an appeal to the literal meaning of the words of Scripture in 
 speaking of the ordinance, in contradistinction to the figurative 
 meaning of them. It is on this literal sense of the Scripture 
 language that the only argument of Romanists in support of their 
 system is built ; and, over and above an appeal to the bare lite- 
 ralities of the expressions employed, there is not the shadow of a 
 reason that can be alleged in defence of it. " It is impossible for 
 me," says Cardinal Wiseman in his Lectures on the Principal 
 Doctrines and Practices of the Catholic Chwxh, — " it is impossible 
 for me, by any commentary or paraphrase that I can make, to 
 render our Saviour s words more explicit, or reduce them to a 
 form more completely expressing the Catholic doctrine than they 
 do themselves : ' This is ray body ; this is my blood.' The 
 Catholic doctrine teaches, that it was. .Christ's bod}-, that it icas 
 Christ's blood. It would t isequently appear as though all we 
 had here to do were simp')^ atnd QKcJusively to rest at once on 
 these words, and leave tol leit-? to. shoiv reason why we should 
 depart from the literal ir irpretftt«;ion- which We give them."-^ 
 Since Romanists, then, tn]-> nv) their i.incitj'on in defence of tran- 
 
 1 Concilii Trident. Cani'n can. i. ii. viii. [Compare 
 Lateran, iv. can. i. ; Creed «;/ J 'uu J. 1 . ...,.., ,, - ,/■. jnrament. Percival, The 
 Roman Schism, Lond. 1836, pp. 132 f. xiviii.] 
 
 2 Wiseman. Lect. on the priii. Doct. and I'ract. <>f the Cath. Church, Lond. 
 1847, vol. ii. p'. 174. Bepli/ to Turton, Lend 1839,' p. 125. [The position of 
 the advocates of cou substantiation since ±ho-«feyr of the Conference of Mar- 
 burg, has been in this respect precisely identical -vtith the Romanist one. 
 " Das Subject," says Thomasius in reference to the words of institution, "ist 
 natiirliches Brod und Wein, das Priidikat aber der natiii-liche, substantielle 
 Leib, das natiirliche, weseuhafte Blut des Herrn, der Leib in dem er leibhaftig 
 vor ihnen sitzt, das Blut welches das Lebcn dieses seines Leibes ist, und das 
 er zu vergiessen im Begriff steht Die Einsetzungsworte sageu nichts 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. III.] TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 145 
 
 substantiation on the literal construction of the words employed 
 in reference to the ordinance, and on that alone, what is material 
 or essential to the argument is brought within a very narrow 
 compass indeed. That argument may be, and indeed often is, 
 encumbered with much irrelevant matter. But the main and 
 only essential point to be discussed is simply this : Are we bound 
 to interpret the Scripture phraseology employed in connection 
 with the Lord's Supper in a literal sense, as affirming that tlie true 
 body and blood of Christ are given in the ordinance ; or, do the 
 very terms of that phraseology, and the nature of the thing spoken 
 of, compel us to adopt not a literal, but a figurative interpretation? 
 This is evidently the status qutvstionis between the Romanists and 
 their adversaries in reference to the debate about transubstan- 
 tiation. Romanists never pretend to bring any argument in aid 
 of their theory of the Supper, except the argument of the literal 
 meaning of the sacramental words. This disposed of, there is 
 no other in the least available to defend their position. Is it, 
 then, j^ossible to adopt a literal interpretation of the words which 
 Scripture employs to describe the sacramental elements ? Is it 
 competent to adopt a figurative interpretation ? Is it necessary to 
 adopt a figurative interpretation? These three questions, fairly 
 answered, will embrace the whole controversy necessary to the 
 discussion of the Romanist dogma of transubstantiation. 
 
 I. It is impossible to adopt a literal interpretation of the 
 sacramental phraseology ; and this is evinced by Romanists them- 
 selves, in their own departure from i*- in the very matter under 
 discussion. 
 
 The principle of a strictly litera iterpretation of the sacra- 
 mental language of Scripture is the «' / principle which furnishes 
 J a single plea in favour of the dogm^. ■)f transubstai tiation ; and 
 yet the necessities of the language employed compel Romanists 
 
 davon, class Brod unci 'Weiu Zeicbeu oder Uuterpfiiader des Leibes und Blutes 
 Christi seien, sie gestatten auch nicht den Begriff beider umzusetzen in den 
 der Lebenshingabe iind Bhitvergiessiing, und ebeu so wenig ihu aufzuloseu in 
 den des Personlebeus des Erlosers, oder des Chrktus cum omnibus snis bonis, 
 sie sagen endlich auch uichts von eiuer manducaUo spirituaUs ; das Alios sind 
 •willkiirlicbe Ausdeutungen oder Eiutraguugen ; sonclern eiufach und bcstimmt 
 bezeichnen sie als die nx, die im heiligen Mable mitegetheilt uud enipfangen 
 ■\vird, den Leib und das Blut, und zwar den Avesenliafteu, stoffliclieu, natUrlichen 
 Leib imd das leibliche Blut des Herrn, womit selbstverstaudlich der mlin- 
 liche Genuss mitausgesagt ist." — Dogmatil; 3ter Th. 2te Abtli. Erlangen 18(31, 
 pp. 58, GO. Cf. Form. Concord, vii. 2-40, in Hase, Lib. Sijuib. pp. 597-60i.] 
 
 VOL. II. K 
 
146 MATTERS WITH WHICH CIIUECH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 to surrender that principle in its application to the very case in 
 Avhich they demand that we shall observe it. The advocate of 
 transubstantiation, by his own practice in the very matter in hand, 
 nullifies his own solitary argument. He demands from us a 
 literal rendering of the Scripture language ; and yet in the very 
 same passage of Scripture he is himself forced to adopt a non- 
 literal. Take the words of Luke as he records the first institution- 
 of the Supper, and we see at once that in these the Eomanist is 
 forced ajrain and aoain to abandon a literal, and have recourse to a 
 figurative interpretation. "And He took the cup," says the evange- 
 list, describing our Lord's action, " and gave thanks, and said. Take 
 this, and divide it among yourselves." According to the strictly 
 literal method of interpretation advocated and demanded by the 
 Romanist, it was the cup, and not the wine in the cup, that was 
 to be taken and shared by the disciples; and the Romanist is 
 obliged to adopt the non-literal rendering in this case to suit his 
 views of what occurred. Again, we find the inspired historian 
 saying, in reference to what our Lord did, " Likewise also the 
 cup after supper, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my 
 blood," — language which once more demands that the Romanist 
 shall surrender his literal, and have recourse to a non-literal 
 interpretation, so that he may not identify the vessel in which the 
 wine was contained with the New Covenant, nor transubstantiate 
 the cup into a covenant, but make the one merely a sign or 
 symbol of the other by a figurative use of the language. Once 
 more, the Romanist departs from his principle of a literal inter- 
 pretation, when the evangelist tells us that Christ spoke of His 
 blood " which is shed for you."^ At the moment of the utterance 
 of these words, the shedding of His blood was a future event, to 
 happen some hours afterwards, and not a present one, as the 
 words literally rendered would assert ; and, accordingly, the 
 Romanist has no scruple in interpreting it in a non-literal sense, 
 as indeed he is forced to do by the very necessity of the language. 
 Or, take the words of the Apostle Paul in his account of the 
 ordinance of the Supper, which he had, separately from the 
 evangelists, himself received of the Lord. Here, again, we have 
 the same use of terms which no literal interpretation will enable 
 even the Romanist to explain. The apostle, like the evangelist, 
 tells us that the words of our Lord were expressly, "This cup is 
 1 Luke xxii. 17-20. 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. III.] TllANSUBSTANTIATIOX. 147 
 
 the New Testament in my blood," — language which, interpreted 
 upon the principle of strict literality, would identify the vessel con- 
 taining the wine with the Divine covenant, and which requires, 
 therefore, even in the opinion of the Homanist, to be understood 
 figuratively.^ And, further still, the apostle, after the giving of 
 thanks by our Lord, still speaks of the elements, not in language 
 which denotes their transubstantiation, but in terms which plainly 
 declare that they were bread and wine still. " For as often as 
 ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death 
 till He come."^ In this case no literal rendering of these words 
 Avill be sufficient to reconcile them with the dogma of transub- 
 stantiation ; and even in supporting that dogma, the Romanist is 
 compelled in this passage to fall back upon an interpretation not 
 literal. We are warranted, then, by the practice of Romanists 
 themselves, in the very case of the sacramental language employed 
 in Scripture, to say that it is not possible to adhere to, or con- 
 sistently to carry out, a strictly literal interpretation.^ 
 
 11. A figurative interpretation of the sacramental language is 
 perfectly competent and possible. 
 
 It cannot be denied — and we have no occasion or wish to 
 deny it — that, as a general canon of interpretation, it is true that 
 the literal rendering of any statement made by a Avriter ought, 
 in the first instance, to be tried and to be adopted, if it be in ac- 
 
 1 Wiseman, Lectures on the Real Presence, Lond. 1836, pp. 170 f. Reply to 
 Dr. Turton, etc. Lond. 1839, pp. 239 f. 262. 
 
 2 1 Cor. xi. 25 f . 
 
 3 Turton, Rom. Catli. Doct. of the Eucharist Considered^ Camb. 1837, pp. 
 323-326. [" Twa things are necessaire and maun concur to the nature and 
 constitution of a Sacrament, to wit, there maun be a uwrd, and there maun 
 be an element concurrand — (referring to Augustin's ' accedit verbum ad 
 elementmn et fit Sacramentum,' in Joann. Tract. Ixxx. 3) ; — there is not a 
 
 sect but they grant this "We by the ' word,' as I have said, understand 
 
 the hail institution of Christ Jesus, — quhatsoever He said, quhatsoever He 
 did, or commanded to be done, — without eiking, without pairing, without 
 alteration of the meaning or sense of the word. Qnhat understandis the 
 Papists by the ' word ? ' They preach not the institution of Christ, nor takis 
 not the hail institution as He left it ; but instead thereof they select and pykis 
 out of His institution four or five words, and they make the hail vertu of the 
 institution to stand in the four or five words ; and it maid nocht gif they con- 
 tented them with thae words, because they are the words of the institution, 
 but they eike to these woi'ds, they paire frae the words, and alteris the 
 meaning of these same words quhilk they keep as they please." — Bruce, 
 Serm. on the Sacr. Wodrow Soc. ed. p. 74. Stillingfleet, Doct. and Pract. of 
 the Church of Rome, Cunningham's ed. pp. 59-61. 70 f. Goode, Nat. of 
 Christ's Pres. in the Each. vol. i. pp. 66, 71-80.] 
 
148 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 cordance with the use of words and the import and object of the 
 statement. But the necessities and use of language justify and 
 demand a figurative interpretation of terms, rather than a Kteral, 
 in manifold instances; and those instances in which words are 
 to be rendered not literally, but figuratively, must plainly be 
 determined by the nature, connection, and object of the words. 
 Now, in reference to the use of the sacramental language found 
 in the Bible, it has often been argued, and has never yet been 
 fairly met by the advocates of a literal meaning, that many similar 
 passages are to be found in Scripture iii which the same words 
 admit of, and indeed require, not a literal, but a figurative inter- 
 pretation, by the confession of all parties ; and the conclusion is 
 drawui from this, and fairly drawn, that the terms used in regard 
 to the ordinance of the Supper may be figurative too. The oc- 
 currence of such texts, demanding, as all parties allow, a figura- 
 tive or non-literal rendering, is valid and relevant evidence in 
 regard to the nature of Scripture language, and proves at least 
 this, that the words employed in reference to the Supper 7nai/ 
 admit of a figurative rendering also. This citation of parallel 
 lancfuasre does not in itself, indeed, demonstrate that the sacra- 
 mental terms onust be figurative ; but it unquestionably proves 
 that they mai/ be figurative. Cardinal Wiseman, in his discussion 
 of the doctrine of transubstantiation, gives a list of some texts 
 bearing on the question, which have been referred to by Protest- 
 ants as evidence in their favour, to the effect that the language, 
 " This is my body," " this is my blood," may be understood, not 
 literally, but figuratively. They are to the following effect : 
 
 " The seven good kine are seven years." 
 
 " The ten horns are ten kings." 
 
 " The field is the world." 
 
 " And that rock was Christ." 
 
 " For tliese are the two covenants." 
 
 " The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches." 
 
 " I am the door." 
 
 " I am the true vine." 
 
 " This is my covenant between me and you." 
 
 " It is the Lord's passover." ^ 
 In these instances, and many similar ones, it is admitted by all 
 
 1 Gen. xli. 26 f. ; Dan. vii. 24 ; Matt. xiii. 38 f. ; 1 Cor. x. 4 ; Gal. iv. 24 ; 
 Rev. i. 20; John x. 7, xv. 1 ; Gen. xvii. 10 ; Exod. xii. 11. 
 
Kiv. II. IV. Cii. III.] TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 149 
 
 parties, llomanists as well as Protestants, that the verb to he must 
 be understood in its non-literal signification, and cannot by any 
 possibiHty be understood literally. From the nature of the asser- 
 tion made, from the context, and from the manner in which the 
 terms are made use of, there is no possibihty of denying that these 
 texts are to be understood not literally, but figuratively; and 
 they seem, therefore, by this parallelism to the words employed 
 in connection with the Supper, to prove all that they were ever 
 quoted to prove, namely, that the expressions, "This is my body," 
 " this is my blood," may be understood in a figurative sense too. 
 Such texts are not quoted to demonstrate that the sacramental 
 phraseology of Scripture must be figurative ; they are only quoted 
 to prove that there is nothing in the nature of Scripture lan- 
 guage, judging by its use in similar cases, to prevent us, if the 
 nature of the statement and the context should require it, from 
 interpreting the language concerning the Supper in a non-literal 
 or figurative sense also. The nudtitude of texts closely analogous 
 in form to the phrases, " This is my body," " this is my blood," 
 and which, as all parties allow, must be understood figuratively, 
 may not indeed, taken singly, necessitate a non-literal rendering 
 in the latter case also ; but they, at the very least, authorize it, 
 should the import and (Connection of the passage make the de- 
 mand, if they do not go a step further, and of themselves recom- 
 mend a figurative interpretation. 
 
 Now, how is it that Cardinal Wiseman in his Lectures deals 
 Avith these passages, and disposes of the argument drawn from 
 them ? He bestows a vast deal of minute criticism upon them, 
 in order to show that these passages must, either from the mean- 
 ing of the statement made in each, or the sense of the context, 
 or the express assertion of the sacred writer, be accounted figura- 
 tive and symbolical ; and that, therefore, the verb to be in each 
 of these cases must be reckoned equivalent to the verb to signify. 
 And having done this, he considers he has done enough to prove 
 that the cases referred to are not parallel to the sacramental 
 language, " This is my body," " this is my blood." Now, it is 
 enough, in reference to such an argument, to say that we will- 
 ingly adopt his explanation of these passages, accounting them, as 
 he does, to be figurative, and reckoning, as he does, the verb to he, 
 when employed in such texts, as equivalent to the verb to signify. 
 And it is for this very reason that we quote them as a justification 
 
150 MATTERS WITH WHICH CIIUECH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 of our assertion, that the same verb, when employed in reference 
 to the Lord's Supper, may be equivalent there also to the verb 
 to signify. If these texts did not admit of a figurative interpre- 
 tation, and if the verb to he did not in them appear equivalent to 
 the verb to signify, we should not have quoted them, because 
 they would not have served our purpose. The reasoning of the 
 Cardinal is certainly a singular specimen of an attempt at logical 
 argument. I shall give it in his own words : " Suppose," says 
 he in his Lectures, " suppose I wish to illustrate one of these pas- 
 sages by another, I should say this text, ' The seven kine are 
 seven years,' is parallel with ' The field is the world,' and both of 
 them with the phrase, ' These are the two covenants ; ' and I can 
 illustrate them by one another. And why ? Because in every 
 one of them the sayne thing exists ; that is to say, in every one of 
 these passages there is the interpretation of an allegorical teaching, 
 — a vision in the one, a parable in the second, and an allegory in 
 the third. I do not put them into one class because they all 
 contain the verb to he, but because they all contain the same thing. 
 They speak of something mystical and typical, — the interpretation 
 of a dream, an allegory, and a parable. Therefore, having ascer- 
 tained that in one of these the verb to he means to represent, I 
 conclude that it has the same sense in the others ; and I frame 
 a general rule, that wherever such symbolical teaching occurs, 
 these verbs are synonymous. When, therefore, you tell me that 
 ' this is my body ' may mean ' this represents my body,' because 
 in those passages the same word occurs with this sense, I must, in 
 like manner, ascertain not only that the word to he is common to 
 the text, but that the same thing is to be found in it as in them ; 
 in other words, that in the forms of institution there was given 
 the explanation of some symbol, such as the interpretation of a 
 vision, a parable, or a prophecy . . . Until you have done this, 
 you have no right to consider them all as parallel, or to interpret 
 it by them." ^ 
 
 The objection here urged by Cardinal Wiseman seems to 
 amount to this, that we have quoted passages which, by the nature 
 of the statement they contain, or by the context, or by the direct 
 assertion of the writer, are plainly demonstrated to be figurative, 
 while the sacramental expressions, "• This is my body," " this is 
 my blood," are not so demonstrated to be figurative. The answer 
 ^ Wiseman, vol. ii. p. 186. 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. III.] TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 1 51 
 
 is obvious. We do not quote such texts to prove that the terms 
 of the sacramental institution must be understood figuratively, 
 but to prove that they mai/ be understood figuratively ; to demon- 
 strate that there is no bar in the shape of Scripture usage in the 
 way to prevent us from interpreting them figuratively, if it is 
 necessary. We are prepared to prove, by the very same means 
 as the Cardinal employs, — by the nature of the statement itself, 
 by the context, and such like considerations, — that the sacramental 
 terms are figurative, just as Cardinal Wiseman proves that the 
 words, " This cup is the New Testament," are to be understood 
 figuratively, or as these other terms, " The seven kine are seven 
 years," must be interpreted figuratively. The very nature of the 
 statement itself proves it to be a statement to be understood, not 
 in a literal, but a figurative sense. We interpret the expression, 
 "The seven kine are seven years," in a figurative sense, not be- 
 cause these words occur in the interpretation of a dream, — for 
 both the dream and the interpretation may be embodied in words, 
 literal, and not figurative, — but because the very nature of the 
 proposition and the sense of the context necessitate it, it being 
 impossible that the seven kine can be literally seven years. Again, 
 we interpret, and so does Cardinal Wiseman, the expression, 
 " This cup is the New Testament," not literally, but figuratively, 
 for a similar reason, — that the very nature of the proposition, and 
 the sense of the context, demand a non-literal rendering ; and in 
 like manner we interpret the expression, " This is my body," 
 " this is my blood," not literally, but figuratively, for the very 
 same reason, because the very nature of the proposition, and the 
 sense of the context, necessitate such an interpretation.^ The 
 citation of other passages of Scripture in which the verb to be is 
 used for the verb to represent or signifi/, is had recourse to in the 
 argument simply to prove that the usage of Scripture language 
 
 1 [" Diess Toyro," says Meyer, commenting on 1 Cor. xi. 24, " kann gar 
 nichts anderes heissen als ; diess gehrochene Brod da., und damit ist san als die 
 Copula des symbolischeu Seins zu fassen geboten.^'' So too, Martenseu, repre- 
 senting though he does the High Church Lutheran doctrine of the Sacraments: 
 " Gegen diese Verwaudlungslehre, welche die naturhcheu Elemeute zu eiuem 
 leeren Schein verfliichtigt und dem Reiche der Natm- zu nahe tritt um das der 
 Guadc zu verherrlichen, protestirt die ganze evangelische Kirche, und behauptet 
 die naturliche Selbststiindigkeit der sinnlichen Zeicheu. ' Brot ist Brot, und 
 Wein ist \Yein,' ist nur Sinnbild vom Leibe und Blute Christi. In diesem Siune 
 als Verwerfung der Transsubstantiation bekennt sich die ganze evangelische 
 Kirche zu Zwmgli's ' diess bedeutet.' " — Dogmatik, 4te Aufl. p. 370] 
 
152 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part IIT. 
 
 does not forbid, but countenances such a kind of interpretation. 
 And the numerous texts already referred to are botli relevant and 
 sufficient to accomplish that object.^ 
 
 III. A figurative interpretation of the sacramental language, 
 " This is my body," " this is my blood," is not only possible and 
 competent, but necessary. 
 
 In no other way can we ever discriminate between figurative . 
 and literal terms, whether scriptural or non-scriptural, whether 
 used by inspired or uninspired men, than by a reference to the 
 nature of the proposition which the language embodies, to the 
 sense of the context, and to the object of the speaker or writer ; 
 unless in those exceptional cases in which he directly tells us that 
 he is to be understood in the one way or in the other. Very 
 seldom indeed, in regard to language not meant to deceive, is it 
 difficult to understand, from a consideration of these points, 
 whether it is to be interpreted figuratively or not. In the case of 
 the Lord's Supper, the words employed in reference to the ele- 
 ments could have presented to the disciples who heard them no 
 difficulty at all. The ordinance was grafted upon the passover, 
 with the figurative language and actions of which the Apostles, as 
 Jews, were abundantly familiar; and this circumstance alone 
 must have familiarized their minds with, and prepared them for 
 the figurative meaning of the words and elements in the Supper. 
 Above all, the nature of the proposition, " This is my body," 
 " this is my blood," interpreted by the commentary of our Lord, 
 " This do in remembrance of me," and understood in the light of 
 His accompanying actions and words, renders it nearly impossible 
 that they could believe that a miracle had been wrought on the 
 bread and wine, and that the body and blood, soul and Divinity 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ, then present to their eyes, could be at 
 the same instant contained under the appearance of the morsel 
 of bread and the mouthful of wine that they ate and drank. 
 Nothing but the " strong delusion that believes a lie " can 
 lead any man who reads and understands the simple narrative of 
 Scripture, to deny that the interpretation of the sacramental 
 phraseology employed must be figurative, and not literal.' 
 
 There are two attempts commonly made by Romanists to 
 explain away the impossibility of the Apostles, — or indeed any 
 
 ^ Turton, Rom. Cath. Dnct. of the Ench. Considered, pp. 259-288. 
 2 Turtou, ut supra, pp. 289-SOS. 
 
Div. ir. IV. Cii. III.] TRANSUBSTANTIATIOX. 153 
 
 other man not wholly blinded by spiritual delusion, — believing in 
 the literal interpretation of the sacramental words that refer to 
 the Supper. 
 
 Isf, The power of Christ to work a miracle, like that which is 
 alleged to have been wrought in the case of the bread and wine, 
 is asserted ; and it is averred that the Apostles could not doubt 
 the supernatural ability of their Lord and Master, so often in 
 other days exerted before their eyes. " What," asks Dr. "Wise- 
 man, " is possible or impossible to God ? What is contradictory to 
 His power ? Who shall venture to define it further than what 
 may be the obvious, the first, and simplest principle of contradic- 
 tion, — the existence and simultaneous non-existence of a thing? 
 But who will pretend to say that any ordinary mind would be 
 able to measure this perplexed subject, and to reason thus : ' The 
 Almighty may indeed, for instance, change water into wine, but 
 He cannot change bread into a body?' Who that looks on these 
 two propositions with the eye of an uneducated man, could say 
 that in his mind there was a broad distinction between them, 
 that wdiile he saw one effected by the power of a Being believed 
 by him to be omnipotent, he still held the other to be of a class 
 so Avidely different as to venture to pronounce it absolutely im- 
 possible ? . . . . Now, such as I have described were the minds 
 of the Apostles, — those of illiterate, uncultivated men. They had 
 been accustomed to see Christ perform the most extraordinary 
 Avorks. They had seen Him walking on the water. His body 
 consequently deprived for a time of the usual properties of matter, 
 — of that gravity which, according to the laws of nature, should 
 have caused it to sink. They had seen Him, by His simple word, 
 command the elements and raise the dead to life, etc. Can we, 
 then, believe that with such minds as these, and with such evi- 
 dences, the Apostles were likely to have words addressed to them 
 by our Saviour, which they were to interpret rightly, only by the 
 reasoning of our opponents,' — that is, on the ground of what He 
 asserted being philosophically impossible?"^ 
 
 It is hardly necessary to reply to such an argument as this. 
 In the first p/ac^, tlie miracles with which the Apostles were 
 familiar had no analogy whatsoever to the stupendous wonder of 
 transubstantiation. Those miracles were appeals to the senses in 
 
 ' Wiseman, Lectures, vol. ii. pp. 205 f. [Thomasius, Doijmuiik, Ster Tli. 
 2te Abtli. p. 61 f.] 
 
154 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III, 
 
 proof of truths not seen ; and they were tested by the senses, as 
 things to be judged of by them all. The so-called miracle of tran- 
 substantiation is no appeal to the senses, but the reverse,— a thing 
 not to be tested by the exercise of any one of them, if it were 
 possible, and a thing denied by any one of them, because impos- 
 sible.^ If it were a possible thing, it would subvert the very 
 principle on which our perceptions are made to us by God the 
 primary source of our beliefs, and the foundation of truth to us ; 
 and it would cause the very instincts which His hand has laid 
 deep within our inmost being to be to us a lie. The conversion 
 of water into wine at that marriage supper in Cana of Galilee of 
 old was a wonder seen by the eye, and in agreement with the 
 evidence of the senses, because the properties, first of the water, 
 and afterwards of the wine, were seen and judged of by all. The 
 conversion of the bread into the bod}^ of the Lord, while yet the 
 properties of bread remain, is a wonder that contradicts the evi- 
 dence of our senses, and involves an impossibility. 
 
 In the second place^ even Cardinal Wiseman himself admits 
 that there are impossibilities in the nature of things, not compe- 
 tent even for Almighty power to accomplish. Such an impos- 
 sibility, according to his own statement, is the " existence and 
 simultaneous non-existence of a thing ; " and side by side with this 
 one limitation, which, upon the authority of Dr. Wiseman, is to be 
 put even upon the power of God, we may put another limitation, 
 and that upon higher authority than his : " God cannot deny 
 Himself."- In that revelation which He has given to us in our 
 instinctive and primary perceptions of sensible things, and in that 
 other revelation which He has given to us in His Word, God, who 
 is the Truth, cannot contradict Himself.^ 
 
 ^ [Compare Tillotson's famous sermon on tlie subject.] 
 
 2 2 Tim. ii. 13. 
 
 ^ ["Now qulieu the Papists are dimg out of this fortress (the impossi- 
 bility of a figurative interi^retation), they flee as unhappily to a second, to wit, 
 that God, by His omnipotency, may make the body of Christ baitli to be 
 in heaven and in the bread, baith at ae time ; enjo^ say they, it is so. Gif I 
 denied their consequent, they would be well fashed to prove it ; but the ques- 
 tion stands not here, quhether God maii do it or not, but the question stands 
 quhether God loill it or not, or may will it or not. And we say, reverently. 
 His majesty may not will it; for suppose it be true that He maij mouie 
 things quhether He will or not, yet it is as true that there are monie things 
 that He may not will : of the quhilk sort this is ; and thir are reduced to twa 
 sorts. Firsts He may not will these things that are contrare to His nature, 
 as to be changeable, to decay, and sic others. . . . Secondly^ God may not 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. III.] TRANSUBSTANTIATIOX. 155 
 
 2d, An attempt is made by Romanists to identify, as one and 
 the same in principle, the dogma of transubstantiation and wliat 
 are called the mysteries of revelation. " What," says Cardinal 
 Wiseman, "becomes of the Trinity? What becomes ^of the in- 
 carnation of our Saviour? What of His birth from a virgin? 
 And, in short, what of every mystery of the Christian religion?"^ 
 It will be time enough to answer such questions as these when it 
 is proved that such mysteries contradict our rational nature, in the 
 same manner as the dogma of transubstantiation contradicts our 
 perceptive nature. Such mysteries as those referred to are above 
 our reason, but not against it. They are beyond the powers of 
 our rational nature fully to understand, but not contradictory to 
 our rational nature so as to be inconsistent with it. The argu- 
 ment in defence of transubstantiation, drawn from such a source, 
 is but one example out of many that could be quoted, of the com- 
 mon tactics of Romish controversialists, who are but too often 
 prepared to hand over to the unbeliever the most sacred truths 
 which the Scripture has recorded, rather than not make out a 
 plea for their own superstitions."' 
 
 will some tliiugs by reason of a presuppoued condition, as sic things quhereof 
 He has concluded their coutrair of before : of the quhilk sort is this, quhilk is 
 now controverted. For seeing that God has concluded that all human bodies 
 suld consist of organical parts, and therefore to be comprehended and circum- 
 scrived within ae and the awiu proper place, and also seeing He has appointed 
 Christ Jesus to have the like body, and that not for ane time, but eternallie, 
 in respect of this determined Avill, I say, God may not will the contrair now, 
 either to abolish this body quhilk He has appointed to be eternal, either yet 
 to make it at ae time, in respect of ae thing, a body and not a body, quanti- 
 fied and not quantified, finite and infinite, local and not local. For to will 
 thir things quhilk are plain contradicent in themselves He may not, na mair 
 nor it is possible to Him to will a lie." See the remarks which follow on the 
 nature of the miraculous, embodying very much Bishop Butler's view of the 
 question as given in his Analogy. — Bruce, Serm. on the Sacr. p. 86 f.] 
 
 ^ Wiseman, Lectures, vol. ii. p. 209. 
 
 2 Calvin, Inst. lib. iv. cap. xvii. 12-23. Turrettin, Op. loc. xix. qu. xxvii. 
 Jewel, A lleplie unto M. Uardingelf Answeare, Lond. 1565, Art. v.-xii. pp. 
 316-477. Cosiu, Hist, of Popish Iransnbstantiation, Lond. 1676. Faber, 
 CImsfs Discourse at Capernaum fatal to the Doct. of Transuhst. Lond. 18-10. 
 Goode, Nat. of Christ's Pres. in 'the Euch. Lond. 1856, vol. i. pp. 130-224. 
 [Stillingfleet, Doct. and Pract. of the Church of Rome, Edin. 1837, pp. 55-77. 
 See especially the full references to the literature of this subject given by Dr. 
 Cunningham in his notes to the above work. Essaj/ on 2'ransub.ttantiation in 
 the Princeton Essays, 1st Series, Edin. 1856, pp. 866-385. Bruce, Serm. on 
 the Sacr. Wodrow Soc. ed. pp. 74-96. Reuss, Histoire de la Theologie Chre- 
 tienne au Siecle Apostoli(pte, 3me ed. Strasbourg 1864, torn. i. i^p. 244-246, 
 tom. ii. 191 f.] 
 
156 iMATTERS WITH WHICPI CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 SECTION III. — THE DOCTRINE OF THE " REAL PRESENCE" AND 
 THE PRIESTLY THEORY. 
 
 Witli tjie dogma of transubstantiation, as held by the Church of 
 Rome, stands very closely connected the question as to the manner 
 in which Christ is present in the ordinance of the Supper. The 
 doctrine of the " real presence" of Christ in the Sacrament has, 
 more almost than any other in theology, been made the subject 
 of prolonged and bitter controversy. By the Church of Rome, 
 as we have seen, the real presence of Christ is explained to be 
 the true and actual existence of the body and blood, the soul and 
 Divinity of the Saviour, under the sensible appearances of bread 
 and wine ; so that in the elements Christ is as much present after 
 a bodily sort, in consequence of their transubstantiation, as He 
 ever was present to His disciples of old in the days of His flesh. 
 By the Lutheran Church, the real presence of Christ in the 
 ordinance is maintained, not upon the principle of such a change 
 in the substance of the elements into Christ's body and blood as 
 contradicts the testimony of our senses, but, rather upon the sup- 
 position that the bread and wine remaining the same, the real 
 body and blood of Christ are nevertheless united to them in some 
 mysterious manner, so as to be actually present with them, and 
 actually received along with them, when they are partaken of by 
 the communicant. By our own Church, as well as by many 
 other Protestant communions, the real presence of Christ in the 
 Sacrament is asserted on the ground that He is not in a bodily 
 manner present in the substance of the elements, nor yet in a 
 bodily manner mysteriously present with the elements, but only 
 spiritually present to the faith of him who receives the ordinance 
 in faith.^ 
 
 ^ [" In defending the monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation, Papists 
 commonly begin with proving the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, 
 which no Protestant Church ever denied, — the dispute being, not as to the 
 reality, but the mode of the presence of Christ ; Papists holding that He is 
 present in a corporal and carnal manner to the senses of all communicants, 
 and Protestants, that He is present in a sj)iritual manner to the faith of worthy 
 receivere. Having established the real presence, they then either assert, as 
 Dr. Milner does, that Protestants do not hold it, and of com-se are in error 
 upon this point ; or acknowledging, as Bossiiet does, that they do hold it, try 
 to show that this requires them, in consistency, to admit the Poi^ish doctrine 
 of transubstantiation. The latter is the course commonly adojated by Popish 
 controversialists." — Cunningham, Notes on Stillingjleefs Doct. and Pract. of 
 the Church of Rome, p. 61).] 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. III.] THE REAL PRESENCE. 157 
 
 The influence of the fierce and frequent controversies waged 
 in connection with the nature and efficacy of the Lord's Supper 
 shortly after tlie date of the Keformation, and the disposition on 
 the part of Luther, and the Churches affected by liis influence, 
 to depart as httle as possible from the established phraseology of 
 the ancient Church on the subject of the Sacrament, served to 
 introduce, or to continue in theological discussions, a language 
 somewhat exaggerated, and occasionally almost unintelligible, in 
 regard to this question. Such, undoubtedly, was the phrase " con- 
 substantiation," used by some of the Lutherans to express the 
 mysterious corporeal presence of Christ, not in, but with, or under, 
 or somehow in connection with the elements ; and such also was the 
 phrase " impanation," employed by others to elucidate, or rather 
 to obscure, the doctrine of the manner in which Christ's bodily 
 presence is connected wath the sacramental bread. And I cannot 
 help thinking that, under the power of very much the same in- 
 fluences, the term " real presence " has not unfrequently been 
 employed and explained, even by orthodox divines, in such a way 
 as to give a somewhat exaggerated and mysterious aspect to 
 the connection subsisting between Christ and the Sacrament. 
 That phrase has occasionally been employed in association with 
 such language as to leave the impression that Christ was present 
 in the Supper, not spiritually to the faith of the believer, and not 
 corporeally to the senses of the communicant, but in some indefi- 
 nite manner between the two, and after a sort mysterious and 
 peculiar to the Sacrament of the Supper. Such language seems 
 to have no warrant in the Word of God. 
 
 The Scriptures give us no ground to assert that Christ is 
 present in the Sacrament of the Supper in a manner different 
 from that in which He is present in the Sacrament of Baptism. 
 I do not speak at present of the extent of the blessing or of the 
 grace which He may impart in the one or the other Sacrament 
 by His presence ; I speak only of the manner of His presence. 
 There is nothing, I think, in Scripture to warrant us in affirming 
 that the manner of Christ's presence in the Supper is in itself unique 
 or peculiar, or indeed in any respect different from the manner of 
 His presence in Baptism, or any other of His own ordinances. 
 In all of these He is present, after a spiritual manner, to the faith 
 of the participator in the ordinance, and in no other way.^ The 
 
 ^ " Romanists, Lutherans, and Reformed," says Dr. Ilodge, in comment- 
 
158 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 blessings which that presence may impart may be different in 
 different ordinances, and may be more or less in one than in 
 another. But there is nothing in the Word of God which would 
 lead us to say that the real presence of Christ in any of His 
 ordinances, whether sacramental or not, is anything else than 
 Christ present, through his Spirit and power, to the faith of the 
 believer. Such promises as these — " Lo, I am with you alway, 
 even unto the end of the world ; " " Where two or three are met 
 together in my name, there am I in the midst of you;" " Behold, 
 I stand at the door and knock : if any man hear my voice, and 
 open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and 
 he with me;"^ and such like — plainly give us ground to affirm 
 that Christ, through His Spirit, is present in His ordinances to the 
 faith of the believer, imparting spiritual blessing and grace. But 
 there is nothing that would lead us to make a difference or dis- 
 tinction between the presence of Christ in the Supper and the 
 presence of Christ in His other ordinances, in so far as the manner 
 of that presence is concerned. The efficacy of the Saviour's 
 presence may be different in the way of imparting more or less 
 of saving grace, according to the nature of the ordinance, and the 
 
 ing on 1 Cor. x. 16, "all agree that a participation of the cup is a participation 
 of the blood of Christ ; and that a participation of the bread is a participation 
 of the body of Christ. But when it is asked, what is the nature of this par- 
 ticipation, the answers given are radically different. The Reformed answer 
 negatively, that it is " not after a corporal or carnal manner ;" that is, it is 
 not by the mouth, or as ordinary food is received. Affirmatively they answer, 
 that it is " by faith," and therefore by the soul. This of course determines 
 the nature of the thing partaken of, or the sense in which the body and blood 
 of Christ are received. If the reception is not by the mouth, but by faith, 
 then the thing received is not the material body and blood, but the body and 
 blood as a sacrifice, i.e. their sacrificial virtue. Hence all Reformed Churches 
 teach (and even the rubrics of the Church of England) that the body and 
 blood of Christ are received elsewhere than at the Lord's Table, and without 
 the reception of the bread and wine, which in the Sacrament are their symbols 
 and the organs of communication, as elsewiiere the AVord is that organ. 
 Another point, no less clear as to the Reformed doctrine, is, that since the 
 body and blood of Clmst are received by faith, they are not received by 
 vmbelievers." [It is remarkable, as the same author has pointed out in his 
 Essays, p. 350, that the Anglican Confessions, the Articles of 1552 and 1562, 
 are decidedly more Zwiuglian in tone and expression with regard to the 
 Lord's Supper than the standards of any other of the Reformed, as distin- 
 guished from the Lutheran Churches. This comes out unmistakeably on con- 
 trasting the articles with the other Calvmistic confessions, among which they 
 stand in Niemeyer's collection. In whatever way it is to be accounted for, 
 the fact is at least a curious one, especially considering the numerous High 
 Church expositions, to which the formularies in question have been subjected.] 
 ' Matt, xviii. 20, xxviii. 20 ; Rev. iii. 20. 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. III.] THE REAL PRESENCE. 159 
 
 degree of the believer's faith. But the manner of that presence 
 is the same, being reahzed through the Spirit of Christ, and to 
 the faith of the behever. The Sacramentarian controversy has 
 tended in no small measure to introduce into the language of 
 theology, in connection with the " real presence," an ambiguity 
 of thought and statement, not confined to Romanist, or even 
 semi-Romanist divines.^ 
 
 But, passing from that part of the Popish theory of the Supper 
 which refers to the alleged change produced on the elements by 
 transubstantiation, and to the manner of Christ's presence in the 
 ordinance, I go on to consider the other part of the Popish 
 theory of the Supper which refers to the office of the minister- 
 ing priest in the Sacrament, or his power to offer the body 
 and blood of Christ, actually present, as a true sacrifice for 
 
 1 " Archdeacon Denison," observes Dean Goode, in his very able and valu- 
 able -work on the Nature of Chrisfs Presence in the Euchai-ist, " supposes that, 
 by calling the presence he holds a spiritual presence, he distinguishes it from 
 the presence implied both by the doctrine of transubstantiation and consub- 
 stantiation. But they who hold these doctrines maintain as much as he does, 
 that the presence is a spiritual presence ; meaning that Christ's body is really 
 present in the form of a spirit (see pp. 593 f.) This interpretation of the 
 phrase Archdeacon Denison adopts, and seems in. fact acquainted with no 
 other. He has thus turned the spiritual eating of Christ's flesh, which our 
 divines maintain, meaning an act of the soul, into the hodih/ eatin;/ of ChrisVs 
 fesh, present in the form of a spirit, and thus involved himself in aU the 
 absurdities pointed out by all our divines, who have treated dogmatically on 
 the point, as attending such a notion. The controversy might perhaps be 
 almost wholly summed up in one brief question : Is the reception of the true 
 body and blood of Christ an act of the body or of the soul, of the mouth, or 
 of faith ? On one side, those who hold the doctrine of the presence of that 
 body and blood in, with, or under the forms of the elements, maintain that 
 the reception is an act of the body, the soul of the believer feeding upon 
 them by faith, after that reception. On the other side it is maintained that 
 there is no such presence in the consecrated substances themselves, and that 
 the reception is an act of the soul, an act of faith. The term " real presence" 
 is used by both parties. By the former it is used to describe their doctrine 
 as denoting an actual j^reseuce of the body of Christ, though in an mvisible 
 and immaterial form to the bodies of men, in the consecrated substances 
 received into the mouth. The latter also use the phrase, inasmuch as they 
 maintain that the presence of that body to the soul, to influence and invigo- 
 rate it, is as real, spiritually considered, as a local presence of it to our 
 bodies, — just as Augustin says that the woman that only touched the border 
 of Christ's garment, touched Him by faith more than the crowd that pressed 
 upon Him ; and as Bishop Jewel says, ' The thing that is inwardly received 
 in faith and in spirit is received verily and indeed.'" — Nett. of Christ's Pres. in 
 the Euch. Lond. 1856, vol. i. pp. vi. ix. 11-55, etc., vol. ii. 641-749, etc. 
 "Wilberforce, Doct. of the Hohj Euch. 3d ed. pp. 76-95, 130-152, 221-231. 
 Hodge, Princeton Ess. and Rev. New York 1857, pp. 358-370. [Turrettin, 
 Op. loc. xix. qu. xxviii. Thomasius, Dogmatik, 3ter Th. 2te Abth. pp. 50 if. 
 87-107. Bp. E. H. Browne, Expos, of the Thirty-nine Art. 8th ed. p. 680.] 
 
IGO MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 sin. The first grand error in tlie Popish doctrine of the Lord's 
 Supper is the monstrous figment of the trausubstantiation of the 
 elements ; the second, intimately connected with the first, and 
 perhaps yet more extensive and mischievous as an error in its 
 practical bearings, is the doctrine of the power of the Church, in 
 the ordinance of bread and wine, to offer a true and efficacious 
 propitiation to God, both for the living and the dead. The sacri- 
 fice of the mass is founded upon, and very closely connected with, 
 the dogma of trausubstantiation, — in some^ sort following as an 
 inference from the assumption that the priest stands in Christ's 
 stead at the Communion Table, and, by a supernatural power not 
 inferior to Christ's, changes, by the utterance of the words of in- 
 stitution, the elements of bread and wine into the actual body 
 and blood, soul and Divinity, which were once the sacrifice offered 
 up for this world upon the Cross. In the performance of this 
 supernatural and mysterious office, which, according to its own 
 theorj^, it is given to tlie Church of Eome to discharge, we see 
 both the priest and the sacrifice, — the priest, acting as mediator 
 between God and the people, offering a true satisfaction to God 
 for sin, and promising remission and reconciliation ; and the 
 sacrijice presented to God, real and efficacious, because in fact 
 the very same sacrifice, in its substance, of the flesh and blood 
 of Christ, as He Himself once made and presented, and not less 
 availing in its mighty virtue to propitiate God, and procure sal- 
 vation for the sinner. A real office of priesthood, and a real 
 offering of sacrifice, are the two features that characterize this 
 second portion of the Popish theory of the Sacraments. Both 
 are asserted, and both are essential in the sacrifice of the mass, 
 which has been grafted on the dogma of trausubstantiation, and 
 both form integral parts of that monstrous system of sacerdotal 
 usurpation by which the Church of Eome seeks to build up her 
 spiritual tyranny. The position, then, laid down by the Church 
 of Pome in comiection with the subject of the mass, may be con- 
 veniently discussed under these two heads : first, the claim which 
 she makes to possess and exercise the office of a true priesthood : 
 and second, the power that she arrogates to make and offer a truo 
 sacrifice to God. Peserving the second of these points for future 
 consideration, we shall now proceed to deal with the claim put 
 forth by the Church of Pome to hold and exercise the office of a 
 real priesthood. 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. m.] THE PRIESTLY THEORY. IGl 
 
 This claim runs through the doctrine and practice of the 
 Popish Church in all its departments, and is not restricted to the 
 case of its views in connection with the Supper. The priestly 
 office and sacerdotal pretensions are recognised in almost every 
 branch of its administration as a Church, and, indeed, are funda- 
 mental to the system. But the priesthood which it pretends to 
 exercise towards God and on behalf of man is perhaps developed 
 most prominently and conspicuously in connection with its doctrine 
 of the Lord's Supper. The question is one that lies at the very 
 root of the difference between the Popish and Protestant systems, 
 and on that account is of more than ordinary interest and im- 
 portance. 
 
 The doctrine of a real priesthood residing in the Christian 
 ministry, more especially in connection with its chief function of 
 offering the sacrifice of the mass, is thus stated by the Council of 
 Trent : " Sacrifice and priesthood are so joined together by the 
 ordinance of God that they existed under every dispensation. 
 Since, therefore, under the New Testament the Catholic Church 
 has received the holy visible sacrifice of the Eucharist by the 
 institution of the Lord, it is necessary also to confess that there 
 is in it a new, visible, and outward priesthood into which the old 
 has been transferred. Now the sacred writings show, and the 
 tradition of the Catholic Church has always taught, that this was 
 instituted by the same Lord our Saviour, and that a power was 
 given to the Apostles, and their successors in the priesthood, of 
 consecrating, offering, and administering His body and blood, and 
 also of remitting and retaining sins." " If any shall say that 
 by these words, ' Do this in remembrance of me,' Christ did not 
 appoint the Apostles to be priests, or did not ordain that they and 
 other priests should offer His body and blood, let him be accursed." 
 " If any shall say that the sacrifice of the mass is only one of 
 praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice 
 accomplished upon the Cross, but not propitiatory ; or that it only 
 profits him who receives it, and ought not to be offered for the 
 living and dead, for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities, 
 — let him be accursed." ' 
 
 1 Concilil Trident. Canones et Decreta, Sess. xxiii. cap. i. ; De Instit. Sacerdot. 
 Nov. Leg. Sess. xxii. ; De Sarrijicio Mlssie. can. ii. iii. Cf. Bellarni. Di^piit. 
 torn. iii. Pars 2 ; De Eucharislid, lib. i. cap. ii., lib. iii. cap. i.-xi., lib. v. cap. 
 xvii. XX ; Amcsius, Belhirm. Enerv. torn. iii. lib. iv. cap. i.-iii. ix. IG, 21. 
 
 VOL. II. L 
 
162 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 Amid the other errors contained in tliese statements by the 
 Council of Trent, what we have chiefly to do with at present is 
 the claim which is put forth on behalf of the Church of Rome 
 and her ministers to hold and exercise the office of priesthood in 
 the same sense as, ceremonially, the priests of a former dispensa- 
 tion did so ; Avith power now, not ceremonially, but really, to act 
 as priests in the absence of Christ in heaven, and truly to offer 
 sacrifice to God for sin. The question in regard to such a claim 
 is this : Have we any warrant to believe that a visible and ex- 
 ternal priesthood has been established in the New Testament 
 Church, with powers to act as mediators between God and man, 
 and offer the propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead ; 
 or has the office of priesthood which ■ existed under a former 
 economy no longer an existence now in the Gospel Church, there 
 being none on earth authorized or qualified to undertake it, — the 
 one Priesthood, in the end of the world for sin, having completed, 
 its work on earth, and the Priest who held the office having re- 
 turned to heaven to continue it there I This is a vital and fun- 
 damental question, not only in order to enable us to form an 
 estimate of the real character of the system of Romanists, but 
 also because it enters so essentially into the principles held by 
 High Churchmen of other denominations. 
 
 I. The existence of a priesthood as a standing ordinance in 
 the Christian Church is inconsistent with the fact that such an 
 office was abrogated with the Jewish economy, and necessarily 
 came to an end when that dispensation gave place to the Gospel 
 economy. 
 
 An earthly priesthood was an ordinance appointed for a 
 special purpose and a special time ; and the purpose having been 
 served, and the time past, it is necessarily at an end. The 
 priestly office, and the institution of sacrifice with which it stands 
 inseparably connected, formed part of that instrumentality by 
 which, for thousands of years, God prepared this world for the 
 coming and the death of His own Son as its Saviour. First of 
 all, it was the father of the family who was ordained the priest to 
 offer the sacrifice for the rest, and to approach unto God on be- 
 half of his household ; the members of which drew near to God, 
 and worshipped, and were accepted only through him. Such 
 seems to have been the practice in patriarchal times, and ap- 
 parently not without the appointment, or at least the sanction, of 
 
Div. ir. IV. Cn. 111.] THE TRIESTLY TIIEOEY. 1G3 
 
 God. The father of the family, as well as the divinely ap- 
 pointed sacrifice he offered, thus in a general and distant way 
 represented Christ as the medium whereby sinners might approach 
 to God in worship. But the patriarchal institute was too general 
 and vague a type of the One Mediator through whom alone, 
 when fully revealed, men were to find access to God. Accord- 
 ingly it was done away with, and another institute was ordained 
 in its place, with priests specially set apart to the oflfice of media- 
 tors between God and the people, and with more special authority 
 given, and more distinct provision made for them to be the 
 media through whom the rest were to present their worship and 
 sacrifices, and themselves to make their approach to God and find 
 acceptance. Under the Mosaic ritual, it was no longer lawful for 
 the sinner himself directly to approach to God with his own 
 offering of worship or sacrifice ; it was no longer lawful for the 
 sinner even to draw near with his sacrifice unto God through the 
 head of the family, as under the patriarchal institute. The 
 avenue of approach to God was, step by step, narrowed and 
 restricted. First, the father of the family was marked out and 
 selected as the recognised priest and mediator for the rest. Next, 
 a further limitation took place, and the priest of Aaron's line was 
 specially appointed to stand in the stead of the whole families of 
 the nation in their approach to God ; and strict provision was 
 made — and guarded by the most solemn penalties — that no man 
 should venture to present the sacrifice himself, or to worship 
 except through the media of this one commissioned priesthood. 
 The thousands of Israel were restricted in their legal worship 
 to the one avenue, and forbidden to draw near to the Holy One 
 of Israel except through the one mediation of the earthly priest 
 of Aaron's lineage. 
 
 And why was it that this earthly priesthood was thus marked 
 off from all the rest, and the other worshippers made dependent on 
 the one appointed priest of Aaron's house ? And why were men 
 forbidden to approach to God directly and immediately them- 
 selves, or even indirectly through any other but this one mediator ? 
 The answer is obvious. The priesthood was so restricted, and so 
 fenced about with solemn limitations, in order that it might be a 
 type of Christ, "the one Mediator between God and man." 
 From age to age, and from step to step, the worshippers of God 
 under the old economies were more and more shut up to the idea 
 
164 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 and the practice of approaching the Most Higli God only through 
 the channel of one Priesthood and the person of one High Priest. 
 The typical priests and priesthoods of former dispensations led 
 men's hearts and habits to fix upon the one Mediator through 
 whom alone we now draw near to God. They taught the wor- 
 shippers to anticipate and to hope in that one Man, who is now the 
 Priest, not of one family, as in patriarchal times, nor of one nation, 
 as in Jewish times, but the Priest through whom all the families 
 and all the nations of the world draw nigh to God. The earthly 
 priesthoods of the former days of the Church all converged upon 
 and pointed to and centred in Christ. With Christ, therefore, 
 those priesthoods came to an end. The type was merged in the 
 Antitype, and then was done away. The priests of other days, 
 together with the sacrifices which they offered, have served the 
 object designed by them, and are abolished. They can, from the 
 very nature of their office, have no use, and no meaning, and no 
 place in a Church to which another and a higher priesthood has 
 been given, and when the sign has given place to the thing that 
 was signified. The office of the priesthood on' earth ceased with 
 the former dispensation ; and not only is there no re-appointment 
 under the Gospel of such an order of men in the Church, but 
 they would, from the very place and office that they occupied, be 
 inconsistent with the Gospel economy. They formed part and 
 parcel of a typical system which has been abolished. 
 
 II. The existence of a priesthood as a standing ordinance in 
 the Christian Church is inconsistent with the privileges of be- 
 lievers under the Gospel. 
 
 It is not unfrequently argued by the advocates of Romanist 
 or semi-Romanist principles on this subject, that the privilege of a 
 human priesthood and a human mediatorship is one so great and 
 precious that it cannot be conceived to exist, as we know it did, 
 under the earlier and far inferior dispensation, and yet to be 
 awanting under the later and far better dispensation of the 
 Gospel. The presence of an earthly priesthood, it is urged, must 
 be enjoyed by the Church now, inasmuch as it cannot be sup- 
 posed to be deprived of one of the highest privileges which be- 
 longed to the former and less I'ichly endowed Church of the Old 
 Testament.^ 
 
 1 [" The inspired prophets," says Bishop Jolly (Scotch Episcopal), " fore- 
 tell the liappy accession of the Gentiles to the fold of Christ, and to the 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. III.] THE TRIESTLY TIIEOllY. 165 
 
 A comparison Let^Yeen the superior advantages of the Gospel 
 Church, as measured by those of the Jewish, is the very con- 
 sideration which, instead of proving that a human priestliood is 
 continued to us now, most emphatically demonstrates that it is 
 abrogated. The presence and office of a human priesthood, 
 enjoyed by worshippers under the law, are far surpassed by the 
 higher and more glorious privileges enjoyed by believers under 
 tlie Gospel. No doubt it was an act of grace and condescension 
 on the part of God, to permit sinners to approach His presence 
 through the avenue of a visible priesthood and a visible sacrifice 
 in former times, even although that boon was granted to them 
 under solemn and jealous restrictions ; and it was a great and 
 precious privilege for the worshipper to be allowed to draw near 
 to the mercy-seat through means of a human mediator, and by 
 the intervention of a material offering. But the privilege of 
 Christians in the New Testament Church is better and more 
 glorious still. Through Christ a new and living way has been 
 opened up for all to draw nigh to God, not indirectly through a 
 human mediator, but directly, each man for himself. The whole 
 brotherhood of believers are no longer dependent upon one of 
 themselves for the liberty or opportunity of access to the common 
 Father ; and without distinction of special office, it is the freedom 
 purchased for all, without earthly priest or earthly intercessor 
 interposed, to go with boldness into the very holiest. The pre- 
 sence of an earthly and external priesthood, is no evidence of 
 superior privilege, but the reverse. It is the mark of an imper- 
 fect and carnal dispensation. 
 
 That it was necessary for the worshipper to employ the inter- 
 vention of another than himself in order that he might approach 
 to his Creator, — that a sinner should be dependent on another 
 sinner for pardon or access to heaven, — that he should not dare 
 to engage his heart to draw near to God except through the 
 medium of a human priesthood, — were strong arguments to prove 
 
 benefits of His sacrifice for the sins of the world, by means of a sacrifice and 
 altar similar to what had prevailed among the Israelites, but of more ex- 
 tensive compass and reach." (In proof of this, the author cites the usual texts 
 — Isa. xix. 19-23, Ixvi. 21, Jer. xxxiii. 18, and Mai. i. 11.) " Levi still 
 continues, and is perpetuated in his sacerdotal ministry ; the high priest, 
 priests and Levites of the law still in effect subsisting in the Bishops — all 
 considered as only one (!) — with the priests and deacons." — Christian Sacri- 
 fice in the Eucharist, 2d ed. pp. 24, 26. Wilberforce, On the Incarnation, p. 
 386, etc.] 
 
166 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [PartIH. 
 
 the essential imperfection of tliat dispensation which witnessed 
 such things, and constituted a yoke of bondage which it was 
 hard to bear. And what it was when the sons of Aaron by 
 God's own appointment were the human priests and mediators, 
 that it is now in the case of those Churches who bind upon their 
 own necks the institute of a human priesthood, and then boast of 
 it as their exclusive distinction and privilege. It is a spiritual 
 yoke that is too heavy to bear ; it is a retrogression from the 
 freedom wherewith under the Gospel Christ has made His people 
 free ; it is a badge of the voluntary thraldom and debasement of 
 a Church that has itself gone into bondage to men, instead of 
 maintaining the liberty of Christ the Lord. The restriction of 
 approaching God only through the earthly priest in the local 
 temple at Jerusalem, and by the blood of bulls and goats, — the 
 prohibition forbidding the sinner to draw near to the mercy-seat 
 directly himself, or through any other medium, — those were 
 evidences of essential imperfection in the Church state of the 
 worsliippers under a former economy. And the human priest- 
 hood of the Church of Rome, — the material sacrifice made and 
 offered for the worshippers, — the priest standing between the 
 sinner and God, and barring or opening the way of approach, — 
 the mediator acting as the medium of communication between 
 the Most High and His creatures, and retaining or remitting 
 their sin, — these, too, are restrictioils, and, because human and 
 unauthorized, daring and impious restrictions, upon the freeness 
 of God's grace and the liberties of His redeemed people. 
 
 It is a fact of much significance, and indeed of decisive force 
 in tliis argument, that throughout the whole of the New Testament 
 Scriptures there is no instance in which either the name of priest, 
 or the functions belonging to the office of priesthood, are ascribed 
 to the ministers of the Christian Church ; that the only examples 
 of the use of the term are those in which it is given, not to the 
 minister, but to the people ; and that the ascription of the privi- 
 leges of the office is uniformly made to the members at large. 
 On the one hand, the term iepev;, or "priest," is never in any 
 single instance in the New Testament applied to a minister of the 
 Christian Church, although always made use of to designate the 
 priest of the Aaronic dispensation. The usual name given to the 
 minister of the New Testament Church is irpea^\)Tepo<i, — the 
 change of designation marking very decisively the change in the 
 
Div. II. IV. Ch. III.] THE PRIESTLY THEORY. 1C7 
 
 nature of the office.^ On tlie other hand, on the only occasions 
 on which the word lepev^ is used in the New Testament in refer- 
 ence to any except a Jewish priest, it is given to the members of 
 the Christian Church at hirge, and not to tlie ministers of that 
 Church. In the Book of EeveLation, behevers are spoken of as 
 "kings and priests to God;" and in the first Epistle of Peter 
 they are described as a " royal priesthood."^ The name formerly 
 appropriated to the sons of Aaron, selected and anointed from 
 among the rest of the congregation to be priests to God, is not 
 inherited by the ministers of the Christian Church in the same 
 exclusive manner, but, on the contrary, is applied in an enlarged 
 and extended sense to the whole body of believers. More than 
 this : the privilege enjoyed by the priests of old, of alone of all 
 the worshipping assembly drawing near to God without the inter- 
 vention of any other, is a privilege uniformly represented in the 
 New Testament as not peculiar to the ministers of the Church, 
 but extended now to all its members, and common to all believers. 
 The office peculiar to the minister of the Christian Church is 
 described at large in the New Testament Scriptures, and is a 
 " ministry" or " service " unto others (SiaKovta, \ecToupyia), not a 
 mediatorship on behalf of others. It is spoken of as an office 
 of " ministering," " preaching," " exhorting," " ruling," amid the 
 flock of, Christ, not an office of sacrificing, and making recon- 
 ciliation, and approaching to God as the mediator on behalf of 
 the rest, and becoming the avenue for the access of their persons 
 or worship to the Divine presence. On the contrary, this privi- 
 lege of approaching directly to God without the intervention of 
 any substitute or proxy on earth, is a privilege which is expressly 
 attributed to all believers as their personal right: so that, if in 
 any sense there are priests now on earth, those priests are the 
 believing people of God at large ; and if in any sense there are 
 priestly sacrifices now offered up, they are the spiritual sacrifices 
 of the prayer and praise of Christians, without distinction of office 
 or place in the Church. The sacerdotal theory on which the 
 Church system of Rome is built, and the priestly office which is 
 so conspicuously developed in her practice as regards the Lord's 
 
 1 [" in truth, tlic word Prcshjter doth seem more fit, and, in propriety of 
 speech, more agreeable than Priest with the drift of the whole Gospel of 
 Jesus Christ." — Hooker, Eccles. Pol. B. v. ch. Ixxviii. 4.] 
 
 2 Rev. i. G : 1 Pet. ii. 5-9. 
 
168 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [PaetIII. 
 
 Supper, are utterly repugnant to the spirit of the New Testament 
 Church, and to the privileges which it has secured to believers. 
 The privilege of a human priesthood, which existed under the 
 law, is abolished under the Gospel ; or rather, in its spirit and 
 substance, the privilege is enlarged and extended to all believers 
 under the New Testament Church. It was the peculiar and 
 distinctive prerogative of the priests under the law, that they alone 
 of all the worshippers drew near to God without a human medi- 
 ator. That prerogative is common to all the royal priesthood of 
 believers under the Gospel. 
 
 III. The existence of an earthly priesthood as a standing 
 ordinance of the Christian Church is inconsistent with the one 
 office of Christ as the Priest and Mediator of His people. 
 
 Earthly priest the New Testament Church has none. The 
 very name is blotted out from the inspired history of the Church 
 under the Gospel in its application to any office-bearer within its 
 pale ; and it is found, in so far as it can now be found on earth, 
 only in connection with that spiritual and universal priesthood 
 which belongs alike to all true believers, who have equally the 
 privilege of free approach to God, equally the anointing which 
 makes them His people, and equally the consecration that sets 
 them apart for His service. In any other sense than this, there 
 is no priest in the Christian Church on earth. The material 
 sacrifice made by men has ceased, the incense kindled by men 
 no longer burns, the atonement presented by men is no more 
 offered up. The Gospel is a religion without a priest on earth, 
 without a sacrifice, and without an altar. And yet there is a 
 priesthood that belongs to the Christian Church still ; and there 
 is a Priest who yet discharges that office on behalf of His people. 
 " We have a great High Priest that hath passed into the heavens 
 for us," — not a mortal and dying man, but one " of whom it is 
 Avitnessed that He liveth for ever,"^ — not a priest who offers, as 
 did the sons of Aaron of old, the typical sacrifices of blood, or, 
 as the ministers of Rome do now, the pretended sacrifices of an 
 unbloody offering of bread and wine, — but one who, once for all, 
 offered up a Divine yet human sacrifice for men, — not an inter- 
 cessor, who, like the high priest under the law, entered into 
 God's presence with the blood of bulls and goats, nor yet like the 
 priest of the Papacy with a consecrated wafer, — but an Intercessor, 
 ^ Heb. iv. U, vii. 8. 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. III.] THE PRIESTLY THEORY. 169 
 
 who, with His own precious and more than mortal blood, has 
 passed into the presence of God, — an Intercessor, the Son of 
 God, presenting the offering of Himself without spot or blemish, 
 and pleading for us on the ground of His meritorious sacrifice. 
 And this office which the Sou 'of God now discharges in heaven 
 for His Church passes not from Him to any other {airapa- 
 jBarov i'^ei rrjv lepcoavvrjv.y His is an unchangeable and undying 
 Priesthood ; and He ever liveth to make intercession for His 
 people. The office which He sustains and discharges in heaven 
 is His own incommunicable office, which none save Himself has 
 either the right or the power to discharge. The one Priest that has 
 made the sacrifice and offered it to God for the sins of many, — 
 there was none that could share with Him in that mighty and 
 mysterious work. The OJie Priest to stand between God and a 
 sinful world, — there was none but the Son that could undertake 
 so to approach unto the Most High. The one Priest to intercede 
 with an offended God for the guilty, — there was none but the equal 
 of the Father that could so plead. The one Priest to dispense 
 unto men throughout all ages the blessings of redemption and 
 grace, — there is none equal to the task but He " in whom dwelleth 
 all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Alone in His office as in 
 His nature, unapproachable in His work as in His greatness, " He 
 abideth a Priest for ever," — the ever-present and ever-living 
 Mediator, who has no fellow to share in His priestly functions, 
 and whose glory as Mediator He will not give unto another. 
 
 And what shall we say of those Church systems, Romanist 
 and semi-Romanist, that give to mortal men that office of Priest 
 which none can bear but the Son of God, and constitute sinners 
 mediators on earth between their fellow-sinners and the Almighty? 
 Such an encroachment upon His incommunicable office touches 
 very nearly the honour of Christ. The assumption by men of 
 His personal and inalienable prerogatives, inseparable from Plim- 
 self as Mediator, is a dishonour done to Him in that very charac- 
 ter in which He stands forth supreme and alone before the eyes 
 of the universe. The very title of Mediator belongs in the 
 Christian Church to none but One, and He the only-begotten 
 Son of the Father. Our lips are now forbidden to name another 
 Priest but Jesus. Even in the Old Testament Church, the name 
 and the office of the Priest had something in them of awful and 
 1 Heb. vii. 24. 
 
170 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 mysterious import, typical as they were of the fuhiess of the 
 Gospel day, and of the greatness of the Gospel JMediator, and 
 fenced about, as we know them to have been, with the solemn 
 and irrevocable sentence of death upon those who should unwar- 
 rantably assume or encroach upon them. And still more awful 
 are that name and office of Priest, now that in these latter days 
 they have been sustained by the Son of God Incarnate, and 
 mysteriously sanctified by the shedding of that more than mortal 
 blood which was poured out on Calvary, and which He still day 
 by day presents in heaven, as He continually pleads with the 
 Father there. To stand between God and man, as Christ once 
 stood amid the darkness of Calvary, was a work which none but 
 He could do. To stand between God and man, as Christ now 
 stands, a Priest in heaven no less than on earth, is a work which 
 none but He can accomplish. To bear the burden of such an 
 office now is as little competent to mortal man as it was to bear 
 the burden of it in the Garden, or at the Cross. The name of 
 Priest between God and man is Christ's inalienable and incommu- 
 nicable name, — whether He bears the anger of an offended Judge, 
 or pleads with the compassion of a reconciled Father, — whether 
 He makes, as He once did, atonement by sacrifice, or makes, as He 
 noio does, intercession by prayer. It is the sin above others of the 
 Church of Rome, that it has assumed to itself that name of Priest, 
 which none in heaven or in earth is worthy to bear but the Son of 
 God, and that its ministers pretend to stand between the creature 
 and the Creator in the exercise of His priestly office among men.^ 
 
 SECTION IV. — THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS, AND OTHER FORMS 
 OF THE SACRIFICIAL THEORY. 
 
 The claim to the possession of a real priesthood, and to the 
 power of making and presenting to God a real propitiatory sacri- 
 fice, is fundamental to the theory of the Church of Pome, and is 
 
 1 Litton, Church of Christ, Lond. 1851, pp. 599-657. Garbett, Bampton 
 Lectures, 1842, vol. i. j^p. 169-228. [See also Luther's vigorous and com- 
 prehensive treatment of the question of the imiversal priesthood of believers, 
 which is a very favourite subject with him, in his three great works of the 
 year 1520, — his Letter, " An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation," his " De 
 Captivitate Babylonica," and " De Libertatc Christiana." Calvin, Inst. lib. 
 iv. cap. xviii. 13-17. Owen, Works, Goold's cd. vol. xiii. pp. 19-28, vol. xix. 
 pp. 3-259. Gerhard, Loci Theolog. loc. xxiii. cap. i. 14-16. Arnold, Frag- 
 ment on the Church, 2d ed. pp. 15-46. Goode, Rule of Faith, Lond. 1842, vol. 
 ii. pp. 166-170.] 
 
Div. II. IV. Cir. III.] THE SACRIFICIAL THEORY. 171 
 
 one of tlie great pillars on which its spiritual strength leans. The 
 right to stand between God and man in the character of mediator, 
 to exercise the priest's office in place of Christ on the earth, to 
 negotiate as man's intercessor with God, and to arrange the terms 
 of his acceptance or condemnation, to make and offer the sacrifice 
 which alone can avail unto justification of life, to retain or remit 
 sin, to give or withhold saving grace, — in short, the claim to the 
 sacerdotal office lies at the very foundation of the Popish system. 
 This one principle of a priestly power existing in her ministry, 
 accompanying all their, administrations, and sanctifying all their 
 acts, runs through the whole details of the Church system of Rome, 
 and is the grand secret of very much of its success. We see it 
 fully and conspicuously developed in connection with the Eomish 
 doctrine of the Supper, and as the foundation of the sacrifice of 
 the mass. But it is not confined to that one department of 
 the Popish Church system. The sacerdotal principle pervades it, 
 more or less, throughout its entire range ; and the Church of Rome 
 has thus added to its many sins the one emphatic sin of usurping 
 the place of Him who has an unchangeable priesthood in heaven 
 and on earth, and of seizing out of His hands the powers that He 
 wields as " Priest for ever." But great and awful though the 
 sin be of arrogating the place and prerogatives of the one High 
 Priest of His people, it is yet a sin which pays its price to the 
 Church that commits it, in the spiritual prestige that it confers, 
 and the spiritual authority that it brings along with it. A sense 
 of the need of some mediator between the sinner and an offended 
 God, a feeling of the absolute necessity of a priest and intercessor 
 for a fallen creature, to negotiate the terms of his pardon and 
 acceptance, can hardly ever be rooted out from the guilty con- 
 science. And the Church of Rome, when it ventures to arrogate 
 to itself on earth that very office which guilty nature needs, and 
 succeeds in its perilous claim to be regarded as the only priest and 
 intercessor between sinners and God, establishes for itself a 
 spiritual dominion over the souls of its victims, greater and more 
 absolute than any other dominion in this world.^ And hence the 
 tenacity with which the Romish Church clings to the claim of a 
 
 1 [" Then that feast of free grace and adoption to whicli Christ invited 
 His disciples to sit as brethren and co-heirs of the happy covenant, which at 
 that table was to be sealed to them, even that feast of love and heavenly- 
 admitted fellowship, the seal of filial grace, became the subject of horror and 
 
172 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS, [Part IH. 
 
 priestly or sacerdotal office, inseparably connected as it is with 
 some of the most monstrous and incredible pretensions, with tlie 
 dogma of transubstantiation, with the claim to forgive sin, which 
 none but God can do, with the pretence of making and present- 
 ing a Divine and propitiatory sacrifice to the Almighty. 
 
 In spite of the explicit abrogation of the office with the abro- 
 gation of the Old Testament dispensation ; in spite of the palpable 
 inconsistency of the office with the spirit of the Gospel, and the 
 privileges of believers ; and, worse still, in spite of the inconsist- 
 ency of the office with the sole priesthood of Christ, the Church 
 of Rome ordains each one of her ministers to be a priest, and in- 
 vests him with the power and authority of an earthly priesthood. 
 It needs must be that a priest have a sacrifice to present unto 
 God. "This man must of necessity have somewhat to offer." 
 And having ordained, as she alleges, a real priest, the Church of 
 Rome proceeds to put into his hands a real sacrifice, and gives him 
 warrant to offer it to God for the sins of the living and the dead. 
 
 The doctrine of the Church of Rome on this vital point is laid 
 down in such a manner in her authorized formularies that it is 
 impossible to explain it away. The Council of Trent has defined 
 it in such terms, that the attempts made by more modern Romanists 
 to soften down the atrocious dogma of the real offering-up of the 
 sacrifice of the Lord, body and blood, soul and Divinity, in the 
 Sacrament by the priest, are in vain.^ Speaking of " the institution 
 of the most holy sacrifice of the mass," the Council declares that 
 it is " a visible sacrifice, as the nature of man requires, by which 
 
 glouting adoration, pageanted about like a dreadful idol ; which sometimes 
 deceives well-meaning men, and beguiles them of their reward by their volun- 
 tary humility, which indeed is fleshly pride, preferring a foolish sacrifice and 
 the rudiments of this world, as St. Paul to the Colossians exjDlaineth, before 
 a savoury obedience to Christ's example. Such Avas Peter's unseasonable 
 humility, as then his knowledge was small, when Christ came to wash his 
 feet, who at an impertinent time would needs strain courtesy with his Master, 
 and falling troublesomely upon the lowly, all-wise, and unexaminable intention 
 of Christ, in what He went with resolution to do, so provoked by his inter- 
 ruption the meek Lord, that He threatened to exclude him from his heavenly 
 portion, unless he could be content to be less arrogant and stiff-necked in his 
 humility." — Milton, Prose TForLs, Lond. 17o3, vol. i. p. 2.] 
 
 ^ [" The mass is the great Diana of the Popish priests, the craft by which 
 mainly they have their living, and they will never renounce it; but some 
 Papists have shown a great desire to explain away the doctrine of the Comicil 
 of Trent upon this point. Bossuet, in his Exposition, ch. xiv. {Doct. Cath. 
 Expositio, Antwerpise 1G<80, p. 145), explains the sacrifice of the mass in such a 
 way as to exclude the idea of its being a propitiatory sacrifice, and in substance 
 resolves it into the intercession of Christ personally present on the altar under 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. DL] THE SACRIFICIAL THEORY. 173 
 
 tliat bloody one, once to be accomplished on the Cross, might be 
 represented, and the memory of it remain even unto the end of 
 the Avorld." And with this statement, expressive of the represen- 
 tative or commemorative character of the ordinance, the apolo- 
 gists of the Church of Eome, whose desire is to conceal the real 
 doctrine held by her on this subject, very often terminate their 
 quotation, as if the Council of Trent held it to be no more than 
 a symbolical sacrifice in memory of Christ's. But that this is not 
 the case, the words of the Council's definition leave us no room to 
 doubt. It proceeds : " For after the celebration of the old pass- 
 over, which the multitude of the children of Israel sacrificed in 
 memory of their departure from Egypt, Christ instituted a new 
 passover, even Himself, to be sacrificed by the Chiu'ch through 
 the priests under visible signs (Seipsum ab Ecclesia per sacerdotes 
 sub signis visibilibus immolandum), in memory of His departure 
 out of this world unto the Father, Avhen by the shedding of His 
 
 the appearances of bread and wine. He says that ' it wants nothing to be a 
 true sacrifice,' — a statement snfiiciently cantious, but which, in the first or sup- 
 pressed edition of his work, was thus expressed : ' it may be very reasonably 
 called a sacrifice.' He swore at his ordination that it was not only a true, but 
 a proper and propitiatory sacrifice. . . . Another attempt has been made by 
 Popish controversialists to escape from the doctrine to which they are all 
 sworn, thus betraying a consciousness that that doctrine is, in its plain honest 
 meaning, incapable of defence. It is set forth in Prof. Brown's Supplement to 
 the Downside Discussion, 1836, p. 44 f., as affording a conclusive answer to 
 Protestant objections. It is in substance this, that a sacrifice may be called 
 propitiatory in two different senses : first, as being actually satisfactory to 
 Divine justice, and paying the price of our redemption ; and second, as making 
 application to ns of the benefits purchased by Christ. In the first sense, 
 the death of Christ on the Cross is the only propitiatory sacrifice, and it is 
 only in the second sense that the mass is called by that name. But this is 
 evidently a mere evasion. To say that the benefits of one sacrifice are applied to 
 us by means of another sacrifice of a different kind, is surely very like nonsense. 
 A propitiatory sacrifice, in the fair and honest meaning of the words, can be 
 nothing else than a sacrifice which expiates sin, by satisfying Divine justice and 
 paying the price of our redemption. If the Council of Trent taught merely 
 that the Lord's Supper is one of those means of grace by which the benefits 
 purchased by Christ's propitiatory sacrifice are applied to men individually, 
 no Protestant would object to it ; but if this had been their meaning, they 
 would never have defined the mass to be a propitiatory sacrifice, wliich, 
 according to the established use of language, ascribes to it a far higher efii- 
 cacy. The great body of Popish writers are in the habit of asserting, in 
 accordance with the decrees of the Council of Trent, that the sacrifices of the 
 Cross and of the mass are one and the same sacrifice ; but if it be true, as 
 the pretence which we are exposing impHes, that the sacrifice of the Cross 
 is a propitiatory sacrifice in one sense, and that the sacrifice of the mass is not 
 a propitiatory sacrifice in the same, but only in a different sense, then surely 
 they cannot possibly be one and the same sacrifice." — Cunningham, in Notes 
 on htillinrjjleeC s Doct. and Pract. of the Church of Home, p. 213 ff.] 
 
174 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHUPX'H POWER D ALS. [Part HI. 
 
 blood He redeemed us and snatched us from the power of dark- 
 ness, and translated us into Plis kingdom." " And since in this 
 Divine sacrifice, which is performed in the mass, that same Christ 
 is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who on the 
 altar of the Cross once offered Himself with blood, the holy 
 Synod teaches that that sacrifice is, and becomes of itself, truly 
 propitiatory; so that if with a true heart and right faith, with fear, 
 and reverence, we approach to God, contrite and penitent, we may 
 obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. Where- 
 fore the Lord, being appeased by the offering of this, and grant- 
 ing grace and the gift of repentance, remits crimes and sins, even 
 great ones. For it is one and the same victim, — He who then 
 offered Himself on the Cross being the same Person who now 
 offers through the ministry of the priests, the only difference being 
 in the manner of offering (Una enim eademque est hostia, idem 
 nunc offerens sacerdotum ministerio, qui Seipsum tunc in cruce 
 obtulit, sola offerendi ratione diversa)." And, once more : " If any 
 shall say that the sacrifice of the mass is only one of praise and 
 thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice which was 
 made upon the Cross, but not propitiatory ; or that it only profits 
 him who receives it, and ought not to be offered for the living 
 and the dead, for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities, 
 — let him be accursed."^ 
 
 There are two things in regard to the doctrine of the Church 
 of Rome put beyond all dispute or cavil by these statements. 
 First, it is Christ Himself transubstantiated into the elements, and 
 corporeally present in the Sacrament, that is offered up by the 
 priest as a real sacrifice. It is utterly impossible for Komanists 
 to escape from this dogma so long as the language of Trent re- 
 mains uncancelled. No attempt can succeed to give it a mystical 
 or symbolical meaning, and soften down the authoritative asser- 
 tion of the Council, that in the Supper there is a real sacrifice 
 of Christ Himself by the priest. Eomish controversialists may 
 indeed adopt different modes of explaining how the sacrifice o^ 
 the mass stands related to the sacrifice of the Cross. Some oi 
 them, like Harding the Jesuit, in his reply to Bishop Jewel, 
 may plainly and unhesitatingly assert " that Christ offered and 
 sacrificed His body and blood twice, — first in that holy Supper, 
 
 1 Concil. Trident. Caiiones et Decreta, Scss. xsii. ; De Inst. SS. Missx 
 Sacrijicii, cap. i. ii. can. iii. 
 
Div.II.IV.Cii. III.] THE SACRIFICIAL THEORY. 175 
 
 unblooclily, when He took bread in His hands and brake it, and 
 afterwards on tlie Cross with shedding of His blood." ^ Others 
 of them, Hke jSIohler, in his Symbolism, with a view to make the 
 doctrine less palpably inconsistent with Scripture, may assert 
 another form of it, and maintain that there are not two sacrifices, 
 but one, and that the sacrifice of the Supper constitutes a part of 
 that sacrifice which Christ offered on the Cross; or, to use Mohler's 
 own language, " Christ's ministry and sufferings, as well as His 
 perpetual condescension to our infirmity in the Eucharist, con- 
 stitute one great sacrificial act, one mighty action undertaken out 
 of love for us, and expiatory of our sins, consisting, indeed, of 
 various individual parts, yet so that none by itself is, strictly speak- 
 ing, tlie sacrifice." " The will of Christ to manifest His gracious 
 condescension to us in the Eucharist, forms no less an integral 
 part of His great work than all besides, and in a way so necessary, 
 indeed, that whilst we here find the whole scheme of redemption 
 reflected, without it the other parts would not have sufficed for 
 our complete atonement." ^ But however Romanists may choose 
 to explain it, — whether as a repetition of the sacrifice of the Cross, 
 or a continuation of it, — the Supper is unquestionably, according 
 to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, a real sacrifice, made up 
 of Christ's body and blood. And second, this real sacrifice is truly 
 propitiatory in its nature, having virtue in it to satisfy Divine 
 justice, and to constitute a proper atonement for sin. These two 
 doctrinal positions are clearly and undeniably laid down by the 
 Council of Trent, and in such a manner that Romanists cannot 
 evade them. And it is certainly one cause of thankfulness, and no 
 small one, that the Council of Trent was overruled by Divine Pro- 
 vidence to put this and other of the monstrous tenets of Romanism 
 into such a dogmatic and articulate form, that it is now utterly 
 impossible for the Church of Rome to deny or escape from them. 
 What, then, are we to say to the real sacrifice asserted by the 
 Church of Rome, a true propitiation to God for sin, repeated day 
 after day by countless priests who have authority and power to 
 make and offer it ? 
 
 ^ Jewel, A Beplie unto M. Hurdmge''s Answear, Loncl. 1565, p. 5Gi. [For 
 some of the methods of evading the legitimate consequences of the sacrificial 
 theory, which have been in use from Harding's time to our own, see the same 
 work, art. xx. pp. 593-598. Cf. Goode, Rule of Faith, vol. ii. pp. 173 ff.] 
 
 2 Mohler, SymhoUsm, Robertson's Trausl. 2d ed. vol. i. p. 337. ISymholik, 
 6te Aufl. p. 307.] 
 
176 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 I. The doctrine of the Church of Kome is in direct contra- 
 diction to the doctrine of Scripture, which declares that there is 
 one Priest, and no more than one under the Gospel. 
 
 " Sacrifice and priesthood," say the Fathers of the Council 
 of Trent, "are so joined together by the ordinance of God, that 
 they existed under every dispensation." ^ There can be no doubt 
 that the statement is correct in this sense, that wherever there is 
 a sacrifice, there must be a priest to offer it, and wherever there 
 is a priest, he must of necessity have a sacrifice to offer. '^ And 
 hence, as part of the sacrificial theory of the Supper and essential 
 to it, the ordination by which the Church of Rome sets apart 
 persons for the work of the ministry includes, as its main and 
 characteristic feature, a commission not to preach the Gospel and 
 to dispense its ordinances, but to make and offer sacrifices to God 
 for the souls of men. Hers is mainly and distinctively an order 
 of priests, and not an order of ministers, — a succession from age 
 to age of sacrificers and intercessors, and not of preachers. 
 And thus her system is distinctively opposed to the system of 
 Scripture, which points to one Priest, and forbids our lips to 
 name a second in the Gospel Church. The argument of the 
 last section might be sufficient, without further illustration, to 
 establish this. But the point is so vital, and it is brought out 
 with such power and effect by the Apostle Paul, that I cannot 
 help adverting to his statements on this subject. 
 
 The grand design of that magnificent exposition of the doctrine 
 of Christ's office and nature and work in the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, is to prove that, far above and beyond the mediators 
 and priests under the law, Christ was the one Son and the one 
 Priest of God, in a way and manner altogether exclusive and 
 peculiar, and such as to contrast Him with all others who ever, 
 in any secondary sense, bore these names. In regard to the 
 priesthood more especially, there were under former dispensations 
 two orders of priests, with one of which the apostle compares our 
 Lord, with the other of which the apostle contrasts Him ; and 
 
 ^ Sess. xxiii. cap. 1. 
 
 2 ["If we deny," says Dr. Jolly, "that there is any proper material 
 sacrifice in the Christian Church, we pull down proper priesthood, and open 
 a door to Sociuianism . . . While the Cliurch of England retains the Christian 
 priesthood, she retains by implication the Christian sacrifice ; for every priest 
 must have somewhat to offer, sacrifice and priesthood being correlative terms ; 
 they stand or fall together." — The Christ, ^ac. in the Each. 2d ed. p. 139.] 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. III.] THE SACRIFICIAL THEORY. 177 
 
 both the comparison and the contrast serve to bring out more 
 distinctly the singular and exclusive character that He bears as 
 the Priest of God, who has neither partner nor successor in the 
 office. There was, according to the apostle, a priesthood after 
 the order of Melchisedec, and there was a priesthood after the 
 order of Aaron. With the priesthood after the order of Melchi- 
 sedec our Lord is compared. There was room in that order for 
 but one Priest, and no more than one ; and for this reason, as 
 stated by the apostle, " He abideth a Priest continually." In the 
 office that he held He had no predecessor, and He had no suc- 
 cessor. Melchisedec stood alone in the typical order that bears 
 his name ; and the more surely and distinctly to mark out this 
 singularity of his position, we are told, with respect to his office, 
 that he was "fatherless, motherless, ungenealogied, having neither 
 beginning of days nor end of life " {airajcap, d/jbrjToyp, ayeveako- 
 'yrjTO';, fjurjTe dp')(r]V rjfxepoov /irjre ^(orj^ reXo? i'^cov)} And such 
 as the type was, so is the Antitype. The Lord Jesus Christ 
 was "made a Priest after the order of Melchisedec;" and, like 
 that of His type. His office is singular and exclusive ; He knows 
 neither predecessor nor successor in it ; having not only in His 
 Divine nature, but in His mediatorial character, " neither begin- 
 ning of days nor end of life." None went before, and none shall 
 come after this Priest ; or, as the apostle expresses it. His office is 
 one " that passeth not from Him to any other." "^ The comparison 
 instituted between our Lord's priesthood and that of Melchisedec 
 demonstrates that He is the one Priest, with none to go before or 
 succeed Him in that character. 
 
 But again, with the priesthood of Aaron that of our Lord is 
 contrasted by the apostle ; and the contrast serves to bring out 
 in like manner the very same grand doctrine. In that priesthood 
 there were not 07ie, but many priests, following each other in 
 rapid succession. The mortal and dying men who inherited the 
 blood and the office of Aaron " were not," as the apostle tells us, 
 "suffered to continue by reason of death." ^ One after another 
 passed away in swift succession, so that in the not lengthened 
 period of the Aaronic Church there were truly " mcini/ priests^^ 
 following each other rapidly in office, as ever and anon death 
 removed them from beside the altar where they sacrificed and 
 interceded. With them our Lord is contrasted, and not com- 
 1 Heb. vii. 3. ' Heb. vii. 24. 3 Heb. vii. 23. 
 
 VOL. II. M 
 
178 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 pared in this respect. " This man, because He continueth ever, 
 hath an inichangeable priesthood." " He is consecrated for ever- 
 more." He is endued with " the power of an endless life," and 
 " ever liveth to make intercession for His people." ^ Compared 
 with the order of Melchisedec, and contrasted with the order of 
 Aaron, our Lord is emphatically marked out as the one Priest of 
 God, who can have none to follow, even as He had none to go. 
 before Him in His office. And the many priests, anointed day 
 by day continually, and succeeding each other in rapid succession 
 in the Church of Eome, are most decisively declared to be incon- 
 sistent with His one glorious priesthood. 
 
 n. The Popish theory of the Lord's Supper is in direct oppo- 
 sition to the doctrine of Scripture, which declares that there is 
 one sacrifice, and no more than one, under the Gospel. 
 
 This argument is likewise brought out with commanding 
 force and effect — as if by way of anticipation of the very error 
 of the Papacy — in Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews. He exhibits 
 the contrast between the many priests under the law and the one 
 Priest of God under the Gospel, immortal, and living ever to dis- 
 charge that office of priesthood in which He had no predecessor 
 and can have no follower, and in which, like Melchisedec, He 
 stood alone. But in close relation with this, he exhibits the con- 
 trast also between the many sacrifices under the law with their 
 ceaseless repetition, and the one sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 which never was, and never could be, repeated. The argument 
 by which the apostle demonstrates the unspeakable superiority of 
 the sacrifice of Christ over the sacrifices offered by the sons of 
 Aaron, is a brief and decisive one. The very fact of the repeti- 
 tion of the one, and the non-repetition of the other, was the con- 
 clusive evidence of that superiority. The sacrifices under the 
 law were repeated day by day continually ; the priest had never 
 done with offering, and the altar never ceased to be wet with 
 the blood of the victims. What was done to-day had to be re- 
 peated to-morrow ; and the sacrifice was never so completely 
 made and finished but that it had to be repeated afresh, and 
 renewed times without number. And why? The reason was 
 obvious. They were essentially imperfect. They could never 
 so accomplish the great object of atoning for sin but that their 
 renewal was necessary ; and what was done on one day had to 
 i Heb. vii. 16, 24, 25, 28. 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. III.] THE SACRIFICIAL TIIEOllY. 179 
 
 be supplemented by what was to be done on the next. " The 
 law," says the apostle, " having a shadow of good things to 
 come, and not the veiy image of the things, can never with those 
 sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the 
 comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased 
 to be offered ? because that the worshippers once purged should 
 have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices 
 there is a remembrance again made of sins every year."^ The 
 fact of their ceaseless repetition was the evidence of their essential 
 imperfection. But in contrast with this, and as an evidence of 
 its sufiiciency, the apostle urges the consideration that the sacri- 
 fice made by Christ was offered up once, and no more than once. 
 It stood alone, as an offering made once for all, and never again to 
 be repeated, — a sacrifice so complete in its single presentation that 
 it admits of no repetition or renewal. Christ cannot die a second 
 time upon the Cross, as if His first death were incomplete in its 
 efficacy or its merits ; for " by one offering He has perfected for 
 ever them that are sanctified " or atoned for. Again and again 
 the apostle renews his argument, and his assertion of the fact 
 on which the argument is founded. " Christ was once offered to 
 bear the sins of many." " Nor yet that He should offer Himself 
 often as the high priest." "For then must He ofte7i have suffered 
 since the foundation of the world." " He entered in once into 
 the holy place;" and "we are sanctified through the offering of 
 the body of Jesus Christ once for all." " By one offering He 
 hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."" The argu- 
 ment is decisive. The perfection of Christ's sacrifice, and the 
 non-repetition of Christ's sacrifice, are inseparable. If that sacri- 
 fice needs to be repeated, then it cannot be perfect. 
 
 And the reasoning of the apostle is conclusive, as if by antici- 
 pation, against the many sacrifices of the Church of Rome in the 
 Supper, wdiatever explanation may be adopted by its advocates 
 to explain away the contradiction betw^een their practice and the 
 doctrine of Scripture. Let the sacrifice of the mass be a repeti- 
 tion of the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, as some Komanist 
 controversialists hold it to be, — and their explanation plainly and 
 undeniably means, that the sacrifice of the Cross needs to be 
 repeated day by day, in order to accomplish the salvation of 
 sinners. Or, let the sacrifice of the mass be a continuation of the 
 
 1 Heb. X. 1-3. 2 Heb. ix. 12, 25 f., 28, x. 10, 12, U. 
 
180 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and a part of the same atonement, 
 as other Romanists expound it, — and this explanation plainly and 
 undeniably means, that the sacrifice of the Cross was not finished 
 when Christ bowed His head and gave up the ghost. Explain 
 the connection as you will between the sacrifice of the mass and 
 the atonement made upon the Cross, it is utterly inconsistent 
 with the argument of the apostle by which he proves the unap- 
 proachable perfection of Christ's work, from its being that one 
 offering which never can be repeated or followed by another.^ 
 
 III. What is essential to the very nature of a true propitia- 
 tory sacrifice is awanting in the pretended sacrifice of the mass. 
 
 What was offered on the altar in former times could be no 
 propitiatory sacrifice to God unless it was dedicated to Him by 
 death. Believing sacrifice itself to be a positive institution of 
 God, we must look for the nature and import of the observance 
 only in His Word, and in the practice sanctioned by His appoint- 
 ment. And taking the case of the Old Testament sacrifices, we 
 are warranted in saying that they were uniformly dedicated to 
 God by death, and that " without shedding of blood there could 
 be no remission."^ There were, indeed, offerings under the law 
 not connected with the shedding of blood, and not accompanied 
 by the destruction of life ; but these were not propitiatory. In 
 every case of a propitiatory offering the victim was slain, and the 
 atonement made through the shedding of blood. Expiation and 
 the death of the offering — atonement and shedding of blood — 
 were so inseparably connected, that there could be no real sacrifice 
 of a propitiatory nature when the sacrifice was not dedicated to 
 God by death. From the very earliest times blood was accounted 
 a holy thing, not to be eaten or made use of for common pur- 
 poses ; and the very terms of the prohibition explain the reason 
 of it : " For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given 
 it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your soul ; for 
 it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul."^ Without 
 blood shed there could be no expiation. And here lies one diflS- 
 culty of the Romish dogma of the sacrifice of the mass. It is a 
 propitiation for the sins of the living and the dead; it is no bare 
 
 ^ [Comp. the seven senses iu which the Church of England, according to Dr. 
 Wordsworth's interpretation of her sentiments, holds that there is a sacrifice 
 iu the Lord's Supper. Theopli. Awjl. ed. 1863, p. 220.] 
 
 2Heb. ix. 22. =5 Lev. xvii. U. 
 
Div.II. ly. Cii. III.] THE SACKIFICIAL THEORY. 181 
 
 commemoration of a sacrifice, but itself a sacrifice, with virtue 
 to satisfy Divine justice and atone for sin ; it is an offering of 
 expiation offered wherever there is a priest to consecrate the 
 ordinance and present it to God. It is a sacrifice of Christ, 
 offered up in propitiation of His Father's righteous displeasure, 
 and efficacious for the remission of sin. But yet we are assured 
 by the apostle tliat " Christ dieth no more ; death hath no more 
 dominion over Him. For in that He died, He died unto sin 
 once: but in that He liveth, He livetli unto God."^ The Lord 
 Jesus Christ, in His glorified human nature, has long since passed 
 away from the scene of His suffering and humiliation ; seated 
 at the Father's right hand, He has rested Him from His work 
 of sorrow and blood, and can repeat no more the agony of the 
 Garden or of the Cross. He does bear with Him indeed in 
 heaven, impressed for ever on His human flesh, the tokens of 
 suffering and crucifixion ; " as a lamb that has been slain," He 
 appears on high in the sight of His Father and His angels, 
 marked with the visible evidence of sacrifice and death. But He 
 repeats the sacrifice no more ; His blood is not afresh poured out. 
 The proofs of His once finished sacrifice which He carries about 
 in His person are enough ; and with these silent but eloquent 
 witnesses to make good His cause. He pleads the virtue of that 
 sacrifice, and never pleads in vain. His uninterrupted and con- 
 tinual advocacy, founded on the merits of His one sacrifice, all- 
 sufficient and complete, supersedes the necessity of its repetition ; 
 He needs to die no more for the many sins of His people, which 
 they daily renew, because He once died a death enough for them 
 all, and. now lives a life of everlasting intercession, based upon 
 that death, for His people. Without shedding of blood, without 
 atoning suffering, without life rendered as expiation for life, the 
 pretended sacrifice of the mass is inconsistent with the scriptural 
 idea of sacrifice dedicated to God by death.^ 
 
 Upon such grounds as these we are warranted to say that the 
 sacrificial theory of the Church of Kome, more fully developed 
 in her dogma of the mass, but running throughout her whole 
 spiritual system, is entirely opposed to the doctrine of the Word 
 
 1 Rom. vi. 9 f. 
 
 2 Bellarm. Disput. de Eucli. lib. v. cap. ii. etc. Ames. Bdlarm. Enerv. 
 torn. iii. lib. iv. cap. ix. [Stillingfleet, Doct. and Pract. of the Church of 
 Rome, Cuuningliam's ed. pp. 197-221 ; with the copious references to the 
 literature of this subject given by the Editor, p. 220 f.] 
 
182 MATTERS WITH AVIIICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 of God, which asserts, as fundamental to the Gospel, that as 
 there is but one Priest, so there is but one sacrifice known in the 
 New Testament Church. But there are various modifications of 
 this sacrificial theory whicli, avoiding the extreme doctrine of 
 tlie Papacy, are held by many semi-Romanists, and still assert 
 that tlie Lord's Supper is a sacrifice. There are two of these 
 held very commonly by High Churchmen in the English Estab- 
 lishment, to which I would very briefly advert. 
 
 1st, In a sense very different from the Romish, it was held by 
 not a few of the Christian Fathers in the early centuries, — and 
 the doctrine has been revived in more recent times in the Church 
 of England, — that the elements of bread and wine were a true 
 material sacrifice, not indeed propitiatory, but eucharistic ; very 
 much in the same way as the first fruits laid upon the altar by 
 appointment of the Mosaic law, were a thank-offering to God for 
 the overflowing of His bounties to His creatures. According to 
 this view, the elements of bread and wine, offered to God in the 
 Supper as a material sacrifice without blood, are the fulfilment 
 of the prophecy of Malachi, in which he foretells, in regard to 
 Gospel times, that " a pure offering," as contradistinguished from 
 the bloody sacrifice of the law, should then be offered into God's 
 name. " From the rising of the sun to the going down of the 
 same. Thy name shall be great among the Gentiles ; and in 
 every place incense shall be offered unto Thy name, and a pure 
 offering."^ This sacrificial theory of the Supper is certainly free 
 from the vital and most fundamental error of the Church of 
 Rome, when it ascribes to the sacrifice in the ordinance a pro- 
 pitiatory character ; but it is open to insurmountable objections. 
 
 First, a material sacrifice, in the sense of a thank-offering 
 to God for the bounties of His providence, has not the slightest 
 countenance in any of those passages of the New Testament 
 which describe the nature and design of the Supper. It is 
 hardly anything else than a conceit, gratuitously invented by 
 those who saw that it was impossible to regard the Supper as a 
 propitiation for sin, but who were anxious, in conformity Math 
 the unguarded language of the patristic writers on the subject, to 
 devise some plausible excuse for applying the term " sacrifice" 
 to the Supper.^ Second, the theoiy is entirely inconsistent with 
 
 1 Mai. ii. 11. 
 
 2 [" Equidem quum pium atque ortliodoxum de toto hoc mysterio sensum 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. III.] THE SACRIFICIAL THEORY. 183 
 
 the first and primary characteristic of the Supper, as clearly laid 
 down in Scripture, namely, that it is an ordinance commemora- 
 tive of the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ. Third, the theory of 
 a material sacrifice in the Supper, in the sense of a thank-offering 
 of bread and wine for the bounties of Providence, is repugnant 
 to the spiritual nature of the Gospel dispensation, which stands 
 opposed to typical worship. 
 
 2(f, There is another sacrificial theory of the Supper, much 
 more common than the one now mentioned, and indeed, with 
 various but unimportant modifications, the prevalent theory among 
 those High Churchmen of the English Establishment who reject 
 the extreme views of Popery, as asserted in the doctrine of the 
 mass, but who hold that in the Supper there is a real propitiatory 
 sacrifice, and a real sacrificing priest. According to this view, 
 the elements of bread and wine, not transubstantiated, but remain- 
 ing unchanged, become, by the words of institution and the conse- 
 cration of the priest, the body and blood of Christ symbolically 
 and mystically ; in consequence of the sacramental union between 
 the sio;n and the thino; sic^nified in the Sacrament, the elements 
 are both to God and to us equivalent to and of the same value 
 with Christ Himself ; and the offering up to God of the elements, 
 thus both representing a crucified Saviour, and not inferior in 
 virtue or worth to the Saviour Himself, becomes a true pro- 
 pitiatory sacrifice made to the Almighty for sin.^ Upon this 
 
 retinuis.se eos (some of the Fathers who used sacrificial language about the 
 Supper) videam, neque deprehendam voluisse unico Domini sacrificio vel 
 minimum derogare, uUius impietatis damnare eos nou sustineo ; excusari 
 tamen nou posse arbitror quin aliquid in actionis modo peccaverint. Imitati 
 sunt enini propius Judaicam sacrificandi morem quam aut ordinaverit Christus, 
 aut Evangelii ratio ferebat. Sola igitiu- est prsepostera ilia anagoge in qua 
 merito eos quis redarguat, quod non contenti simplici ac germana Christi 
 
 iustitutioue, ad Legis umbi'as nimis deflexeruut Sacerdotes Levitici, 
 
 quod peracturus erat Christus, sacrificium jubebantur figurare ; sistebatur 
 hostia quee vicem ipsius Christi subiret ; erat altare in quo immolaretur ; sic 
 denique gerebautur omnia, ut ob oculos poneretur sacrificii effigies, quod Deo 
 in expiationem offerendum erat. At peracto sacrificio, aliam nobis rationeni 
 Dominus instituit, nempe ut fructum oblati sibi a Filio sacrificii ad populura 
 fidelem tnuismittat. Mensam ergo nobis dedit, in qua epulemur, non altare 
 super quod offeratur victiraa ; non mcerdotes consecravit qui immolent, sed 
 ministros qui sacrum epulum distribuant." — Calvin, Inst. lib. iv. cap. xviii. 
 11, 12. Cf. Waterland, Review of the Doct. of the Euch. Camb. 17:37, pp. 
 467-534. Arnold, Fragment on the Church, 2d ed. pp. Ill ff. 12G-132.] 
 
 1 " I conclude that, though the eucharistical elements are not the sub- 
 stantial Body and Blood, — nay, they are the figurative and representative 
 symbols of them, — yet they are somewhat more too : they are the mysterious 
 
184 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 theory of the Supper, the office of priest in the Christian Cluirch 
 is similar to that of priest under th^ law : both offer to God 
 real, although symbolical sacrifices, equally pointing to Christ, — 
 there being this difference, that the Aaronic priesthood offered 
 a sacrifice of blood in the prospect of the Saviour's sacrifice to 
 come ; while the Christian priesthood offers an unbloody sacrifice 
 in memory of the Saviour's sacrifice now past ; and also, that the 
 sacrifices presented now in the Supper, in conseqvience of their 
 sacramental union with Christ, are infinitely more precious than 
 the sacrifices of the former economy. Such, briefly, and so far as 
 I am able to understand it, is the prevalent doctrine among the 
 majority of the High Church party in the Church of England at 
 the present day, who are not yet prepared, as an extreme section 
 of them appear to be, to accept the Tridentine definitions of the 
 nature and efficacy of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. It 
 is maintained and expounded at length in a work recently re- 
 published in the Anglo-Catholic Library, entitled. The Unhloody 
 Sacrifice and Altar Unveiled and Supported, by Johnson. 
 
 This theory, while excluding the dogma of transubstantiation, 
 which Romanists feel to be necessary to give consistency and 
 foundation to their doctrine of the Supper, approaches in other 
 essential respects very closely to that doctrine, asserting, as it 
 does, a real sacrificing priest and a real propitiatory sacrifice in 
 the Supper.^ The principles already laid down in opposition to 
 the Popish theory of the Supper are almost all equally available 
 against the now mentioned modification of it. It is subversive of 
 the whole doctrine and character of the Gospel. Under the 
 Christian dispensation there is no priest but One, and He is in 
 heaven. It is His incommunicable name, which none in heaven 
 or on earth may bear but Himself. There is no sacrifice or 
 propitiation but one, and that was finished on the Cross erected 
 
 Body and Blood of our ever blessed Redeemer. By the mysterious Body and 
 Blood, the reader will easily perceive I mean neither substantial nor yet merely 
 figimilice, hut the middle hetween these extremes, viz. the Bread and Wine made 
 the Body and Blood of Christ by the secret power of the Spirit ; and appre- 
 hended to be so, not by our senses, but by our faith, directed and influenced 
 by the same Holy Spirit, and made the Body and Blood in such a manner as 
 human reason cannot perfectly comprehend." — Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 Oxf. 1847, vol. i. p. 323. Cf. pp. 265 ff. 
 
 ^ [" The Eucharist, after Baptism, is the only mean of the forgiveness of 
 our sins." — Jolly, Christ. Sacrifice in the Euch. 2d ed. p. 155. Goode, The 
 Case as it is ; a Reply to Dr. Pusey's Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 3d ed. pp. 17-20.] 
 
Div. II. IV. Cii. III.] THE SACRIFICIAL THEORY. 185 
 
 upon Calvary, looking back, as it does, for thousands of years 
 over the long array of bloody offerings, which were but the types 
 that pointed towards it, not yet come ; and looking forward, as it 
 does, over the long array of ordinances in the Christian Church, 
 commemorative of it, now that it is past. Neither type before- 
 hand, nor commemoration afterhand, could share in its character 
 as an expiatory sacrifice for sin. There is now no dedication of 
 victims to God by death, — life given for life, and blood exchanged 
 for blood, — in order to make a propitiation. The tragedy of the 
 Cross cannot now be renewed, nor atoning blood be shed afresh ; 
 and yet "without the shedding of blood there is no remission" in 
 Sacrament or in sacrifice. Under whatever form or modification 
 the sacramental theory be held, which asserts in the Supper a 
 real sacrifice, and a true propitiation for sin, it is a dishonour 
 done to the Lamb of God, who " by the one offering of Himself 
 has perfected for ever them that are sanctified," and who, in 
 virtue of that one Divine offering, now " liveth for ever to make 
 intercession for His people."^ 
 
 ^ Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice and Altar Unveiled and Supported, Oxf. 
 1847, vol. i. pp. 265-433, vol. ii. p. 30, etc. Garbett, Bampton Lecture, 1842, 
 vol. i. pp. 231-354. Wilberforce, Doct. of the Hobj Eucharist, 3d ed. pp. 
 299-338. Goode, Nat. of Chris fs Pres. in the Euch. Lond. 1856, vol. i. pp. 
 11-28, etc., vol. ii. pp. 973-978. Rule of Faith, Lond. 1842, vol. ii. pp. 
 135-190. [" Q. AVhat institution liatli Christ appointed for the preserving 
 and nourishing in us this Divine principle or spiritual life, communicated to 
 us in Baptism and Confirmation ? — A. The Christian Sacrifice of the Holy- 
 Eucharist. Q. Did He not offer the sacrifice of Himself upon the Cross ? — A. 
 No. It was slain upon the Cross ; but it Avas offered at the institution of the 
 
 Eucharist Q. What is the consequence of that privilege (the priest's 
 
 repeating our Lord's 'powerfid words')? — A. They (the bread and wiue) are 
 in a capacity to be offered up to God as the great Christian sacrifice. Q. Is 
 this done ? — A. Yes. The priest immediately after makes a solemn oblation 
 of them. Q. Does God accept of this sacrifice ? — A. Yes ; and returns it to us 
 again to feast upon. Q. How do the bread and cup become capable of con- 
 ferring all the benefits of our Saviour's death and passion ? — A. By the priest 
 praying to God the Father to send His Holy Spirit upon them. Q. Are they 
 not changed? — A. Yes; in their qualities." — Catechism of Bishop Innes of 
 Brechin, 1841, as quoted in Peculiarities of the Scottish Episcopal Church, 
 taken from authentic ^sources, Aberdeen 1847, p. 2. Bishoj) Jolly laments 
 that this " primitive doctrine" is "so dimly seen" in the present Communion 
 Service of the Church of England. " The words require some stretch of 
 thought to make them speak the meaning and produce the effect of the 
 former" more ancient liturgies. He thinks, however, that Bishop Andrews 
 and others " must have understood the Enghsh Office to have implied the 
 eucharistic sacrifice, however lamelike the form was." — Christ. Sacrifce in the 
 Euch. 2d ed. pp. 93, 99. Cf. pp. 81 ff. 129-136.] 
 
DIYISION III. 
 
 CHUECH POWEE EXEECISED IN EEGAED TO DISCIPLINE. 
 
 < 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 NATURE, DESIGN, AND LIMITS OF THE DISCIPLINE OF 
 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 
 
 THE Church power that is employed in tlie way of discipline, 
 or that exercise of authority which is implied in inflicting 
 and removing ecclesiastical censures, in judicially admitting to 
 the communion of the Christian society and excluding from it, 
 has been distinguished by the name of the " potestas BLaKptriKT}." 
 It is not, at this stage of our discussions, necessary to fall 
 back upon the argument which vindicated for the Church a 
 certain ecclesiastical power, distinct in its nature and objects 
 from that belonging to the civil magistrate, — having its source 
 in the gift and appointment of its Divine Head, and having for 
 its general aim the accomplishments of the grand ends for which 
 a Church has been established on the earth. One branch of 
 that power, we have already seen, has reference to doctrine, and 
 embraces those exercises of spiritual authority by which the 
 Church discharges her duty as the teacher and witness for the 
 Word and truth of Christ. A second branch of that power, we 
 have also seen, has reference to ordinances, and comprehends 
 that use of spiritual authority by which the Church, as the organ 
 of Christ for the purpose, maintains and administers His ordi- 
 nances for the edification of His people. A third branch of this 
 same power remains for our consideration, and consists in that 
 exercise of ecclesiastical authority by which the Church seeks to 
 enforce the observance of Christ's laws by the judicial infliction 
 and removal of His spiritual censures in the case of its members. 
 
Div. III. Cii. I.] DISCIPLINE. 187 
 
 The limits imposed upon us make it needful to compress our dis- 
 cussion of this subject within a somewhat narrow compass. 
 
 The " potestas SiaKpcTtKr),'" or that exercise of Church authority 
 which respects discipline, may be held to be directed to two grand 
 objects, which are essentially necessary for the order and well- 
 being of the Christian society. In the first place, its aim is 
 to carry into effect the institutions of Christ in regard to the 
 admission and exclusion of members in connection with the 
 Christian society. There are certain principles laid down in 
 His Word which sufficiently indicate the terms of membership 
 which Christ has enacted for His Church, and the character 
 and qualifications of those entitled to be received into the Chris- 
 tian society, or to remain in it as its members. And the first 
 object which that particular branch of Church authority which 
 respects discipline contemplates, is to execute the laws of Christ 
 in the admission to Church membership of those entitled to the 
 privilege, and in the exclusion of those who are not. In the 
 second place, its aim is to carry into effect the instructions of 
 Christ in regard to those who belong to the Church as its mem- 
 bers, in the way of securing their obedience to His laws, and of 
 promoting their spiritual edification. There are certain laws 
 which Christ has appointed, not only for the admission and 
 exclusion of members, but also for the regulation of the conduct 
 of those within the Church, — prescribing to them the duties to 
 be done, and the order to be observed by them, as members of 
 the Christian society. And, accordingly, the second object which 
 this branch of Church power contemplates is to promote and 
 secure both the obedience and the edification of the members of 
 the Church, by the restraints of ecclesiastical authority imposed 
 upon them ; by the inflictions of the penalties of censure and 
 rebuke, and deprivation of the privileges of the society, when 
 these have been merited; and by the operation of a system of 
 spiritual rewards and punishments, calculated to promote the 
 order and profit of the Christian community. Speaking gene- 
 rally, these are the two grand aims of that exercise of spiritual 
 autliority in the Church which relates to discipline. It provides 
 for the execution of the laws of Christ as these have been re- 
 vealed in connection with, first, the admission of parties into, 
 or their exclusion from, the Christian society ; and second, the 
 obedience and edification of Church members. 
 
188 MATTERS WITH AVHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part HI. 
 
 Such being tlie general nature and design of that power of 
 disciphne claimed by the Church, the question that meets us at 
 the outset of the discussion is, as to the ground on which this 
 claim rests. It will not be difficult to show that the right to 
 exercise such a power is one that belongs to the Christian Church, 
 both by the law of nature, as evinced by reason, and by the law 
 of Christ, as revealed in His Word. 
 
 I. The power to regulate the matter of the admission and the 
 exclusion of members, as well as their conduct while they con- 
 tinue members of the society, belongs to the Church by the 
 light of nature itself. It is an inherent right vested in every 
 voluntary association of whatever nature it may be, and neces- 
 sary to its existence and wellbeing as an orderly society. 
 
 The very conditions necessary to the subsistence of an orga- 
 nized body of men, and the order implied in combined operations, 
 obviously require that they shall agree on some fixed principles 
 both of union and action, — a compliance with which forms the 
 terms of their admission into and continuance in the society as 
 members, and a departure from which must entail the forfeiture 
 of the privileges of membership. No society created for a com- 
 mon end, and requiring a common action, could possibly subsist 
 upon the principle of being compelled to admit, or to continue to 
 regard as its members, those who transgressed its regulations, 
 or set themselves in opposition to the ends for which it is estab- 
 lished. There must be in every voluntary association a right to 
 impose its own laws on its members, — a power to refuse admis- 
 sion to such as give no guarantee for their conformity with the 
 rules and ends of the society, — and, when no other remedy is 
 sufficient, authority to deprive of its privileges and expel from its 
 fellowship those who perseveringly and systematically depart from 
 the order and obligations of the institution. If a society be a 
 lawful association at all, it must have this right to exercise the 
 power of order and authority over its members which is necessary 
 to the very ends for which it is instituted. The existence of the 
 right as belonging to the Church, in common wuth every other 
 lawful society of men, is clearly demonstrated from the light of 
 nature itself. 
 
 And from the same source it is not difficult to gather a proof, 
 not only of the justice of such a claim, on the part of the 
 Christian society, but also of the limits that are justly appointed 
 
Div. 111. Cii. I.J DISCIPLINE. 189 
 
 to tlie riglit. In regulating the order of the society and the 
 conduct of the members, and in exercising the right of ad- 
 mission and expulsion in conformity with its fixed principles, 
 there are two limitations plainly set to the power so used. 
 First, no society has a right of this kind beyond the circle 
 of its own members, or of those who have voluntarily come 
 under the rules and obligations of the society. The right of 
 order and authority exercised by it does not extend to those 
 beyond the association. And second^ in enforcing its regulations 
 even upon its own members, it can award, in the case of trans- 
 gressions, no other kind or amount of penalty than the depriva- 
 tion of some or all of the rights or advantages which the society 
 itself has conferred. When it has deprived the offender of the 
 privileges he enjoyed in communion with the society, and expelled 
 him from its membership, it has exhausted all its rightful autho- 
 rity and its legitimate power in the way of punishment. And 
 these two limitations, which are plainly set to the powers of any 
 voluntary society over its members, restrict also the exercise by 
 the Christian Church of its powers of discipline. By the very 
 law of nature, applicable to the Christian society as well as any 
 other, it may lawfully assert a right to regulate the admission 
 and expulsion of its members, and their conduct while they con- 
 tinue members within it. ^xxt first, the Church has no power of 
 discipline or authority over those who have not sought or adopted 
 its communion ; and second, the Church has no penalties in its 
 storehouse of authority beyond the forfeiture it may award to 
 offenders of the privileges which they have received from its 
 communion. And when the sentence of expulsion from these is 
 pronounced, in the case of the last extremity, its authority is then 
 and there exhausted and at an end. 
 
 II. The power of discipline is a right conferred on the Church 
 by positive Divine appointment. 
 
 The right which the Christian Church, in common with 
 every voluntary and lawful society, has to appoint and enforce 
 its own terms of admission, and to carry out, in the instance of 
 its members, its own internal regulations, by no means comes up 
 to the full idea of the " potestas SiaKpiriKT) " claimed and exer- 
 cised by it. There is a spiritual efficacy In this power of discipline, 
 and there are spiritual results flowing from it, which no mere 
 natural right belonging to any society can confer, and which 
 
190 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHUECH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 nothing but the authority and virtue of a Divine institution can 
 give. It binds the conscience with an obhgation, and carries 
 with it a supernatural blessing or judgment, which no power or 
 act of any voluntary human society can confer, and which can 
 only be explained on the principle of an authority and virtue 
 bound up in the ordinance by the positive appointment of God. 
 Over and above, then, the mere right which every lawful society 
 must have in the w^ay of authority and regulation in the case of 
 its members, the power of discipline exercised by the Christian 
 Church is one of direct Divine institution. That ecclesiastical 
 discipline is an ordinance of God, may be established by three dis- 
 tinct lines of proof : by the positive appointment of it which we 
 find in Scripture, by the examples recorded of apostolic practice, 
 and by the directions given in regard to the mode of its exercise. 
 
 1st, We have the direct institution of Church discipline and 
 ecclesiastical censures by Christ Himself. 
 
 I do not stop to inquire into the nature and exercise of this 
 ordinance under the Old Testament Church, as it would require 
 a lengthened discussion in order to do justice to the subject. But 
 this I may say, that nothing seems more certainly susceptible of 
 proof than that, apart from any exercise of civil authority on 
 the side of the state, there was also an exercise of ecclesiastical 
 authority in the Jewish Church, in the way of depriving trans- 
 gressors of the privileges of the Church, and excluding them 
 from the congregation in Divine worship. The subject is dis- 
 cussed with great learning and force of argument in Gillespie's 
 Aai'on^s Hod Blosscming} But, passing by the case of the Jewish 
 Church, we have abundant evidence that the ordinance of dis- 
 cipline was the institution of Christ Himself in the New Tes- 
 tament Church. 
 
 There are three occasions more especially on which we find 
 our Lord intimating the grant of such power to His Church. 
 First, on the occasion of the 'remarkable confession made by 
 Peter, our Saviour declares to him : " I say unto thee, that thou art 
 Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church ; and the gates 
 of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee 
 
 ^ Gillespie, Aaroii's Rod Blossoming, B. i. cli. iv.-xiii. B. iii. ch. ii. iii. 
 Miscell. Quest, ch. xix. Rutherford, Divine Pdght of Church Government and 
 Excommunication, Loud. 1G46, pp. 24.1 £f. 270—275, etc.- Beza, Tractat. de 
 vera Excommun. et Christ. Frcsbyterio, Genevse 1590, pp. 37-49, 55-G;J, 
 83-92. 
 
Div. III. Cii. I.] DISCIPLINE. 191 
 
 the keys of the kuigdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou slialt 
 bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever thou 
 shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."^ Next, Avhen 
 speaking of the treatment of offences, our Lord, on another occa- 
 sion, declares to all the Apostles : " If thy brother trespass against 
 thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone : if he 
 shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not 
 hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth 
 of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And 
 if he shall neglect to hear them, then tell it unto the Church : 
 but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an 
 heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you. Whatsoever 
 ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever 
 ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."' A third time, 
 and after His resurrection, we find our Lord conferring on His 
 Apostles the same authority in connection with their commission 
 as Apostles : " Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you : 
 as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when He 
 had said this. He breathed on them, and saith unto them. Receive 
 ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are re- 
 mitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are 
 retained."^ 
 
 It is not necessary for our present argument to inquire as to 
 the particular party or parties in the Church to whom this special 
 authority was committed by Christ, and who, in consequence of 
 His grant, are warranted, rather than others, to administer it. 
 This inquiry falls under the important question to be discussed 
 afterwards, of the parties in whom the exercise of Church power 
 generally is vested. But, postponing this question for the present, 
 it is plain, on an examination and comparison of these statements 
 of Scripture, that our Lord did in them convey to His Church a 
 permanent gift of authority and power in the way of discipline 
 that was long to outlast the ministry of the Apostles. The passages 
 I have quoted are evidently parallel, and each helps to interpret 
 the other. The phrase, " the keys of the kingdom of heaven," 
 occurring in the first passage, is parallel to the power of " bind- 
 ing and loosing," spoken of in the second ; and each of these two 
 is equivalent to the authority to " remit and retain sins," men- 
 tioned in the third passage. The expression, " the kingdom of 
 
 1 Matt. xvi. 18 f. 2 Matt, xviii. 15-18. ' John xx. 21-23. 
 
192 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHUKCH POWER DEALS. [Paut III. 
 
 heaven," made use of in the £;rant to Peter of " the keys," is, 
 according to a very common New Testament use of the words, 
 to be understood of the visible Church of Christ ; and the power 
 of the keys is the power of opening or closing the door of that 
 Church, in the case of parties seeking admission or meriting ex- 
 •clusion. Exactly equivalent to this power of the keys is the 
 authority to bind and to loose ; or the authority to bind upon men 
 their sins, so that they shall be shut out from the Church, or to 
 loose them from their sins, so that they shall be entitled to admis- 
 sion. And in the same sense, and to the same effect, are we to 
 understand the third form of expression, used by our Lord to 
 the representatives of His Church when He gave them right to 
 " retain and remit sin," — language not to be interpreted literally, 
 as a power from Christ to forgive guilt, or to visit it with ever- 
 lasting condemnation, vested in His Church, but to be understood 
 as conferring authority on the Church only in reference to those 
 external privileges and punishments of transgression, which, as a 
 visible society, it has a title to award and to remove. The three 
 passages in which our Lord commits to the Church this remark- 
 able power are to be interpreted in connection with each other ; 
 and while they afford, when rightly understood, no countenance 
 to the idea of a power to pardon sin or absolve from its eternal 
 consequences, they furnish a most satisfactory^ proof of the autho- 
 rity of the Church to exercise a power of discipline in judicially 
 inflicting and removing ecclesiastical censures in the case of its 
 members.^ 
 
 2d, That the power of discipline is a Divine appointment in 
 the Church, may be gathered also from the distinct intimations that 
 we have in Scripture of the apostolic practice on the subject. 
 
 The remarkable case of the incestuous person connected with 
 the Church of Corinth is an example of apostolic practice in the 
 use of judicial discipline that affords an authoritative precedent 
 in the matter. In the first letter addressed to the Corinthian 
 believers, we find distinctly laid down the occasion that demands 
 such an exercise of judicial authority in a Christian Church, — 
 the object or end to be attained by the use of it, both as respects 
 
 ^ Gillespie, Aaron's Rod Bloxsomiiu/, B. iii. cli. ii.-vi. Rutherford, Divine 
 Right of Church Gov. Lond. 164G, pp. 226-239, 308-316. Jus Div. Reg. 
 Eccles. Lond. 1646, pp. 181-183. Cunningham, Works, vol. iv. pp. 235- 
 2^Q. 
 
Div. III. Cii. I.] DISCIPLINE. 193 
 
 the purity of Churcli communion and the edification of the 
 offender, — and the authority for sucli proceedings, as done in the 
 name of Christ.^ And in the second epistle to the same Church 
 we find the apostle, in reference to the same person, justifying or 
 commending the sentence of excommunication inflicted, declaring 
 tlie beneficial effect which the punishment had produced on the 
 offender, and instructing the Corinthian Church in the principles 
 on which, in consequence of his repentance, they ought to proceed 
 to absolve and receive him again into fellowship.^ Another 
 striking example of the practice of the Apostles in this matter is 
 referred to in the First Epistle to Timothy, when Paul speaks of 
 certain persons who had " made shipwreck of the faith," and adds, 
 " of whom is HymenaBus and Alexander ; whom I have delivered 
 unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme."^ Even in 
 the case of the primitive Church, while yet in the furnace of per- 
 secution, it was necessary, by the exercise of judicial authority, to 
 purge out the offence and the offender, that the Christian society 
 might be preserved pure.'* 
 
 3d, The authority of discipline as a Divine ordinance in the 
 Church may be very distinctly demonstrated also by the direc- 
 tions given in Scripture for the manner of its exercise. 
 
 These directions, often of a merely incidental sort, scattered 
 up and down the pages of Scripture, plainly take for granted the 
 ordinance of discipline as a standing and authoritative institute 
 in the Church. " Them," says the Apostle Paul, " that sin, re- 
 buke before all, that others also may fear." " And others," says 
 the Apostle Jude, " save with fear, pulling them out of the fire ; 
 hating even the garment spotted by the flesh." " A man that is 
 an heretic, after the first and second adinonition, reject." " Now 
 we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that 
 walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received 
 of us." "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, 
 note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be 
 ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as 
 a brother."^ These, and various other passages that might be 
 
 1 1 Cor. iv. 18-21, v. 1-13. 
 
 2 2 Cor. ii. 1-10, vii. 8-12, x. 2-8, xiii. 2-10. ^ i Tim. i. 19 f. 
 
 * Eutherford, id supra, pp. 238-240, 316-344. Gillespie, Aaron's Rod, 
 B. iij. ch. vii. 
 
 s 1 Tim. V. 20 ; Jude 23 ; Tit. iii. 10 ; 2 Thcss. iii. C-14 f. 
 
 VOL. II. N 
 
194 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 quoted, embodying the inspired instructions of the Apostles as to 
 the manner and spirit in which ecclesiastical discipline was to be 
 exercised, afford the most satisfactory proof of the existence «f 
 the practice as a standing ordinance in the Christian Church. 
 Added to the example of the Apostles, and the express appoint- 
 ment and commission of Christ, they furnish very abundant and 
 conclusive evidence that the power of discipline is a Divine insti- 
 tution in the Christian Church.^ 
 
 Such are the grounds on which it may be argued that Christ 
 has given a power of discipline to the office-bearers of the Chris- 
 tian society. " The Lord Jesus," says the Confession of Faith, 
 " as King and Head of His Church, hath therein appointed a 
 government in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil 
 magistrate. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven 
 are committed, by virtue whereof they have power respectively to 
 retain and remit sins, to shut that kingdom against the impeni- 
 tent, both by the Word and censures, and to open it unto penitent 
 sinners by the ministry of the Gospel, and by absolution from 
 censures, as occasion shall require."'^ But while there is abun- 
 dant proof from Scripture of the existence of such an authority in 
 the Christian Church, it is no less certain that there are strict 
 and well-defined limits set in the Word of God to its extent and 
 its operations. It is of much importance to advert to the limits 
 appointed to Church power in this department of its exercise. 
 
 In the first place, then, the judicial power of the Church is 
 limited by a regard to the authority of Christ as the source of it. 
 
 The power of the keys was usually divided by the old theo- 
 logians into these two, — the key of doctrine, and the key of disci- 
 pline. The key of doctrine implies the right and authority of the 
 Church, with the Word of God in its hand, to apply its statements 
 regarding sin to the case of the sinner individually, — to employ 
 its threatenings to deter, its warnings to admonish, its authority 
 to restrain the guilty ; and also to bring to bear its promises and 
 encouragements for the restoration of the penitent, on repentance, 
 specially addressing and accommodating Scripture declarations to 
 each particular case, according to the nature of the offence and 
 the demerits of the offender. The key of discipline implies the 
 right and authority of the Church to exercise the office of admit- 
 ting into the communion of the Christian society, and of excluding 
 
 ^ [Gillespie, Aaron's Rod, B. ii. cli. ix.] - Conf. c. xxx. 
 
Div. III. Ch. I.] DISCIPLINE. 195 
 
 from it ; to judge of the qualifications of candidates for member- 
 ship ; and, in the case of transgressors among its members, to 
 proceed against the offending party by suspension from Church 
 privileges for a time, or by finally cutting him off by the sentence 
 of excommunication.^ In the instance of the exercise by the 
 Church of the key of doctrine, its right and power are to interpret 
 and apply, according to its understanding of it, the sentence already 
 pronounced by the Word of God upon the offence with which it 
 has to deal ; exhibiting before the eyes of the offender, and apply- 
 ing to his case, the judgment of the Scripture as to the future 
 and eternal consequences of his ^in. In the instance of the exer- 
 cise by the Church of the key of discipline, its right and power 
 are, by its own judicial act, to exclude the offender for a time, or 
 permanently, from the outward privileges of the Church. 
 
 But beyond this, the Church has no authority and no power. 
 In the case of the key of doctrine, the office and duty of the 
 Church are simply declarative, and no more, — having power to 
 announce what, according to its own understanding of them, are 
 the decisions of the Word of God, as applicable to the case in the 
 way of absolving the repentant, and condemning the impenitent 
 sinner ; but having no power itself, and apart from the Divine 
 sentence, to absolve or condemn. In the case of the key of disci- 
 pline, the office and duty of the Church are simply ministerial, — 
 having power to admit to or exclude from the outward privileges 
 of the Christian society, according as it believes that Christ in 
 His Word has admitted or excluded ; but having no power itself 
 to open or shut the door of the invisible Church, or to give or 
 withhold admission to the favour of God. In these respects, the 
 right of discipline exercised by the Church is limited by the 
 authority of Christ as the source of it. In pronouncing absolu- 
 tion or condemnation, the Church is simply declaring the sen- 
 tence of Christ in the matter, according to its own interpretation 
 
 1 " The ordinance of excommunication is added, as divines say, to confirm 
 God's threatenings, as Sacraments do seal the promises. ... No censure 
 should be blindly or implicitly made use of, but, both in reference to the party 
 and others, there should be instruction, exhortation, conviction, etc., by the 
 Word going before or alongst with the same. In which respect, though im- 
 properhj, censures may be some way looked upon as Sacraments, in a large 
 sense, in these particular cases, because there is in them both some signifying 
 and confirming use, — they being considered with resjDCct to the end wherefor 
 they are appointed." — Durham, Treatise concerninfj Scandal, Glasg. 1720, pp. 
 55, 62. 
 
196 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 of that sentence ; it has no independent or mysterious authority 
 itself to absolve from guilt, or to condemn to future punishment. 
 In excluding from or admitting to the fellowship of the Christian 
 society, the Church is merely acting according to its views of 
 how Christ would in the circumstances act ; and the effect of its 
 sentence can carry with it no more than the giving or withdraw- 
 ing of outward privileges. In either case, the sentence of the- 
 Church may be wrong and unwarrantable. In declaring the 
 sentence of absolution or condemnation, the Church may have 
 erred, and interpreted the mind of Christ amiss ; and if so, the 
 sentence will carry with it no spiritual blessing or judgment. In 
 the ministerial act of admitting to or cutting off from the out- 
 ward privileges and membership of the Church, it may have erred 
 also, having misapplied the law of Christ ; and if so, the act done, 
 although it may wrongfully give or withhold outward privileges, 
 has no spiritual efficacy or virtue to throw open or to close the 
 door of saving privilege. The authority of Christ in heaven, and 
 His power to give or withhold grace, are not to be set aside by 
 the erroneous act of His Church on earth. The Church makes 
 no Popish or semi-Popish claim to absolve or condemn, to admit 
 to or exclude from grace, independently of Christ.^ 
 
 In the seco7id place, the judicial power of the Church in the 
 way of discipline is limited by the Word of God as the rule of its 
 exercise. 
 
 Beyond the warrant of that rule, the Church has no right of 
 discipline, and no authority to enforce it. Unto the Christian 
 Church has been given a provision of outward ordinances and 
 privileges, unspeakably precious even as external means, and no 
 more than means, of grace; and in the enjoyment and use of 
 these, her members have advantages of a very important kind, 
 which those not her members do not possess, and the forfeiture of 
 which infers no light or inconsiderable penalty. Such a penalty, 
 but no more, Scripture gives authority to the Church, in the exer- 
 cise of its judicial powers, to impose upon offenders. The rights 
 and privileges and advantages which the Church gives when it gives 
 a title to its membership, it can also for cause shown take awa}^ 
 But beyond the forfeiture of the outward privileges which itself 
 
 ^ Durham, vt. supra, pj). 93-97. [Yoetius, Polit. Eccles. torn. iv. lib. iv. 
 Tract, ii. c. i.-iii., Tract, iv. cap. iii. Stillingfleet, Doct. and Pract. of the 
 Church of Rome, Cunuiugham's cd. pp. 85-107. 
 
Div. III. Cii. I.] DISCIPLINE. 197 
 
 conferred, the Church cannot go in the way of inflicthig penalties. 
 In this respect, it is strictly limited by the authority of Scripture 
 as its rule. The temporary suspension or the permanent exclu- 
 sion of the offender from the outward privileges of the Christian 
 society, is the only discipline or judicial punishment competent 
 for the Church to inflict. The arbitrary and unauthorized dis- 
 cipline which the Church of Rome asserts a right to impose, — its 
 outward penances and inflictions, affecting the person and the 
 estate of the victims, its fleshly mortifications, its forfeiture of 
 civil rights and social advantages, its system of punishment and 
 pilgrimage, of bodily austerity and asceticism, — all these and such 
 like impositions, whether voluntary or compulsory, are inconsistent 
 with the Scripture limits of ecclesiastical discipline, and in oppo- 
 sition to the Word of God as its rule.^ 
 
 In the third place, the power of the Church in the way of 
 discipline is limited by the nature of it, as exclusively a spiritual 
 power. 
 
 When the instrumentalities of warning, and counsel, and ad- 
 monition, and rebuke, and censure, as these are enjoined in the 
 Word of God, have been employed, the key of doctrine gives 
 warrant to go no farther. When first suspension for a season 
 from Church privilege and fellowship, and ultimately the sentence 
 of permanent excommunication, have been resorted to, the powers 
 implied in the key of discipline come to an end. The authority 
 
 1 ["In the evangelical and reformed use of this sacred censure, it seeks 
 not to bereave or destroy the body ; it seeks to save the soul by luirabling the 
 body, not by imprisonment or pecuniary mulct, much less by stripes or bonds 
 or disinheritance, but, by fatherly admonishment and Christian rebuke, to 
 cast it into a godly sorrow, whose end is joy and ingenuous bashfulness to 
 sin. If that cannot be wTought, then as a tender mother takes her child and 
 holds it over the pit with scaring words, that it may learn to fear where 
 danger is, — so doth excommunication as dearly and as freely, without money, 
 use her wholesome and saving terrors : she is instant ; she beseeches ; by all 
 the dear and sweet promises of salvation, she entices and woos ; by all the 
 threatenings and thunders of the Law and rejected Gospel, she charges and 
 adjures : this is all her armoury, her munition, her artillery ; then she awaits 
 with long-sufferance, and yet ardent zeal. In brief, there is no act in all the 
 eiTand of God's ministers to mankind wherein passes more lover-like contes- 
 tation between Christ and the soid of a regenerate man lapsing, than before, 
 and in, and after the sentence of excommunication. As for the fogging proc- 
 torage of money, with such an eye as strook Gehazi with leprosy, and Simon 
 Magus with a curse, so docs she look, and so threaten her fiery whip against 
 that banking den of thieves,that dare thus baffle, and buy and seU the awful 
 and majestic wrinkles of her brow." — Milton, Of Reformation in England, 
 B. ii. Prose Works, Lond. 1753, p. 28.] 
 
198 MATTERS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 of the Churcli is purely spiritual, and in these spiritual acts its 
 discipline is exhausted. The theory and practice of the Church 
 of Rome as to the necessity and use of outward satisfactions and 
 bodily mortifications, as a penance rendered for sin, are incon- 
 sistent with the nature of discipline as a purely spiritual ordinance. 
 Much more, the gross perversion of the doctrine of excommuni- 
 cation, as directly or indirectly carrying with it civil penalties 
 affecting the person or estate, or even life of the excommunicated 
 party, is plainly opposed to the true and essential character of the 
 institution.^ 
 
 In the fourth place, the power of the Church in the way of 
 discipline is limited by a regard to the liberties and edification of 
 its members. 
 
 The exercise of authority by the Church in the way of 
 inflicting and removing ecclesiastical censures, proceeds upon the 
 idea that the parties offending have still a right to be regarded 
 as members of the Christian society, although for a time, it may 
 be, judicially deprived of its privileges, or suspended from its 
 fellowship. It is intended for those who are within the Church, 
 not for them that are without its pale, — for the man that is " called 
 a brother," and not for that other man who has never been 
 " called a brother" at all, or who, in consequence of his excom- 
 munication from the Church, is thereafter to be regarded as a 
 " heathen man and a publican." Until the final sentence of 
 excommunication is pronounced, the party offending is to be 
 dealt with, in all the exercises of discipline, as a brother, although, 
 it may be, an erring one ; and the procedure of the Church in 
 inflicting censure is to be regulated by a regard to his rights 
 and edification as a brother.^ Discipline in all its uses, short of 
 
 ^ [StilliBgfleet, Boot, and Pract. of the Church of Rome, Cunningham's 
 ed. pp. 183-196.] 
 
 2 " The order and manner," says Durham in that part of his excellenc 
 woi'k, ah'cady referred to, which treats " Of Scandals as they are the object 
 of Church Censures," — " the order and manner to be observed in the following 
 of public scandals are not easily determinable, there being such variety of 
 cases in which the Lord exerciseth the prudence and wisdom of His Church 
 officers. And, indeed, the gift of govermnent, to speak so, doth especially 
 kyth in the right managing of discipline, in reference to the several hmnoui ■ 
 and constitutions, to say so, which men have to do with. For as in bodily 
 diseases the same cure is not for the same disease in all constitutions and 
 seasons, and as ministers in their doctrine are to press the same thmg in 
 divers manners upon divers aiiditories, so this cure of discipline is not to be 
 applied equally unto all persons, nay, not to such as are in the same offences ; 
 
Div. III. Cii I.] DISCIPLINE. 199 
 
 the sentence of excommunication, is to be regarded, as respects 
 the party offending, as remedial rather than iDunitive, — a means 
 adapted by sharp and severe remedies to promote, not the de- 
 struction, but the edification of the offender. His rights and best 
 interests as a brotlier, although a fallen one, set bounds in this 
 way to the exercise of Church discipline, and restrict it to the 
 use of such means of a spiritual kind as shall not hinder but help 
 the good of his soul. A regard to the liberties and edification of 
 the brother upon whom discipline is exercised, must plainly limit 
 the exercise of an authority which is intended to work " for the 
 destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day 
 of the Lord Jesus." ^ " Church censures," says the Confession of 
 Faith, " are necessary for the reclaiming and gaining of offending 
 brethren ; for deterring others from the like offences ; for purging 
 out of that leaven which might infect the wliole lump ; for vin- 
 dicating the honour of Christ, and the holy profession of the 
 Gospel ; and for preventing the wrath of God, which might 
 justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer His covenant, 
 and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate 
 
 for that which would scarce humble one, may crush another, and that which 
 might edify one, might be stumbling to another of another temper. Therefore 
 we suppose there is no peremptory determining of rules for cases here, but 
 necessarily the manner of procedure in the application of rules is to be left 
 to the prudence and conscientiousness of Church officers, according to the 
 particular circmiistautiate case. . . . "WTieu I speak of edifying^ I do not speak 
 of pleasing the persons, for that may often be destructive to them and others 
 also ; but this is intended, that it is to be weighed in Christian prudence, 
 whether, considering the time and place we live in, the nature of the person 
 we have to do with, and of those also among whom we Uve, it be more fit to 
 follow this way with such a person at such a time, or another way. And 
 accordingly, as it seemeth probable that this way will honom- God most, more 
 fully vindicate His ordinances, gain the person from sin to hohness, or at least 
 to a regular walk, and edify others most, so accordingly ought Church judi- 
 catories to take the way that leadeth most probably to that end ; and therefore 
 it ought not always to be accounted partiaUty when such difference in Church 
 
 'procediu'e is observed." — (Pp. 55-58.) 
 
 . Z ^ Durham, Treatise concerning Scandal, Glasg. 1720, pp. 50-21G, 232- 
 243, 358-370. [Calvin, InM. lib. iv. cap. xii. Turrettin, Op. torn. iii. loc. 
 xviii. qu. xxxii. Voetius, Polit. Eccles. torn. iv. lib. iv. Tract, ii.-iv. Apollonu, 
 ^Jus Majest. circa Sacra, Pars ii. cap. i. Gillespie, CAT. Projiositidiis, 8-15, 
 J9-31, 63, 70-74. Milton, Reason of Church Government, B. ii. ch. iii. 
 
 ^;'Kbstlin, Luther's Lehre von der Kirche, Stuttgart 1853, pp. 20-46. Schenkel, 
 
 • Art. Kirche in Herzog's Real Encgclopcidie, pp. 588 ff. In the symbolical 
 books of several of the Reformed Churches, — among the rest, in the Homilies 
 
 . of the Church of England, — the exercise of discipluie is added to a sound faith 
 and right admmistration of the Sacraments, as the third essential mark of a 
 true Church.] 
 
200 MATTEKS WITH WHICH CHURCH POWER DEALS. [Part III. 
 
 offenders. For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of 
 the Church are to proceed by admonition, suspension from the 
 Sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season, and by excom- 
 munication from the Church, according to the nature of the 
 crime and demerit of the person." 
 
PART IV.-PARTIES IN WHOM THE RIGHT TO 
 EXERCISE CHURCH POWER IS VESTED. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 DIVINE APPOINTMENT OF A FORM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 WE now enter upon the fourth and last of the grand depart- 
 ments of our subject, in which, under the general head 
 of the " parties in whom Church power is vested for its ordinary 
 administration," it will be our endeavour to discuss the main 
 points connected with the constitution, government, and office- 
 bearers of the Christian society. The subject is an interesting 
 and important one ; and the discussion of it is surrounded with 
 more than ordinary difficulty, in consequence of the very different 
 views and systems of Church polity which have been adopted and 
 maintained in various quarters, with all the advantages of learn- 
 ing and talent on the part of their respective adherents. To do 
 anything like justice to the argument, would require the devotion 
 to it of a space which it is not possible for us now to give. All 
 that we can pretend to attempt is, to give an outline of the general 
 discussion, referring you to other and easily accessible sources of 
 information for the materials to enable you to prosecute the sub- 
 ject in detail. 
 
 In proceeding to consider the merits of the several systems of 
 ecclesiastical polity that have been commonly maintained, perhaps 
 the first question which it is natural to ask is, whether or not any 
 authoritative form of Church government has been appointed in 
 Scripture at all. Very opposite opinions on this point have been 
 entertained. Not a few have maintained the doctrine, that no 
 Divine pattern of government for the Christian Church has been 
 exhibited in Scripture, or enjoined upon Christians ; and that the 
 Word of God contains no materials sufficient to form a fixed or 
 
202 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 determinate rule for the order and arrangement of the ecclesias- 
 tical society. The alleged silence of Scripture on the point is 
 said to be a fact significant of the mind of Christ, indicating His 
 willingness or intention that the form of government for His 
 Church should be left to the discretion and judgment of its mem- 
 bers, and should be adjusted by them to suit the circumstances of 
 the age, or covmtry, or civil government with which they stand 
 connected. According to this theory, there is no scriptural 
 model of Church government set up for the imitation of Chris- 
 tians at all times, nor any particular form of it universally binding. 
 Christianity is a living principle, rather than a fixed institution ; 
 and the religious system of the Gospel is able and intended to 
 assume and adapt itself to the particular shape which the neces- 
 sities of its outward position may impose, or the development from 
 within of its spiritual principles may favour and suggest. The 
 advocates of this doctrine assert that the Church of Christ, as 
 regards her external constitution and organization, has been left 
 very much at freedom ; the inner spiritual life expressing itself 
 in that outward form which best suits the age and country and 
 condition in which she may find herself placed. Upon this 
 view. Christian expediency, guided by a discriminating regard to 
 the advantage and necessities of the Church at the moment, is 
 the only rule to determine its outward organization, and the only 
 directory for Church government. 
 
 The theory which denies the existence of a Divine and autho- 
 ritative form of Church polity, and leaves the whole matter to be 
 regulated by Christian expediency, or merely human arrangement, 
 is one which has found favour with Churchmen inclined either to 
 latitudinarian or Erastian views of the Church ; although it has 
 been held by others also. The mode in which the Reformation 
 was conducted in England, and the undue interference by the 
 State with the Church in that country, had a very marked ten- 
 dency to develop this theory of ecclesiastical government.^ We 
 
 1 [" The original defenders of the Prelacy of the Church of England," 
 observes Dr. Cunningham, " took on this subject much the same ground as 
 they did in vindicating the rites and ceremonies which they retained, — namely, 
 that there was nothing unlawful or sinfid about it, and that, when it was 
 established by the concurrence of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, it was 
 right to submit to it." This position of theirs, viewed in the light of the 
 history of the tunes, was a very natural one. The feelings of kindred, and the 
 sense of a great caiise to be fought out in common, were still strong through- 
 out aU Protestant Christendom. No English theologian could forget that his 
 
Ch. I.] FORM OF CHURCH POLITY DIVINELY APPOINTED. 203 
 
 find, accordingly, that it was held by very many of the divines of 
 the English Church, more especially shortly after the Reformation. 
 In defending Episcopacy, they did so on the lower ground of ex- 
 pediency, and not on the higher ground of Scripture institution, 
 which was afterwards adopted by the school of Laud, and has 
 remained almost exclusively distinctive of it. Such was the view 
 of Cranmer, Jewel, Whitgift, and many others of the early Eng- 
 lish theologians. At a later period it was elaborately argued by 
 Stillingfleet in his Irenicum. And among ourselves, similar opinions 
 as to the absence of any Divine or authoritative model for the 
 government of the Church have been maintained by Dr. Campbell. 
 There is another theory, however, very different from that first 
 mentioned, which asserts that the form and arrangements of 
 ecclesiastical government have not been left to be fixed by the 
 wisdom of man, nor reduced to the level of a question of mere 
 
 Churcli was but one member of a fair sisterhood of Churches, holding the same 
 faith, and owning the same origin ; and in that wide circle she stood alone in 
 retainmg Prelacy. All the leaders of the Reformation throughout Europe, in 
 seeking, to use John Knox's words, ' ' that the reverend face of the j^rhnitive 
 and apostolic Kirk should be reduced again to the eyes and memory of men," 
 had been led, without exception, like Wickliffe and others of their predecessors, 
 by their independent study of Scripture, to reject the essential principles of 
 Prelacy, and to adopt those of Presbyterianism. Their conclusions stood em- 
 bodied in almost every Reformed Confession of Faith that treated of Church 
 government at all. They were constantly urged by the Reforming party 
 in the Church of England. Hence the defensive attitude and semi-apolo- 
 getic tone of the first generation of English Protestant divines who wrote on 
 Church polity ; and hence the ambiguous language of the Ordinal. It needed 
 some time before even the necessities of their position, the strong instincts of 
 English conservatism, and the growing isolation from the influences of foreign 
 thought, could do away with the impression of the contrast between the free 
 choice of Reformed Christendom and the compromise in worship and govern- 
 ment which adverse circumstances, mamly political, had forced ujjon the 
 English Chm-ch in spite of the efforts of Hooper and Jewel, and many of her 
 most gifted sons (see esp. the Zurich Letters, passim). To Dr. Bancroft is 
 usually assigned the unenviable distinction of being "the first to break the 
 peace of the Reformed Churches " on the question of Chm-ch government, by 
 his sermon at St. Paul's Cross in 1588, and his Pretended Holy Discipline 
 in 159;]. The very general reprobation he met with at the time from the 
 highest authorities, and the tone of the answer of Dr. Reynolds, then com- 
 monly held to be the most learned divine of the English Chiu-ch, plainly show 
 the feeling of the day. Not until later did any number of English Church- 
 men begin to find an occasion of pride in the very defects which their greatest 
 Reformers had mourned over, and even, by a curious reversal of the facts of 
 the case, to bestow a good deal of compassion upon Ijuther and Calvin for the 
 distress they must have felt at not being able to establish Prelacy. Cimning- 
 ham, Works, vol. iii. pp. 516-533. Goode, Non-Episcopal Orders, Lond. 1852. 
 Harrison, Whose are the Fathers. 18G7. M^Crie, Life of Knox, 5th ed. notes 
 R. and S.] 
 
204 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 Christian expediency, but have been determined by Divine autho- 
 rity, and are sufficiently exhibited in Scripture. The advocates 
 of this view believe that, in respect of its government and organi- 
 zation, as well as in respect of its doctrine and ordinances, the 
 Church is of God, and not of man ; and that Scripture, rightly 
 interpreted and understood, affords sufficient materials for deter- 
 mining what the constitution and order of the Christian society 
 were intended by its Divine Founder to be. In express Scripture 
 precept, in apostolic example, in the precedent of the primitive 
 Churches while under inspired direction, and in general principles 
 embodied in the New Testament, they believe that it is possible to 
 find the main and essential features of a system of Church 
 government which is of Divine authority and universal obligation. 
 They believe that the Word of God embodies the general prin- 
 ciples and outline of an ecclesiastical polity, fitted to be an autho- 
 ritative model for all Churches, capable of adapting itself to the 
 exigencies of all different times and countries, and, notwithstand- 
 ing, exhibiting a unity of character and arrangement in harmony 
 with the Scripture pattern. Church government, according to this 
 view, is not a product of Christian discretion, nor a development 
 of the Christian consciousness ; it has been shaped and settled, not 
 by the wisdom of man, but by that of the Church's Head. It does 
 not rest upon a ground of human expediency, but of Divine ap- 
 pointment. 
 
 The parties who maintain the " Jus Divinum,^'' as respects the 
 constitution and government of the Christian society, may indeed 
 differ among themselves as to the extent to which warrant or pre- 
 cedent is to be found in Scripture for the lesser details involved 
 in the order or polity of the Church. In the question of the con- 
 stitution and government of the Church, just as in the question of 
 the rites and ordinances of the Church, there is room, as respects 
 the details, for that principle embodied in the apostolic canon: " Let 
 all things be done decently and in order." There is a certain 
 discretion granted, not as regards the essentials, but as regards the 
 circumstantials, in the order and arrangements of ecclesiastical 
 polity, for the introduction and application of the law of nature 
 and right reason, to regulate what is common to the Christian 
 society with any other society, and must therefore fall under such 
 regulation. And men who hold in common the principle that a 
 form of Church government is appointed in Scripture, may differ 
 
Cu. I.] FORM OF CHURCH POLITY DIVINELY APPOINTED. 205 
 
 to some extent as to where the line is to be drawn which shall 
 separate between what is authoritatively fixed in the Word of 
 God, and therefore binding on all believers in every age, and 
 what is not fixed there, but left to the determination and decision 
 of nature and of right reason. The real point in debate, however, 
 between the opposite systems now adverted to is in general terms 
 this : Does the AYord of God afford us a model, more or less 
 detailed, of ecclesiastical polity and organization, which it is the 
 duty of Christians at all times and in all circumstances to imitate; 
 or is there no authoritative delineation or exhibition of Church 
 government at all, so that it is left to be regulated entirely by the 
 dictates of human expediency or Christian prudence 1 
 
 I. The view which denies a Divine and positive warrant for 
 any form of Church government, and leaves the whole question 
 open to the determination of human judgment, according to times 
 and circumstances, can be fairly argued and maintained only upon 
 one or other of two principles. First, it could be asserted upon the 
 assumption that the Church of Christ was no more than a human 
 and voluntary society ; the members of which were competent, 
 both as respects authority and as respects knowledge, to appoint 
 their own office-bearers, and regulate the form of the association. 
 Or, secondly, it could be asserted, on the assumption that the 
 Christian Church, although not a mere voluntary society, had 
 its origin in nature ; and that the law of nature and right reason 
 gave both the authority and the knowledge to select the adminis- 
 trators of the society, and to determine their place and functions. 
 On either of these two grounds, it might be fairly and logically 
 argued that the form of polity and organization needful for the 
 Church was not a matter for positive appointment in Scripture, 
 but rightly fell to be regulated by considerations of human ex- 
 pediency, and to be ordered by the decisions of human wisdom. 
 That neither of these assumptions is correct, it is hardly neces- 
 sary, at this stage of our discussions, to stop to prove at length. 
 
 In the first jjlace, it is not true that the Church is simply a 
 voluntary society, the members of which must possess in them- 
 selves both the right and the power to frame its constitution, and 
 appoint the administrators of it. The Christian society, as an 
 ordinance Divine and not human, does not fall under the regula- 
 tion of such a principle. It does not exist by voluntary compact ; 
 its authority is not founded on the consent or delegation of the 
 
206 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Paut IV. 
 
 members ; they did not create the Christian association at first, 
 nor do its order and organization wait upon their permission or 
 appointment. The source of its life and authority is from with- 
 out, not from within ; and the Church of Christ confers upon its 
 members, but does not receive from them — as in the instance of 
 any mere voluntary association — the privileges peculiar to it as a 
 society. In the case of any voluntary association, its character, 
 its powers, its authority, are delegated and conferred by the 
 members, who have the inherent right, acting themselves or 
 through their organs, to give to it the form and organization that 
 please them. In the case of the Church of Christ, the same 
 thincT would hold £i;ood were it a voluntarv association also. That 
 it is not a voluntary society, but one associated upon a Divine 
 warrant, and constituted by a Divine appointment, is a circum- 
 stance which excludes the right and competency of its members 
 to frame its polity or to regulate its arrangements according to 
 their own views of expediency or right. 
 
 In the second place, it is not true that the Church is a society 
 wholly originating in nature ; or that the law of nature and right 
 reason is sufficient to authorize or enable its members to appoint the 
 form of its constitution, and determine the functions of its office- 
 bearers. If this second assumption were correct, it would afford 
 no small countenance to the idea that the character of its polity 
 and organization was a matter for human wisdom to fix and regu- 
 late. If the Cliurch were, like the State, a society founded in 
 nature alone, and arising exclusively out of tlie natural relations 
 of man as a social being, there might be some ground for the 
 assertion that the law of nature and right reason was sufficient 
 to warrant and enable men, as in the case of civil government, to 
 determine for themselves its rules and constitution. As the crea- 
 ture of nature, it would fall to be regulated as to its organization 
 by the principles of nature. But if, on the contrary, all that is 
 essential and peculiar to the Christian Church is of Divine, and not 
 natural origin, there are no powers within the compass of nature 
 equal to the task of determining its constitution or the form of 
 its development. No doubt, the duty of men associating together 
 for social worship in society is a duty suggested and required by 
 the dictates of nature ; and to this extent it is true that the 
 Church has a foundation in natural principles. And if there had 
 been no peculiar revelation, or if that revelation had not laid anew 
 
Cir. I.] FORM OF CHURCH POLITY DIVINELY ARPOINTED. 207 
 
 the foundations of the Christian society in positive Divine ap- 
 pointment, we must have sought in the principles of nature for 
 the form and ordinances of the Church, and been regulated by 
 reason in determining, however imperfectly, the character and 
 functions of the religious society. These principles, had there been 
 nothing else to guide us, must have left the question of the con- 
 stitution of the Church very much an open one, which might be 
 settled differently in different circumstances. That this supposi- 
 tion, however, is not true, — that the Church of God is not a society 
 wholly or chiefly arising out of the natural relation of man to 
 God, — is a circumstance which forbids the idea that the law of 
 nature or mere reason can determine its character and organiza- 
 tion, or that these have been left as a question which it was com- 
 petent or possible for reason and nature to decide. 
 
 II. The theory which denies a Divine warrant for any system 
 of Church government, and hands over the question to be settled 
 by considerations of human expediency, is contradicted by the 
 fact, which can be clearly established from Scripture, that the 
 Church of Christ, in its essential and peculiar character, is a posi- 
 tive institution of God. 
 
 This principle is applicable to the Church in all its aspects : 
 to its doctrine, and its ordinances; to its constitution, and its 
 faith ; to its inward life, and its outward organization ; to the 
 spiritual grace which it imparts, and the external form which it 
 bears. All is equally and alike of positive appointment by God, 
 being, in the strict sense of the terms, a Divine institution, not 
 owing its origin or virtue to man, and not amenable to his views 
 of expediency, or determined by his arrangements. Looking at 
 the Church of Christ as an express and positive ordinance of 
 God, it is clear that man is neither warranted nor com.petent to 
 judge of its organization. 
 
 The very consideration that lies at the foundation of all our 
 conceptions of the Christian Church, — the fact that it is not 
 simply a voluntary society, and not wholly an ordinance derived 
 from nature, but properly an institution of God, of positive ap- 
 pointment in His Word, — seems very plainly to militate against 
 the idea of the competency or the ability of man, left to his own 
 discretion, to determine its character and constitution from con- 
 siderations of expediency alone. At all events, the presumption is 
 strongly against the notion that Church government is a matter of 
 
208 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 human arrangement and determination solely ; and nothing but 
 a very express and plain declaration of Scripture to that effect 
 would justify us in making such an assertion. Admitting that 
 the Christian Church is, in all its essential parts, a positive insti- 
 tution of Divine origin, and grafted upon man's natural capacity 
 for religion, it may not indeed be a conclusion, necessarily follow- 
 ing from this fact, that man has no part in framing the constitu- 
 tion or determining the character of the ordinance. But the onus 
 jjrobandi certainly lies upon those who assert that this task has 
 been actually assigned to him ; and nothing but a very direct 
 statement of Scripture, handing over to human wisdom and de- 
 cision the right and competency to constitute and regulate the 
 polity of the Church of Christ, would justify us in acquiescing in 
 the assertion. 
 
 In addition to the positive nature of the institution, there are 
 two considerations of a very cogent nature that seem to fortify 
 the conclusion that the Church of Christ, as an express institu- 
 tion of God, has not been left to receive its form and organiza- 
 tion from the hands of man. 
 
 First, the separation between man and God, occasioned by 
 sin, more especially excludes the idea that man is competent, by 
 the aid of reason, to devise or to regulate the constitution of the 
 Church. The terms of a sinner's approach to God in worship, 
 the manner of it, the ordinances to be observed, the forms of 
 religious service, are more peculiarly matters which both his judi- 
 cial exclusion from intercourse with God in his natural state, 
 and his moral inability to renew that intercourse of himself, 
 render him incompetent to deal with. And to the terms and 
 manner of his restored fellowship with God in acceptable worship, 
 must we add the constitutions and regulations of the worshipping 
 society, as a point more especially beyond the power or compe- 
 tency of a sinner to determine. Neither in regard to the services 
 and ordinances of worship, nor in regard to the constitution and 
 order of the Church, are we justified in saying that these are. 
 lawful matters for human arrangement or decision. 
 
 Second, not only is the Church set forth in Scripture as a 
 society of positive institution by God, but, in addition to this, it is 
 represented in the very peculiar light of a visible kingdom, of 
 which Clu'ist is the living Head or King. It is not only a king- 
 dom diverse from the kingdoms of the world, but, in addition to 
 
Cii. I.] FORM OF CHURCH POLITY DIVINELY APPOINTED. 209 
 
 this, it is a kingdom in which Christ is personally present, as the 
 Administrator as well as the Founder of it, — the Ruler now, as 
 much as the Originator at first of the spiritual society. Such a 
 personal dispensation by Christ Himself of the ordinances and 
 laws and authority of His visible kingdom, seems very decidedly 
 to shut out the idea that its constitution is a matter of human 
 discretion, and its regulations the result of human arrangement. 
 As the present Head and 'continual Administrator of the Chris- 
 tian society, Christ has left no room in it for the interference of 
 man as His partner in the Avork. Man is not the lawgiver of 
 the Christian Church ; nor has it been left open to him to frame 
 its constitution or its form of administration. His place in it is 
 that of minister or servant of Plim who is the Head. 
 
 Upon such grounds as these, then, Ave seem Avarranted in say- 
 ing that the government of the Church of Christ is not a matter 
 of human arrangement or expediency, but rather is a positive 
 appointment of Christ, and that Scripture will be found a suffi- 
 cient and authoritative guide in regard to the outward constitu- 
 tion of the Christian society, no less than in regard to its doctrines, 
 itsAA-orship, and its ordinances. There are two remarks, however, 
 Avhicli it is important to make in connection Avitli this matter, in 
 order to avoid misapprehension. 
 
 1st, Although the Word of God contains a sufficient directory 
 for our guidance in regard to the constitution and order of the 
 Christian society, yet Ave are not to look for a systematic de- 
 lineation of Church government, or a scientific compendium of 
 ecclesiastical law, in Scripture. A system of Church law, or a 
 model constitution for the Christian society, Avould liaA'e been out 
 of place in the Word of God, and inconsistent Avith the great 
 principles on Avhich revelation is framed. We have no scientific 
 exhibition of doctrine draAvn up in a logical system in Scripture ; 
 and just as little haA'e Ave any scientific digest or institutes of 
 Church law. The Bible Avas not framed upon the model of a 
 Confession of Faith, nor yet upon the pattern of a code of 
 ecclesiastical jurisprudence. The Church must, in these latter 
 days, seek for her directory of government and laA\', as Avell as 
 of faith, not in formal or scientific statements on either subject, 
 but in those general principles Avhich can be educed from Scrip- 
 ture as applicable to the case ; in apostolical example, as well as 
 precept ; in the precedents afforded by the primitive Churches 
 
210 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 while under inspired direction ; and in the incidental information 
 to be gathered from the New Testament as to the arrangements 
 and institutions of the early believers during the lifetime of the 
 Apostles. It is in entire accordance with the general structure 
 and usage of Scripture that we should be sent for information on 
 the subject to such incidental intimations of the mind of God, 
 rather than to a formal treatise on ecclesiastical government. 
 And proceeding upon such a principle in the mode of communi- 
 cating its information, we must be prepared to find in the Bible, 
 in reference to the form and order of the Church, not a little 
 that belonged to primitive times, and is not applicable to ours, 
 some regulations which were called for by the exigencies of 
 early Christianity, but were not intended to be permanent or 
 binding upon all Christians. In the extraordinary circumstances 
 of the early Chui'ch, we must be prepared to find something that 
 was extraordinary and peculiar, and only suited to the temporary 
 and incomplete condition of the infant Church. There is some 
 difficulty occasionally in separating between what was extraordi- 
 nary in the case of the early Christians, and what was ordinary, 
 and fitted and intended to be a precedent for us. But, notwith- 
 standing of this difficulty, there are ample materials to be found 
 in Scripture to constitute a sufficient and authoritative model of 
 Church government binding upon us. 
 
 2d, Although the "Word of God be a sufficient guide in matters 
 pertaining to tlie constitution and government of the Christian 
 Church, yet there is a distinction to be drawn between what is of 
 the substance of the ecclesiastical organization, and what is no 
 more than circumstantial. The Scripture was intended to exhibit 
 a model of ecclesiastical arrangement, complete in so far as the 
 Church is a society peculiar and different from other societies ; 
 that is to say, in so far as regards its essential structure and 
 form as a Church. But Scripture was not intended to exhibit a 
 pattern of ecclesiastical order, in so far as the Church is a society, 
 identical in its character with other societies, or in so far as 
 regards not its essential, but merely its circumstantial features. 
 What is common in order and polity to the Christian society with 
 any other society is left to be regulated by the light of nature 
 and reason, and is not authoritatively fixed in Scripture. In 
 short, very much the same distinction between what is of the 
 substance, and what belongs to the circumstances of the insti- 
 
Cii.I.] FORM OF CHURCH POLITY DIVINELY APPOINTED. 211 
 
 tution, which we found to be applicable in regard to the matter 
 of Church rites and ceremonies, is also applicable in the case 
 of Church polity and government. Whatever is proper to its 
 essential and distinctive character as a positive institution of 
 God, and so belongs to those points which separate it from other 
 societies, has been authoritatively determined in Scripture, and is 
 universally binding. Whatever is not essential to it as a positive 
 institution of God, but common to its order and arrangements 
 with those of any other society, is left open to be adjusted by 
 reason, in accordance with its own views of what is " in good 
 form and according to order" {€va')(r]/jbovco^ Kai Kara Ta^tv). 
 The three marks laid down by George Gillespie in the parallel 
 case of Church rites and ceremonies may serve also to indicate 
 what, in the matter of Church government, is left to the deter- 
 mination of reason according to its views of Christian expediency. 
 First, it must be a matter belonging not to the substance of 
 ecclesiastical organization, but only to the circumstances of it. 
 Second, it must be a matter not determinable from Scripture ; 
 and Tliird, it must be a matter to be decided in one way or 
 other ; and for the decision of which in this particular manner, 
 rather than in a different, a good reason can be assigned,^ With 
 the help of these tests, it will not often be a difficult matter in 
 practice to say what in the order and arrangements of the eccle- 
 siastical society is, or is not, left free to be determined by human 
 wisdom. 
 
 Such, then, are the conclusions in which we seem to be justi- 
 fied in acquiescing with respect to the question, whether or not 
 any authoritative form of Church government has been ap- 
 pointed in Scripture. And if these conclusions are sound, they 
 serve to settle by anticipation another question of no small im- 
 portance in this discussion, in regard to the standard of appeal 
 by which we are bound to judge of the different forms of Church 
 polity that demand our attention. If the views already indicated 
 are correct, then it imavoidably follows that the Word of God is 
 the standard by which the controversy is to be determined, and 
 not any appeal to the voice of the Church, or the sentiments and 
 opinions of ecclesiastical antiquity. If the form and order of the 
 Christian society be matters of positive appointment by God, then 
 
 ^ See above, vol. i. p. 355. Gillespie, Engl. Popish Ceremonies, Part iii. 
 ch. vii. 5-7. 
 
212 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 it is plain that in His Word alone can we expect to find the 
 materials for judging as to what that appointment actually is. 
 From the very nature of the case, a positive institution must have 
 express warrant in the AVord of God, else it cannot be authori- 
 tative or binding. The evidence of the post-apostolic age, even 
 although it could be proved to be valid and satisfactory in itself 
 in favour of any form of Church government, would not compen- 
 sate for the absence of the express authority of Scripture. Evi- 
 dence extra-scriptural, however conclusive it might be, could not 
 supply the want of the positive testimony of the Word of God. 
 Even supposing it could be demonstrated by the testimony of 
 antiquity that a certain form of ecclesiastical polity prevailed in 
 apostolic times, and had even been set up by inspired men, this 
 would not avail, if Scripture withheld its testimony. The fact 
 might be true ; but the silence of Scripture would show that 
 it was a fact not intended by God to be a precedent binding 
 upon us. The omission of the fact in the sacred volume, and 
 the silence of the inspired writers, would prove that the form 
 of polity was one lawful, it might be, or required in the cir- 
 cumstances of the apostolic Church, but not meant to be a 
 model for the imitation of subsequent ages. It is most important 
 to understand this aright, as there has been no small misappre- 
 hension in regard to it. Very many of the advocates of Episco- 
 pacy, for example, have abandoned the scriptural ground alto- 
 gether, and have endeavoured, by extra-scriptural evidence, to • 
 prove that that form of polity prevailed in the apostolic times.^ I 
 
 VWe may answer such an argument by calling in question theJ 
 testimony adduced, and showing, as can be conclusively done,H 
 1 Thus Mr. Litton, in his very interesting and able work on the Church, 
 hile holding Episcopacy to be an apostolic institution, and entitled to the 
 eight of such — although that, according to his view, does not make it uni- 
 ^^'Vsally binding — frankly gives up the attempt to prove it to be so from 
 ^^•jliture. "There is every reason to believe," he thinks, "that it is an 
 ^P^^tolic appointment ; meanwhile it cannot be denied that Scripture alone 
 *?"iishes but slender data for cm- pronouncing it to be so. And this, be it 
 ° . srved, may be admitted without iccalcening the evidence for its apostoUcity. 
 \othj and Titus may have been bishojjs of Ephesus and Crete respectively, 
 ^^ yet it may be impossible to prove from Scripture alone that they were so. 
 • ■ . As long as the advocates for Episcopacy are content to rest their cause 
 yjon post-apostolic testimony, their jaosition is impregnable : it is only when 
 hey attempt to prove it from Scripture alone that the argument fails to 
 *puvince. Better at once to acknowledge that the institution is traceable to 
 \c Apostles chiefly through the channel of uninspired men, than by insisting 
 ^on insufficient scriptm-al evidence to bring discredit upon the whole argu- 
 
Cii. I.] FORM OF CHURCH POLITY DIVINELY APPOINTED. 213 
 
 that it is not sufficient to demonstrate the fact asserted of the 
 establishment of Prekicy in apostolic times or by inspired men. 
 But we may answer the argument in a second way, and one no 
 less conclusive. Even admitting for a moment the fact to be as 
 it is asserted, — admitting that examples of diocesan Episcopacy 
 could be proved to have existed, or to have been sanctioned in 
 apostolic times, — the silence of Scripture, and the total absence, 
 to say nothing more, of Scripture evidence in support of it, would 
 nullify the fact as authority for the binding obligation of that 
 form of Church polity upon future ages. It is not only that 
 we must have better and more conclusive evidence for the fact 
 than the corrupted and unsatisfactory testimony of ecclesiastical 
 tradition. But even though the fact were established, we must, 
 in addition to this, have Scripture authority for the fact, before 
 we can be called upon to regard it as a Divine precedent intended 
 to lay an authoritative obligation upon Christians in subsequent 
 generations.^ 
 
 ment." — Church of Christ, Lond. 1851, pp. 411, 436. Mr. Litton, accord- 
 ingly, claims no more scriptiu-al authority for prelates than a few possible 
 "hints." "If the 'angels' of the Apocalypse and Diotrephes were not of 
 tills order, it is more than probable that the New Testament does not j^resent 
 us with any instance of a formal bishop." Of the two, he seems inclined to 
 think that there is most to be made of Diotrephes (pp. 425 f.) — a conclusion 
 in which, I believe, most Presbyterians will agree with him. 
 
 ^ Jus Div. Reg. Eccles. Lond. 1646, pp. 1-35, etc. Cunningham, Works, 
 vol. i. pj). 27—45 ; vol. ii. pp. 64—78. Rutherford, Divine Right of Church 
 Gov. Lond. 1646, pp. 26-82. {^Ansiver to Questions propounded by the Parlia- 
 ment to the Assembly of Divines touching Jus Divinum in matter of Church 
 Government, Lond. 1646, pp. 10-20. Seigwich (of Farnham), Scripture a 
 Perfect Rule for Church Government. Forrester, Revieio and Consideration, 
 Edin. 1706, pp. 27 ff. 343-352. MUton, Reason of Church Gov. B. i. ch. i. ii. 
 Brown, Apologetical Relation, 1665, pp. 213-243 (in reply to Stillingfleet).] 
 
214 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 THE EXTRAORDINARY OFFICE-BEARERS OF THE CHRISTIAN 
 CHURCH. 
 
 In discussing the question of the kind of Church government 
 delineated and appointed in Scripture, it is a matter of some 
 importance to fix the date when the Christian Church was for- 
 mally organized or set up. It is plain that this is a question of 
 considerable moment in the discussion ; for, by a mistake as to 
 the date of its formal establishment, we may be led to confound 
 the extraordinary circumstances of its transition state with the 
 ordinary circumstances of its normal and permanent condition. 
 Now, a very slight consideration will be sufficient to satisfy us 
 that the Christian Church was not properly or formally founded 
 until after our Lord's resurrection from the dead. From the day 
 of His resurrection Me date the commencement of Christianity 
 itself, as a fully established and developed system of faith, 
 founded, as it w\as, upon the truth of that great fact. And from 
 the same epoch we date the formal commencement of the Chris- 
 tian Church, as a society which owed its establishment and formal 
 existence among men to the same event. Our Lord's sojourn on 
 earth was a period of time devoted to the work of preparing for 
 a new dispensation and Church, rather than exhibiting the com- 
 mencement of it. It was an interval of transition, in which the 
 foundations of the ancient Church were in course of being 
 removed, rather than a new one established. The members of 
 God's true Church had not yet been summoned to come out of 
 the earlier society, and to enter into the communion of the later. 
 Christ Himself, during all the period of His abode on earth, 
 remained a member of the Jewish Church, waiting on its ordi- 
 nances, submitting to its distinctive rites, and frequenting the 
 solemnities of the Temple worship. And those who believed on 
 His name durinc^ His own lifetime were neither commanded nor 
 
Ch.IL] EXTRAORDINArtY OFFICE-BEARERS. 215 
 
 encouraged to depai't from the established institutions of the 
 ancient Church, or to incorporate themselves into a new fellow- 
 ship distinct from the former. The worshippers of the Father 
 were still required to worship Him in Ilis house of prayer at 
 Jerusalem ; and the day did not arrive which witnessed the 
 formal abolition of the Jewish Church and the public inaugura- 
 tion of the Christian, until the resurrection of Christ openly 
 declared that a new faith had been developed, and a new order 
 of spiritual things begun. From the date of the resurrection of 
 our Lord the Old Testament economy ceased to be binding, and 
 the Old Testament Church was formally at an end. From the 
 same date the foundation of the New Testament Church was 
 laid ; and the people of God came under an obligation to join 
 themselves to it as members.^ 
 
 Such plainly being the period when the Church of God 
 ceased to be moulded after the Mosaic type, and came to be 
 shaped after the pattern of the Christian, the inference to be 
 drawn from this consideration is of no small value in our inquiry 
 as to the authoritative precedent for Church government. We 
 must look for that precedent, not during the transition period of 
 the Church, when it was putting off its Jewish features and 
 putting on the Christian, but after that transition had been 
 fairly accomplished, and the Christian society had settled down 
 into its permanent and normal condition. That fixed condition 
 was not attained, indeed, until some time after the resurrection of 
 our Lord. It was the special work which He gave His Apostles 
 to accomplish, to complete in its full and perfect order the Chris- 
 tian society of which He had Himself, after His resurrection, only 
 laid the foundations. And He gave them extraordinary powers 
 and gifts for that object, commensurate with the extraordinary 
 work to be performed by them. Around the Apostles, as the 
 special instruments for developing and completing both the system 
 of Christian faith and the structure and organization of the 
 Christian Church, their Master made to gather all those gifts 
 and endowments demanded by such an emergency, and sufficient 
 for such a task. They formed no part of the ordinary equipment 
 of the Church of Christ, or the ordinary staff of office-bearers 
 by which its affairs were to be administered. Their use and 
 function ceased when the Church of Christ, through their instru- 
 ^ Ayton, Original Constitution of the Christ. Church, Edin. 1730, pp. 13-20. 
 
216 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER [Part IV. 
 
 mentality, had been firmly settled and fully organized, and when 
 it had attained to the condition of its ordinary and permanent 
 development. 
 
 There was an extraordinary instrumentality necessary to pre- 
 pare for laying the foundations of the Christian Church ; there 
 was also an extraordinary instrumentality necessary, after that, for 
 completing the superstructure. It would be a mistake of no small 
 moment to identify these extraordinary provisions on either occa- 
 sion, with the ordinary equipment of the Christian Church, — to 
 identify its transition character with its permanent organization. 
 Before the Christian society was formally established, the instru- 
 mentality of John the Baptist, the personal ministry of our Lord 
 Himself, the commission granted by Him, first to the twelve, 
 and afterwards to the seventy disciples during his lifetime, were 
 the extraordinary means adopted to usher in that state of things 
 in which the foundation of a Christian Church could be laid. 
 Subsequently to that event, the extraordinary commission and 
 endowments granted to apostles and prophets and evangelists at 
 the outset of Christianity, formed the special instrumentality 
 employed to build up and complete the New Testament Church, 
 and to perfect both its outward and inward organization. Both 
 before and after our Saviour's resurrection, extraordinary and 
 temporary measures were resorted to, suitable to the emergency, 
 first, of laying the foundation ; and, secondly, of perfecting the 
 superstructure of the ecclesiastical society. And it is of much 
 importance in the subsequent argument, that we be able to dis- 
 criminate between what was extraordinary and temporary, and 
 what was ordinary and permanent, in the condition and equipment 
 of the Christian Church. 
 
 That the Christian Church was not, and could not be, founded 
 at all until Christ rose from the grave, is a position which is very 
 generally admitted by opposite parties in this controversy, and 
 cannot, with any show of reason, be denied. And the conclusion 
 resulting from this consideration, namely, that no precedent or 
 model of Church polity is to be sought for in the history of our 
 Lord's personal ministry, or in the commission granted by Him 
 in His lifetime to the twelve or the seventy disciples, is an infer- 
 ence which, although sometimes overlooked in argument, can 
 hardly be deliberately impugned. But that after the resurrec- 
 tion of Christ, and in order to complete and build up the Church 
 
Cii. II. §1.] OFFICE OF APOSTLES. 217 
 
 then founded, a similar extraordinary instrumentality was em- 
 ployed, and that we are equally forbidden to regard such instru- 
 mentality as belonging to the normal condition of the Church, or 
 as furnishing any precedent to rule its ordinary form of polity, 
 are propositions which, by not a few controversialists, are openly 
 contradicted. The extraordinary mission of apostles and evan- 
 gelists, necessary and adapted to the emergency of a Church to 
 be established, has been often appealed to as the rule or model 
 for the proper and permanent condition of the Christian society. 
 The temporary and exceptional circumstances of a Churcli passing 
 through the crisis of its birth and infancy have been mistaken for 
 the pattern binding on a Church in its natural and perfect state. 
 In the language of the old divines, the " Ecclesia constituenda " 
 has been made to give law to the " Ecclesia constituta." ^ It will 
 to a great extent clear the way for our future discussions, if we 
 seek at the outset to separate between the extraordinary and the 
 ordinary office-bearers in the Christian society, — between those 
 adapted to the emergency of its infant condition, and destined to 
 pass away, and those adapted to its permanent and fixed condition, 
 and entitled to a standing place in the external arrangements of 
 Christ for Plis people. 
 
 SEC. I. OFFICE OF APOSTLES. 
 
 Let us, in the first instance, direct our attention to the case 
 of the Apostles, and inquire whether the office held by them in 
 the earhest times of the Church was extraordinary and temporary, 
 or ordinary and permanent, in the Christian society. It will not 
 be difficult to show that the peculiarities of the apostolic office are 
 such as to prove that the former alternative is the correct one. 
 
 I. One peculiarity — perhaps the primary one — of the apos- 
 
 1 [" Versetzen wir ims in Gedanken auf den Zeitpuukt wo der letzte Apostel 
 gestorben ist, und fragen; wo ist nun das Apostolat? — so antwortet der 
 Katholicismiis : cs ist in den lebendigen Nachfolgern der Apostel, als den 
 Inhabern der wahren Tradition, in den Bischcifen, den Concilien, dem Papste, 
 in welcher Repriisentation sie die Fortsetzung der apostolischen Inspiration 
 erkennt. Die evangelisclie Kirche dagegen antwortet, dass sie den vollgiil- 
 tigen Ansdruck flir das Apostolat nur in der heiligen Schrift findet, welche 
 die bleibende Stinime der Apostel in der Kirche ist. Wtihrend der Katholi- 
 cismus einefortgesetzte Inspiration durch alle Zeiten hindurch annimmt, fUhrt 
 der Protcstantismus dieselbe nur auf die Stiftung der Kirche zuriick." — 
 Martensen, Dof/matik, 4te Aufl. p. 296. Litton, Church of Christ, Lend. 
 1851, pp. 41U f.'] 
 
218 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWEE. [Part IV. 
 
 tolic office, distinguishing it from other offices in the Christian 
 Church, was, that the Apostles were separated to be the toiinesses 
 of our Lord's ministry, and more particularly of His resurrection 
 from the dead. 
 
 This is very often referred to, both by our Lord and by the 
 Apostles themselves, as the grand object of their appointment to 
 the office. When our Saviour gave to the eleven their final 
 instructions before He ascended up to heaven. He very distinctly 
 indicated the purpose for wdiich they had been selected and set 
 apart : " And He said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it 
 behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, 
 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in 
 His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye 
 are icitnesses of these things." ^ The same thing is still more 
 j)ointedly brought out in the election of Matthias to the place 
 among the Apostles, made vacant by the apostasy of Judas. 
 The purpose of the apostolic office, as furnishing a personal 
 witness for Christ, is put beyond all reasonable controversy by 
 the express language of Peter on that occasion : " Wherefore of 
 these men which have companied with us all the time that the 
 Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the bap- 
 tism of John, unto that same day that He was taken up from us, 
 must one be ordained to be a ivitness loith us of His 7'esurrection." - 
 The case of Paul, who was not among the number of those who 
 had companied with Christ, and seen Him in the days of His 
 flesh, although at first sight an exception to the rule, furnishes 
 in reality a strong confirmation of the same conclusion as to the 
 design and peculiarity of the apostolic office. Paul was not 
 qualified to bear testimony to Christ from personal knowledge 
 of Him before and after His resurrection, in the same manner 
 as the other apostles, who had been eye-witnesses, were qualified ; 
 but, to fit him for the office to which he was called, the Lord 
 appeared to him on the way to Damascus, and the risen Saviour 
 was seen of him also " as of one born out of due time." ^ We have 
 more than one distinct relation of the conversion and appointment 
 to the apostleship of Paul, in which reference is made to the object 
 and design of his extraordinary call, and the heavenly vision 
 through which it was accomplished. " The God of our fathers," 
 said Ananias to the astonished Saul, "hath chosen thee, that thou 
 
 ' Luke xxiv. 46-48. ^ ^^^g i_ 21 f. 3 1 Cor. xv. 8. 
 
Cii.ll. §1.] OFFICE OF APOSTLES. 219 
 
 shouldst know His will, and see that Just One, and shouldst hear 
 tlie voice of His mouth. For thou shalt be a witness to all men 
 of what thou hast seen and heard^^ In the original call granted 
 to the apostle, Christ Himself is represented as thus addressing 
 him : " I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee 
 a minister and a u'itness, both of those things which thou hast 
 seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee." ' 
 Such passages as these can be interpreted in no other way than 
 as a declaration that the supernatural appearance of Christ, 
 when He was seen and heard by Paul, was made in order to 
 remove the disqualification, under which Paul laboured, of 
 having not seen Christ after the flesh; and that the design of 
 the office, to which he was in this extraordinary manner called, 
 was to furnish an eye-witness to the fact of a risen Saviour among 
 men. And the whole character of the life and preaching both of 
 Paul and the other apostles, goes to establish the same conclusion. 
 They constantly felt and declared that their peculiar office or 
 mission was to be witnesses for Christ and His resurrection. 
 " We were eye-witnesses of His majesty," says Peter. " That 
 which we have seen and heard, declare we unto yovi," says John. 
 " He was seen of James ; then of all the apostles ; and last of 
 all, He was seen of me also," says Paul. " This Jesus hath God 
 raised up, whereof we all are witnesses," says the Apostle Peter 
 in the name of his brethren. " And we are witnesses of all that 
 He did," says the same apostle on another occasion. " Him God 
 raised up the third day, and shewed Him openly, not to all the 
 people, but unto witnesses, chosen before of God, even unto us." ^ 
 So very express and abundant is the evidence to prove that one 
 ])eculiarity, perhaps the chief one, which distinguishes apostles 
 from other office-bearers in the Christian Church, M'as the dis- 
 tinctive qualification — not of course enjoyed by any that came 
 after them — that they were the selected witnesses for Christ and 
 His. resurrection. 
 
 H. Another peculiarity, marking out the apostolic office from 
 others of an ordinary kind, was the call and commission to it 
 given by Christ Himself. 
 
 The twelve were immediately sent forth to their work by 
 
 ^ Acts xxii. 14 f. 2 ^cts xxvi. 16. 
 
 ^ 2 Pet. i. 16 ; 1 JoLn i. 3 ; 1 Cor. xv. 7 f. ; Acts ii. 32, iii. 15, iv. 20, 
 V. 32, X. 39-41. 
 
220 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 Christ, without the intervention of man. Their commission was 
 direct and peculiar, being independent of any earthly authority, 
 and resting immediately on the call of Christ. " As my Father 
 liath sent me, even so send I you," ^ were the words of our Lord 
 addressed to them, — forming the sole and all-sufficient authority 
 by which they ministered as His Apostles. When the vacancy 
 among the Twelve Apostles had to be filled up by the election of 
 Matthias, the choice Avas referred directly to God. When yet 
 another was to be added in the person of Saul of Tarsus, the 
 addition was made by an extraordinary call from heaven. In- 
 deed it is a fact of great significance in regard to the nature and 
 design of the apostolic office, that the name which, in the primary 
 meaning, was proper to the Son of God, as The Sent of God, the 
 Apostle of the Father,^ should have been specially given by Him 
 to the twelve whom He selected as His immediate witnesses 
 and messengers to the world. " And of them He chose twelve," 
 says the narrative of their selection to the office ; " whom also 
 He named apostles." ^ In the same sense in which the Son was 
 the Apostle, or The Sent of the Father, so were these twelve the 
 apostles or the sent of Christ. As He came not of Himself, but 
 was commissioned directly by the Father, so they who occupied 
 the foremost place among the office-bearers of His Church were 
 specially commissioned and delegated by Him. In the Gospel by 
 John, when our Lord speaks of the authority granted Him for 
 His work and office as Mediator, the special description of Him- 
 self that He gives more frequently almost than any other, is that 
 He is The Sent of God, or the Apostle of the Father, who had 
 sent Him into the world.* And the assignation of that de- 
 scription or title to the twelve by Christ Himself marks very 
 emphatically the peculiar investiture which they, as apostles, 
 received. So nearly resembling the very mission of the Son by 
 the Father was the delegation they received from Christ, that 
 He appropriates to it the same name, and tells them, moreover, 
 in reference to their extraordinary vocation : " He that receiveth 
 you, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth Him that 
 sent me." ^ As regards this direct and extraordinary commission, 
 
 1 John XX. 21. 
 
 - 'A«-offToXo.c, Heb. iii. 1. [On the kindred words and phrases in Hebrew, 
 Arabic, etc., see Voetius, Polit. Eccles. torn. iii. lib. ii. Tract ii. ch. ii. 1.] 
 •'■ Luke vi. 13. " John iv. 34, v. 23, 30, 36 f., vi. 29, 39, etc. 
 
 ■' Matt. X. 40 : John xiii. 20. 
 
Cii. II. § I.] OFFICE OF APOSTLES. 221 
 
 the Apostles stood alone and without succession in the Christian 
 Church. 
 
 III. Another peculiarity of the apostolic office was the super- 
 natural power which they possessed to qualify them for their 
 extraordinary mission. 
 
 As the founders of the faith and of tlie Church of Christ, the 
 Apostles received extraordinary gifts, proportioned to the extra- 
 ordinary emergency Avhich they were called upon to meet. It 
 was required of them, not only to declare the doctrine of their 
 Master, but to complete for the use of the Church and the world 
 the revelation of truth, wdiich, in regard to many things Pie had 
 to tell, was left incomplete by our Lord at the close of His per- 
 sonal ministry, because, as He Himself said, " they were not then 
 able to bear it;"^ and for this purpose it was necessary that the 
 Apostles should receive the extraordinary inspiration of God, to 
 enable them, by word and writing, to fill up the measure of Divine 
 revelation to men.. Again, it was required of the Apostles that 
 they should be not only the teachers of infallible truth, but the 
 witnesses to accredit it in the face of an unbelieving world ; and 
 for the purpose of enabling them to accredit it, they went forth 
 among men endowed with miraculous powers, " preaching the 
 Word everywhere, with signs following." Further still, it was 
 required of the Apostles that they should publish the Gospel to 
 every creature, so that men of other languages and nations might 
 be brought into the Church of God ; and for this purpose the 
 day of Pentecost beheld them possessed with the extraordinary 
 gift of tongues, so that each one of the strangers out of divers 
 countries " heard them speak in his own language the wonderful 
 works of God." The powers of inspiration, of miracles, and of 
 tongues are spoken of by Paul as " the signs of an apostle" 
 ija arjfieia tov aTToarokov)^ — marking out the authority and the 
 special character of his office. This power was indeed bestowed 
 on others besides the Apostles ; although there is no reason to 
 think that others possessed it in the same degree with the Apostles. 
 And even with respect to other believers who possessed and exer- 
 cised miraculous gifts, there seems to be some ground in Scripture 
 for holding that, in ordinary cases, they received such gifts only 
 through the intervention of the Apostles, and in consequence of 
 the imposition of the Apostles' hands. But wdiether there be 
 iJohnxvi. 12. 2 2 Cor. xii. 12. 
 
222 PAKTIES WHO EXERCISE CHUKCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 sufficient ground in Scripture for that assertion or not, of this 
 there seems to be no doubt, that it was the pecuhar office of 
 apostles, by imposition of hands, to confer supernatural endow- 
 ments ; and that this power of imparting and transmitting to 
 others extraordinary gifts was confined to them alone. Here, 
 then, we have another characteristic of the apostle's office, mark- 
 ing it out as temporary, and not permanent. 
 
 IV. Another peculiarity which marked the Apostles, was the 
 universal commission and unlimited authority which were con- 
 ferred on them as Christ's representatives on earth. 
 
 There were no bounds set either to the extent of this com- 
 mission, as embracing the whole world, or to the measure of their 
 authority, as supreme over all Churches and all office-bearers in 
 the Church. In the very terms of their original appointment we 
 read the universal commission which distinguished them as the 
 apostles of the world, and not of any one nation or Church. We 
 see the same unlimited vocation in the " catholic epistles " which 
 they sent forth, not to one Church, or one society of believers, 
 but to the universal Church of Christ. We have evidence of the 
 same unrestricted ministry in the history of their life and con- 
 duct. We see them preaching the Gospel wherever they found 
 themselves situated, and reaching forth unto the regions beyond, 
 planting Churches and ordaining office-bearers in every city. 
 And so likewise in regard to the supreme and absolute authority 
 which they possessed, not only over some, but over all the 
 Churches of Christ. We see the proof of this authority in the 
 manner in which, both personally and by writing, they assumed 
 the direction and regulated the affairs of the universal Christian 
 Church in all its departments. We see a distinct intimation of it 
 in the power committed to them by our Lord, when, in the terms 
 of their call to the apostleship, they received warrant to bind and 
 to loose on earth and in heaven. And not less distinct is the 
 evidence of a supreme authority exercised by them, when we see 
 them in their writings, and by their personal interference and 
 control, laying down the whole platform of the New Testament 
 Church, — appointing its office-bearers and its form of govern- 
 ment, enunciating its maxims of worship, and prescribing the 
 exercises of its discipline, inflicting and removing censures in 
 the case of its members, and authoritatively overruling the 
 procedure in ecclesiastical matters, both of individuals and of 
 
Ch. II. § I.] OFFICE OF APOSTLES. 223 
 
 Churches.^ Such a supreme jurisdiction and universal ministry 
 were competent only to apostles, and form another distinguishing 
 characteristic of their office as singular and not permanent in the 
 Cliurch of Christ. 
 
 Such marks and distinctions as these we can easily gather 
 from Scripture as belonging to the apostolic office, and separating 
 it broadly from other offices in the Christian Church. And all 
 of them go very directly to show that the office was of a tempo- 
 rary kind, suited to the transitional and incomplete state of the 
 Church of Christ in its infancy, but forming no part of its 
 ordinary or permanent organization. The apostleship was the 
 Divine expedient to meet the emergencies of the Church at its 
 first establishment and outset in the world, and not the method 
 appointed for its ordinary administration ; and the peculiarities 
 distinctive of the office, to Avhich I have now referred, could not, 
 from their very nature, be repeated in the case of their successors, 
 or be transmitted as a permanent feature in the Christian Church. 
 They could have no successors as personal eye-witnesses of a risen 
 Saviour, — as delegates whom His own hands had immediately 
 invested with office, — as the depositaries and dispensers of His 
 supernatural powers, — as the administrators of His own universal 
 commission and infallible and supreme authority in the Christian 
 society. In these respects, the apostolic power was, so to speak, 
 a delegation to them of the same power that Christ Himself exer- 
 
 ^ ['" L'eglise fut le fruit du ministere extraordinaire des Apotres, et des 
 Evangelistes ; ce ministere la produisit au commencement, et non seulement 
 il la produisit, mais il luy a toujours servy de moyen ou do source pour sa 
 subsistance, et Ton pent dire avec verite qu'il la produit encore, et qu'il la 
 produira jusqu' a la fin du monde ; car c'e$t la foy qui fait et qui fera toujours 
 l'eglise, et c'est le ministere des Apotres qui fait et qui fera toujours la foy. 
 C'est leur voix qui les convoque encore aujourdhuy, c'est leur parole qui les 
 assemble, et leur enseignement qvxi les lie. II est certain que le ministere des 
 Apotres fut unique, c'est a dire vmiquement attache a leurs personnes sans 
 succession, sans communication, sans propagation, mais il ne faut pas croire 
 aussi que c'est este un ministere passager, comme celuy des autres homines, 
 car il est perpetuel a l'eglise ; la mort ne leur a pas ferme la boucbe, comme 
 elle I'a fermee aux autres, ils parlent, ils instruisent, ils repandent sans 
 cesso la foy, la piete, la saintete dans Tame des Chretiens .... Si Ton 
 nous demande, quelle est cette voix perpetuelle que nous leur attribuons? 
 Nous re'pondons que c'est la doctrine du Nouveau Testament, ou ils out ras- 
 semble toute I'efficacc de leur ministere, et toute la vertu de cette j^arole 
 qui fait Teglise. C'est la qu'est leur veritable chaire, et leur siege 
 apostolique, le centre de I'unite Chre'tienue, c'est de la qu'ils appellent sans 
 cesse les hommes, et qu'ils les joigneut en societe." — Claude, Defense de la 
 Reformation^ 4me Partie, ch. iii. 6. Nitzsch, prot. Beaut. Hamburg 1855, 
 pp. 224-235.] • 
 
224 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 cised when on earth ; and, from the nature of the case, and the 
 circumstances of the Church, it could not continue as a perma- 
 nent ordinance on earth. "It was expedient " that even Christ 
 Himself, the infallible Teacher and the supreme authority in the 
 Christian society, " should go away," and the Church be left to 
 the ordinary ministration of the fallible word and erring autho- 
 rity of men. And for the same reason, the apostolic office, exer- 
 cising, as it also did, an absolute authority and invested with 
 an infallible power to teach, was likewise inconsistent with the 
 normal state and organization of the Church. It was to cease 
 with the lives of those originally appointed to it, as incompatible 
 with the ordinary and permanent condition of the Church of 
 Christ.^ 
 
 Now there are two objections, and no more than two, that 
 are at all deserving of notice, which have been brought against the 
 argument intended to prove that the office of the apostleship was 
 a temporary one, and that the Apostles had no successors in it. 
 
 1st, The case of Matthias has been referred to as favouring 
 the idea of a succession in the apostleship. It has been argued 
 that the act of the eleven in transferring to him the same apos- 
 tolic power which they had received themselves indicates an inten- 
 tion to perpetuate the office, and furnishes a precedent for the 
 appointment of successors to the Apostles in all subsequent times. 
 The difficulty interposed by this objection to our argument is not 
 a very formidable one, and may be removed by a very slight con- 
 sideration of the circumstances of the case. 
 
 In the first place, the election of Matthias was an extraordinary 
 one for the purpose of supplying the place of Judas, and com- 
 pleting the number of the apostolic college, and forms no pre- 
 cedent for an ordinary and unlimited succession of apostles in 
 
 1 [It has been more than once remarked that a confirmation of this view 
 of the office of the Apostles may be seen in the language they themselves 
 employ in their latest epistles, at a time when the well-nigh completed orga- 
 nization of the Churches began to make the existence of a rank of office- 
 bearers above the ordinary and permanent ones unnecessary. " The presbyter 
 to the elect lady and her children." " The presbyter to the well-beloved 
 (Taius." " The presbyters among yon I exhort, who am a fellow -presbyter 
 (av/^-Trpia/ivTipo^).^'' AVe may be reminded — to use the fine comparison of 
 Milton — of those noble patricians of Rome, who hastened, as soon as the^ 
 crisis was safely passed, to lay down the temporary dictatorship that spoke of 
 the dangers and confusion of some great emergency, rejoicing to take a lowlier 
 place once more in the settled ranks of the state, and leaving only the record 
 of their deeds to uphold their name and honour among their fellow-citizous.] 
 
Cii.II. §1.] OFFICE OF APOSTLES. 225 
 
 the Churcli. The number ticelve was originally appointed as the 
 full staff of the apostles, the representatives of the Christian 
 Church, in designed reference to the number of the twelve tribes 
 of Israel, as the types of the visible Church of God in former 
 times, — a parallelism which can be made out distinctly from 
 various passages of Scripture. The argument of Peter from the 
 69th Psahn plainly indicates that there was a necessity that this 
 number should be kept up, and that the vacancy caused by the 
 apostasy and death of Judas should be supplied by the election of 
 another with that special object in view. Both the vacancy and 
 the supply of that vacancy had been matters indicated before in 
 the volume of prophecy as what must take place. " For it is 
 Avritten," says Peter, " in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be 
 desolate, let no man dwell therein : and his bishopric let another 
 take. Wherefore," concludes the apostle, " of these men which 
 have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in 
 and out among us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of 
 His resurrection." ^ The default in the number of the apostles, 
 and the necessity X)f remedying it by another election to the office, 
 were both indicated by the authority of inspiration. The step 
 which the disciples were called to take on this occasion was thus 
 in every respect a special and extraordinary one, necessary in 
 order to the fulfilment of prophecy, and in order to keep up the 
 parallelism between the number of the apostles and the number of 
 the tribes of that nation which typified or represented the visible 
 Church of God in former days, but not furnishing any precedent 
 for a perpetual order of apostles, and an unlimited addition to 
 their numbers. Accordingly, we find that when James, the brother 
 of John, was killed with the sword at the command of Herod, no 
 proposal was ever made to elect another as his successor among 
 the twelve, and so to perpetuate the office of the apostleship. 
 
 In the second place, whether we have regard to the part 
 
 "hich the disciples took in the appointment of Matthias, or to the 
 
 •ppeal made to the intervention of God, it is equally impossible 
 
 to reconcile the transaction with the theory of those who hold 
 
 hat it was but one ordinary example out of many of the Apostles 
 
 'inferring the office they themselves enjoyed on another. If we 
 
 -ok at the disciples, or ordinary members of the Church, giving 
 
 lorth their lot for the election of Matthias to the office, then they 
 
 1 Acts i. 20-22. 
 
 VOL. II. P 
 
226 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 could not confer apostolic powers, as they themselves had not 
 these powers to give. If, on the other hand, we look at the 
 appeal made to God to vouchsafe His intervention in the selection 
 of the apostle, then the case was one extraordinary, and not an 
 ordinary precedent for future ages. 
 
 2cZ, An objection to our general argument, much insisted on 
 by those who hold a succession in the apostolic office, is drawn 
 from the consideration that the name " apostle " in some few 
 cases is applied to others than the persons commonly known 
 under that designation ; that it is not restricted in Scripture to 
 the twelve, but is given to different individuals who, it is alleged, 
 succeeded or shared with the twelve in their peculiar office. 
 Now the general fact on which this objection rests is perfectly 
 true. The name " apostle " is applied, in a few instances, to indi- 
 viduals not belonging to the restricted number to whom, as we 
 assert, the office of the apostleship was limited. In one instance 
 in the New Testament it is given to Barnabas.^ In another 
 instance, also singular, it is applied to certain brethren sent by 
 Paul along with Titus to Corinth, as " the apostles," or, as it is 
 rendered in our translation, " the messengers of the Churches." ^ 
 In a third case — no less standing alone — it is applied to Epaphro- 
 ditus, who was sent from the Church of Philippi to Rome, to 
 carry money to supply the necessities of Paul, and who is spoken 
 of as " their apostle," or, as in our translation, " their messenger."^ 
 And in a fourth instance, in the Gospel by John, it is used in 
 a very general manner, as expressive of " one sent : " " The ser- 
 vant is not greater than his lord ; neither he that is sent — (the 
 apostle) — greater than he that sent him.'"* There are no more 
 than these four cases in the New Testament in which the terra 
 " apostle " is applied without doubt to any person beyond the 
 circle of those to whom we believe the original office was given. 
 There are two or three passages, in addition, in which the term 
 may he held as applied in that manner, but in which it is not 
 necessarily, or without doubt, so employed. Upon the slender 
 foundation of these instances, then, the whole objection rests. 
 
 Now in reply I say, first, that the primary sense of the word 
 " apostle," i.e. one sent, or a messenger of whatever kind, is suffi- 
 cient to explain any and all of the very few cases in which it is 
 
 1 Acts xiv. 14. - 2 Cor. viii. 23. 
 
 3 Phil. ii. 25. -^ John xiii. 16. 
 
Ch. II. § I.] OFFICE OF APOSTLES. 227 
 
 applied, not in its technical sense of denoting the special office 
 which, by Divine appointment as we assert, was restricted to the 
 twelve, and in which they had no ordinary successors. It is per- 
 fectly natural, and in accordance both with the known laws of 
 language, and with the usage of the New Testament in particular, 
 that a word, which had come to have a distinctively technical 
 sense, should yet in two or three instances appear in its primary 
 and etymological signification. This leads to no misunderstand- 
 ing in other cases ; ^ nor is there the slightest reason that it should 
 do so in this. The fact that the term in question occurs three 
 or four times in the New Testament in its primary and general 
 meaning of messenger, does not in the least interfere with the 
 other fact, that, in its proper and restricted sense, the term was 
 used by our Lord and His followers to denote only the twelve 
 disciples, " whom also He named apostles." 
 
 Second, It is very easy, in all these cases quoted, to under- 
 stand the special occasion on which the name of apostle was ex- 
 tended beyond its technical and general New Testament sense, to 
 apply to the parties mentioned. In the instance of Barnabas, it 
 was given almost immediately after his being set apart by pra^'er 
 and imposition of hands, along with Paul, to the first mission 
 to the Gentiles. Whether or not this transaction, as recorded in 
 the fourteenth chapter of Acts, was a regular ordination, I do not 
 
 ' [Almost all parties, c.r/., agree that -TrpsaiSvrspo; and Iixkouo; have a tech- 
 nical meaning in the N. T. as denoting two distinct classes of Church office- 
 bearers ; and no doubt is thought to be thrown on this by the circumstance 
 that both -words occur several times in their primary sense of "an aged person " 
 and a " minister " or " servant " of any sort. The word otxfio'Ao; is used three 
 times in the Pastoral Epistles to signify " a slanderer," and pb* iii the 0. T. 
 
 occurs repeatedly in the general sense of " an adversary." Yet few will 
 account the favourite Uuiversalist argument from that fact against the per- 
 sonality of the Evil One, to be anything more than a wanton attempt to 
 perplex the minds of English readers of Scripture. In like manner, some of 
 the sectaries of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries sought to prove, from 
 the facts alluded to above, that the language of the N. T. was so loose on the 
 subject of ecclesiastical office-bearers that no conclusions in favom* of distinct 
 offices in the Chui'ch coidd be drawn from it at all, but that any man who 
 chose to minister in holy things was a " deacon," and any one sent by the 
 inward light an " apostle," in the full scriptural sense. In order to get rid 
 of the argmuent, that because the words " bishop " and " presbyter " in their 
 technical sense are always used interchangeably in Scripture, therefore the 
 offices referred to Avere the same, — as well as to prove that the office of 
 apostle was not restricted to the twelve, — some Episcopalians have adopted a 
 similar line of argument, without apparently seeing how far it would logically 
 lead.] 
 
228 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [PautIV. 
 
 now stop to inquire. All that is necessary for our present purpose 
 is to notice the very obvious and natural connection between his 
 being set apart solemnly, and sent forth, along with Paul, to the 
 Gentile mission, and his receiving the name, for the time, of the 
 " messenger" or " apostle " of the Church; and it is a fact very 
 significant, that never subsequently, in the New Testament, is he 
 spoken of as an apostle. In the second instance — that of the 
 brethren sent by Paul along with Titus to Corinth — they received 
 the name of apostles, from their special delegation on that occa- 
 sion from the one Church to the other; and hence our translators 
 have with perfect correctness rendered it by the general term, 
 " messengers." In the third instance — of Epaphroditus — he was 
 in like manner the special messenger from Philippi to Rome, 
 to carry the bounty of the Church at Philippi to the apostle in 
 his necessity and his bonds in the Roman capital. And in the 
 fourth example, the very same kind of explanation is to be given 
 when, in a general manner, our Lord declares " that the servant 
 is not greater than his lord, neither he that is sent — (or the 
 apostle) — greater than he that sent him." 
 
 The circumstance that in a few instances the name of apostle! 
 is applied to other men, will not therefore suffice to overturn thej 
 general argument, which demonstrates that the office was one] 
 that did not pass by succession or transmission to ordinary office- 
 bearers in the Christian Church.^ 
 
 SECTION 11. — OFFICES OF PROPHETS AND EVANGELISTS. 
 
 In handling the subject of the office-bearers, extraordinary 
 and ordinary, appointed for the New Testament Church at the 
 outset, there are two passages of Scripture that may be especially 
 referred to as throwing light upon the question. In the fourth 
 chapter of Ephesians, the Apostle Paul, speaking of the provision 
 made for the Church by the a-scended Saviour, says : " And He 
 
 ^ Yoetius, Polif. Ecclcs. torn. iii. lib. ii. Tract ii. cap. ii. Bucer, Dissert, 
 (k Guhernatione Erclesix, Midtldburgi Zeland. IGIS, pp. 472-481. Forrester, 
 The Hierarchical Bishops' Claim to a Divine llight, Edin. 1799, pp. 85-124. 
 Ayton, Orig. Const, of the Christian Church, Edin. 1730, pp. 20-35. Essays on 
 the Prim. Chnrch Offices (by Dr. J. A. Alexander), New York 1851, pp. G8- 
 100. [Barnes, Inquiry into the Organ, and Gov. of the Apostolic Church, Lond. 
 1845, pp. 43-94. Smyth, 77te Prelat. Doc. of Apost. Succession Examined, 
 Boston 1841, pp. 229-255 ; Presbytery the Script, and Prim. Polity, Boston 
 1843, pp. 28-42. King, Expos, and Def. of the Presbyt. Form, of Church Gov. 
 Edin. 1853, pp. 182-209.] 
 
Cu. II. § II.] PROPHETS AND EVANGELISTS. 229 
 
 gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and 
 some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the 
 work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." ^ 
 In this statement by the apostle we have plainly an intimation of 
 the staff of officers, ordinary and extraordinary, appointed by 
 Christ, for the work of establisliing, organizing, building up, and 
 ministering to the Clu'istian Church. Tliat the enumeration of 
 office-bearers is not complete, appears from the fact that no men- 
 tion is made of the deacon, of the institution of whose office we 
 have an express account in the Acts of the Apostles, and who is 
 admitted by all parties, Romanist and Protestant, Episcopalian, 
 Presbyterian, and Congregationalist, to be an ordinary and stand- 
 ing office-bearer in the ecclesiastical society. In the passage now 
 referred to, however, we have a list of office-bearers, which, 
 although not exhaustive, yet includes the majority of those in- 
 vested with formal office in the apostolic Church. In the twelfth 
 chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, when speaking of 
 " spiritual gifts " in the Church of his day, the same apostle tells 
 us : " To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom ; to an- 
 other the word of knowledge by the same Spirit ; to another faith 
 by the saine Spirit ; to another the gifts of healing by the same 
 Spirit ; to another the working of miracles ; to another prophecy ; 
 to another discernment of spirits ; to another divers kinds of 
 tongues ; to another the interpretation of tongues." And further 
 on in the same chapter we are told : " God hath set some in the 
 Church, first, apostles ; secondarily, prophets ; thirdly, teachers ; 
 after that miracles ; then gifts of healings, helps, governments, 
 iliversities of tongues. Are all apostles'? are all prophets? are 
 all teachers 1 are all workers of miracles % have all the gifts of 
 healing? do all speak Avith tongues? do all interpret?""' Now 
 in this passage we have an enumeration, not of the offices, but 
 of the gifts that prevailed in the primitive Church. In writing 
 to the Ephesians, the apostle ranks and enumerates the office- 
 bearers according to tlieir formal offices ; in writing to the Corin- 
 thians, he classifies them according to their special gifts. 
 
 There is a most important distinction to be marked between 
 
 a formal office and a special gift or endowment. One man might 
 
 receive and exercise many gifts, while at the same time he held 
 
 and exercised no more than one office in the Church. The dif- 
 
 1 Eph. iv. 11 f. -I Cor. xii. 8-10, 28-30. 
 
230 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 ferent and many gifts — yapia-ixara — of miracles, of healing, of 
 tongues, of discernment of spirits, etc., which abounded in the 
 apostolic Church, might in some cases meet in the person of one 
 individual, and be all exercised by him, while at the same time, as 
 a formal office-bearer in the Christian society, he was invested 
 only with one office. In dealing with the question of the form 
 of polity of the New Testament Church, we must take special 
 care not to confound the different '^apia/xara, or gifts, enume- 
 rated in the Epistle to the Corinthians with the distinct offices 
 enumerated in the Epistle to the Ephesians, or to assume that 
 because the same 'individual exercised different endowments or 
 powers for the edification of the Church, he therefore is to be 
 held as invested with different offices, ordinary or extraordinary, 
 in the Christian societ}^ It is with the offices, and not with the 
 gifts of the apostolic Church, that we have at present to do, — the 
 former, or the offices, marking out the form or constitution of the 
 ecclesiastical society; the latter, or the gifts, only marking out the 
 endowments conferred on the persons belonging to it. 
 
 Referring, then, to the enumeration of office-bearers in the 
 Epistle to the Ephesians, we find that there are five mentioned as 
 pertaining to the apostolic Church. Three of these we believe 
 to have been special and extraordinary, and two to have been 
 ordinary and permanent office-bearers. We have apostles, pro- 
 phets, evangelists, belonging to the special emergency and need 
 of the Christian Church at the time; and we have pastors and 
 teachers belonging to the ordinary and permanent equipment of 
 the ecclesiastical body.^ We have already dealt at some length 
 with the question of the extraordinary office of the ajDOstleship : 
 we shall now proceed to consider the offices of prophets and evan- 
 
 ^ {_Vule Calvin in he. et Inst. lib. iv. cap. iii. 4, 5. " Albeit tlie Kirk of 
 God," says the Second Book of Discipline., sanctioned by the Assembly of 
 1578, "be rulit and governit by Jesus Christ, who is the onlie King, High 
 Priest, and Head thereof, yet He useth the ministry of men as the most neces- 
 sar middis for this purpose. For so He hath from tyme to tyme, before the 
 Law, under the Law, and in the tyme of the Evangel, for our great comfort, 
 raisit up men indeAvit withthe gift is of His Spirit, for the spiritual govern- 
 ment of His Kirk, exercising by them His own power through His Spirit and 
 Word to the building of the same. And, to take away all occasion of tyrannie, 
 He Willis that they suld rule with mutual consent of Brethren, and equality 
 of power, every one according to their functions. In the New Testament and 
 tyme of the Evangel, He hath usit the Ministry of the Apostles, Prophets, 
 Evangelists, Pastors, and Doctors in the administration of the Word, — the 
 Eldership for gude Order and the administration of Discipline ; the Deacon- 
 
Cn. II. § II.] PROPHETS AND EVANGELISTS. 231 
 
 gelists. There seems to be warrant from Scripture, as in the 
 instance of apostles, to say tliat these offices were special and 
 extraordinary. Let us, in the first instance, then, direct our 
 attention to the case of the New Testament prophets, as enume- 
 rated among the office-bearers of the early Church. There is no 
 great difference of opinion among controversialists in regard to 
 the temporary and exceptional character of their office. 
 
 The prophets of the apostolic Church are plainly to be dis- 
 tinguished from the apostles on the one hand, and from the 
 evangelists on the other, among the extraordinary office-bearers, 
 and also from both pastors and teachers among the ordinary 
 office-bearers of the Christian society. The terms i^t^ophecy and 
 prophet, when descriptive of this office, are plainly to be under- 
 stood in the primary and more enlarged meaning of the words, 
 as referring to an authoritative proclamation of the mind of 
 God, whether in the shape of a revelation of Divine truth gene- 
 rally, or a revelation more especially of future events. There 
 seems to be distinct enough ground for saying that the office of 
 the prophet in the early Church comprehended both the prophecy 
 or declaration of .the Divine mind as to future events, and also 
 the prophecy or declaration of the Divine mind as to moral or 
 spiritual truth generally, without reference to the future. 
 
 In the first place, the order of prophets in the New Testa- 
 ment Church had the same distinctive power which belonged 
 to their brethren during the ancient dispensation, — that, namely, 
 of foreseeing and predicting the future. 
 
 That this was the case, appears plainly both from the promise 
 of Christ given to His disciples before His death, and also from 
 the intimations of the exercise of such a power in the inspired 
 
 sliip to have the cure of the ecclesiastical gudis. Some of thir ecclesiastical 
 functions ar ordinar, and sum extraordinar or temporarie. There be three 
 extraordinar functions, — the office of the Apostle, of the Evangelist, and of the 
 Prophet, — quhilkis are not perpetual, and now have ceisit in the Kirk of God, 
 except quhen it pleisit God cxtraordmarily for a tyme to steir some of them 
 up again. There are four ordinar functions or offices in the Kirk of God. — the 
 oflace of the Pastor. Minister, or Bishop ; the Doctor ; the Presbyter or Elder ; 
 and the Deacon. Thir offices are ordinar, and ought to continue perpetually 
 in the Kirk, as necessar for the government and policie of the same ; and no 
 moe offices ought to be receivit or sufferit in the true Kirk of God establishit 
 according to His Word. Thereforjs all the ambitious titles inventit in the 
 kingdom of Antichrist, and in his usurpit hierarchic, quliilkis are not of ane 
 of tliese four sorts, together with the offices depending thereupon, in auc word, 
 ought all-utterlie to be rejectit." — Ch. ii.] 
 
232 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 history of the apostolic Church. In His farewell address to 
 His disciples before His passion, our Lord distinctly promised: 
 "When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you 
 into all truth ; and lie ivill sJioio you things to comer ^ There 
 is no good ground for asserting that this promise was con- 
 fined to the apostles alone. They indeed shared more largely 
 than their brethren in the supernatural gifts of that early 
 age of miracle and inspiration, but they did not monopolize 
 them ; and in the ample doway conferred on the Church in the 
 morning of her espousals by her Lord, we are to recognise the 
 gift of prophecy in the restricted meaning of the term, as the 
 prediction of things to come. Of the order of men who enjoyed 
 and exercised this power, we read more than once in the Acts of 
 the Apostles. " And in these days," says the inspired historian in 
 the eleventh chapter of the Acts, " came prophets from Jeru- 
 salem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them, named 
 Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great 
 dearth throughout all the world : wdiich came to pass in tlie days 
 of Claudius Ceesar." Li consequence of this prophetic intimation 
 given of the approaching scarcity, the narrative goes on to tell 
 us: "Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, 
 determined to send relief unto the brethren Avhich dwelt in Judea : 
 which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of 
 Barnabas and Saul."^ The same prophet, in virtue of his extra- 
 ordinary gift of prediction, shortly afterv/ards foretold the 
 imprisonment of the Apostle Paul at Jerusalem, accompanying 
 the prediction — precisely as Old Testament prophets had been 
 wont to do — with the significant action of binding his own hands 
 and feet with the apostle's girdle. Nor did he stand alone in 
 giving intimation to Paul of his approaching sufferings ; for the 
 apostle told the elders at Ephesus of manifold Divine fore- 
 warnings given him of the same event : " And now, behold, I go 
 bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem,- not knowing the things which 
 shall befall me there, save that the Holy Ghost in every city wit- 
 nesseth, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me." ^ In short, 
 side by side with the powder of working miracles and of speaking 
 with tongues, the gift of prophecy, or insight into the future, was 
 given to the apostolic Church, as a witness to its Divine origin, 
 and an instrument for securing its establishment on earth. 
 1 John xvi. 13. ^ _^cts xi. 27-30. ^ Acts xx. 22 f. 
 
Cii. II. § II.] PROniETS AND EVANGELISTS. 233 
 
 In the second place^ the order of prophets in the New Testa- 
 ment Church had the power of declaring the mind of God 
 generally, and without reference to the future, being inspired to 
 preach or proclaim Divine truth, as it was revealed to them, in 
 an extraordinary manner by the Spirit. 
 
 They were infallible interpreters of the Old Testament Scrip- 
 tures and inspired preachers of Divine truth, declaring the Word 
 of God for the conversion of sinners and the profit of the Church. 
 The difference between the prophets and the ordinary pastors 
 or teachers of the early Church was, that the one were inspired 
 preachers of the Gospel, and the other not inspired. The 
 prophesying or preaching of the first was the fruit of imme- 
 diate extraordinary revelation at the moment; the prophesying 
 or preaching of the second was the fruit of their own unaided 
 study of the Old Testament Scriptures, and personal under- 
 standing of Divine truth. That this was the case, is apparent 
 from the instructions given by the Apostle Paul in the fourteenth 
 chapter of First Corinthians in regard to the use of the super- 
 natural gifts conferred on that Church. " Let the prophets 
 speak two or three, and let the other judge. If anything he 
 revealed {airoKokvc^dr)) to another that sitteth by, let the first 
 hold his peace." ^ The prophesying or preaching of this order 
 of office-bearers in the primitive Church was identical Avith the 
 " revelations " given to certain of the early believers for the pur- 
 pose of edifying the rest. 
 
 And it is not difficult to see the foundation laid in the circum- 
 stances of the apostolic Church for the necessity and the use of 
 this special class of office-bearers. Our Lord had Himself told 
 His disciples shortly before His death, that He had many things 
 to tell them, which at that moment they were not able to bear.'^ 
 The revelation of His mind and truth was left by Him incomplete 
 when He departed from this world to the Father. It remained 
 incomplete until the canon of Scripture was closed, and the 
 entire revelation of God, as we now have it, was committed to 
 writing. The earliest of the canonical books of the New Testa- 
 ment was not written until some years after the ascension of 
 Christ; and the latest of them was not added until probably a 
 generation had well-nigh passed away after that event. In the 
 interval, the revelation of God remained unfinished; while from 
 1 1 Cor. xiv. 29 f. - John xiv. 25 f., xvi. 12-14. 
 
234 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 the difficulty of transcribing and disseminating in manuscript the 
 copies of the books that partially made up the New Testament 
 volume, before its completion there must have been, in many 
 Churches of the early Christians, a want felt of any authoritative 
 record of the Divine mind and will. The living Word of pro- 
 phets, inspired by God to declare His truth, was the instrumen- 
 tality employed by Him to supply that want in the apostolic 
 Church. The Apostles indeed had the same word of revelation 
 that the prophets enjoyed. The prophesying of the Apostles 
 supplied for a time, to the extent to which their personal pre- 
 sence could reach, the want of the written and inspired standard 
 before the canon was closed. But the number of the apostles 
 admitted of no increase, while in the rapid spread and prevalence 
 of early Christianity there were multitudes added to the Church 
 daily of such as should be saved. And hence the necessity of 
 another order of office-bearers, suited to the extraordinary emer- 
 gency, and to the transition state of the Christian Church, who 
 should, by means of personal revelation granted to them, and 
 personal prophesyings emitted by them, become the teachers of 
 the early converts, when they had no other adequate source of 
 information and instruction in Divine things. The necessity for 
 such extraordinary instrumentality ceased when the canon of 
 Scripture was closed. The written Word in the hands of the 
 Christian Churches superseded the need of revelations and 
 prophets. Both in their character of foretellers of future events, 
 and in their character of inspired preachers of Divine truth, the 
 order of New Testament prophets was temporary, and did not 
 outlive the apostolic age.^ 
 
 But next let us inquire into the case of the third class of 
 office-bearers mentioned in the list given by the apostle in his 
 Epistle to the Ephesians. In that list we have, first, apostles, 
 who undoubtedly were extraordinary office-bearers ; and second, 
 prophets, who were also a temporary order in the Christian 
 Church. After these we find mentioned evangelists; and the 
 question that arises is, whether or not the nature of their office 
 and functions constitutes them fixed and standing officers in the 
 
 ^ Voetius, PoUt. Eccles. Pars ii. lib. ii. Tract ii. cap. iii. sec. 3. Ayton, 
 Ori(j. Constit. of the Christ. Church, pp. 35-39. [Cf. Stanley, Sermons and 
 Ji!ssaijs on the Apostolical Age, 2d ed. pp. 53-61 ; Ewald, Geschichte ties 
 \'olkes Israel, Bd. vi. 2te Ausg. pp. 168 if. Hofmann, heilige Schrift. 2ten 
 'J'h. 2te Abth. pp. 301-309.] 
 
Cii.II. §11.1 rrvOrHETS AND EVANGELISTS. 235 
 
 ecclesiastical body. There seems to be reason from Scripture to 
 assert that they, like the apostles and prophets, were extraordi- 
 nary office-bearers in the primitive Church. The discussion in 
 connection with the order of evangelists is a somewhat important 
 and fundamental one in attempting to determine the form and 
 polity of the Christian society in apostolic times. 
 
 Our information in regard to the order of evangelists, and 
 the nature of the duties attached to their office, is mainly to be 
 gathered from what Scrij)ture has enabled us to learn in con- 
 nection with Timothy and Titus, the fellow-labourers of Paul in 
 his evangelistic journeys. To Timothy the name of evangelist 
 is expressly given, and in such a manner as to prove that it was 
 an office distinct from other offices in the early Church, and that 
 it belonged to him as his peculiar function.^ And although the 
 same title is nowhere expressly appropriated to Titus in Scrip- 
 ture, yet the duties he discharged, and the manner in which he 
 is spoken of, leave no doubt that he belonged to the same order, 
 and laboured in the same office as Timothy. There are several 
 others mentioned in the sacred volume that are plainly to be 
 classed in the same rank of ecclesiastical office-bearers, although 
 of their history and labours less is known. But the narrative of 
 tiie Acts and the Epistles of Paul afford sufficient materials, in 
 the references we find there to Timothy and Titus, for judging 
 of the order of evangelist, separated as it was from the extra- 
 ordinary offices of apostles and prophets on the one side, and 
 from the permanent and standing office of pastor on the other. 
 It is hardly necessary to say that by evangelists, in the sense of 
 ecclesiastical office-bearers, is not meant the inspired historians of 
 our Lord's life in the Gospels. They are exhibited to us in the 
 Scripture narrative rather as the attendants upon the Apostles in 
 their journeys, and their assistants in planting and establishing 
 the Churches, acting under them as their delegates, and carrying 
 out their instructions. If the contributions of one Church were 
 to be carried to another to supply its more urgent need, it was an 
 evangelist that was selected as the messenger of the Church."^ 
 If an inspired letter was to be conveyed to the Christian com- 
 munity to whom an apostle had addressed it, an evangelist was 
 the bearer of the precious record.'^ If an apostle had converted 
 
 I 2 Tim. iv. 5. 2 1 Cor. xvi. 3 ; 2 Cor. viii. 4-23 ; riiH. ii. 25, iv. 18. 
 
 •■' 1 Cor. xvi. lU ; 2 Cor. vii. G-8 ; Eph. vi. 21 f. 
 
236 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 many to the faith of Christ in one particular locahty, and hastened 
 on to other labours and triumphs, an evangelist was left behind 
 to organize the infant Church.^ If, in the absence of an apostle, 
 contentions had arisen, or false doctrine had found entrance 
 within a Christian society which he had founded, the apostolic 
 method of applying a remedy was by the errand of an evan- 
 gelist." We know from him who was not behind the chiefest of 
 the Apostles, that he counted it as his special mission, "not to 
 baptize, but to preach the Gospel;"'^ or, in other words, that he 
 held it to be a higher department of the apostolic office to con- 
 vert sinners to Christ, and to edify His people, than to establish 
 and arrange the outward government and ordinances of grace 
 of a standing visible Church. And accordingly, in the ardour of 
 his zeal that Christ might be preached, he himself passed on to 
 declare the Gospel in other regions, " not building on another 
 man's foundation," and left behind Timothy, or Titus, or some 
 other evangelist, to organize the outward polity of the Church, to 
 which he had been the means of communicating the gift, more 
 precious still, of inward life.^ As an apostle, Paul felt that he 
 had higher work on hand than the arrangement of the external 
 pohty of the Church or the regulation of its outward affairs; and 
 therefore he gave commission to his assistants from time to time, 
 as occasion demanded it, in their capacity of evangelists, to com- 
 plete the organization of the infant Churches he had planted, to 
 superintend the settlement of regular pastors and office-bearers 
 among them, to rectify the disorders of their discipline, or their 
 departures from sound doctrine, and to do his occasional errands 
 of affection or authority in those Christian societies where his 
 bodily presence was denied. Such, generally, in so far as we can 
 gather from the inspired record, seems to have been the work 
 and duty of the evangelist, as these are more especially delineated 
 in the references to the history of Timothy and Titus. And the 
 question is : "Were these evangelists the standing and permanent, 
 or the occasional and extraordinary office-bearers of the Christian 
 Church ? 
 
 Those controversialists who assert the formal and permanent 
 
 1 1 Tim. i. 3 f. ; 2 Tim. iv. 9-13 ; Tit. i. 6, iii. 12. 
 
 2 1 Cor. iv. 17 ; 2 Cor. vii. G f. 15 ; Col. i. 7 f., cf. iv. 12 f. 
 « 1 Cor. i. 17. 
 
 * [Huther, Pastoralbriefe, p. 52, in Meyer's Kommentar, lite Abtli.] 
 
Cii. ir. §11.] PllOrHETS AND EVANGELISTS. 237 
 
 character of the office vested in the persons of Timothy and 
 Titus, in order to make out tliis conclusion, endeavour to prove 
 that they sustained a fixed and standing relation, each to a par- 
 ticular Church, as the bishop or overseer of it. It is asserted that 
 Timothy held the permanent position of diocesan bishop in the 
 Church at Ephesus, and that Titus stood in a similar relation to 
 the Church at Crete. The question, then, comes very much to 
 this : Was the office that these evangelists sustained of a specid 
 kind, being simply a commission from the Apostles to exercise, at 
 Ephesus and Crete, certain powers given them for a particular 
 purpose ? or, Was that office of a permanent kind, implying a 
 fixed and ordinary relationship to these Churches ? We shall 
 find in Scripture abundant reason to conclude that the position 
 of Timothy and Titus was not a fixed and permanent one, and 
 that their relation and powers in reference to the Ephesian an 1 
 Cretan Churches were special and extraordinary. 
 
 In entering upon the argument, it is hardly necessary to say 
 that the subscriptions at the close of the apostolic letters addressed 
 to Timothy and Titus, which speak of them as " bishops," are 
 of no authority at all, being, as is now universally admitted, un- 
 inspired additions of a much later date than the Epistles. Con- 
 fining ourselves to Scripture evidence, let us take the case of 
 Timothy first, and inquire into the nature of his connection 
 with the Church at Ephesus. 
 
 Isf, At the date of Paul's address to the elders of the Church 
 at Ephesus, whom he sunniioned to meet him at Miletus, men- 
 tioned in the twentieth chapter of the Acts, it is evident that 
 Timothy had no place or office in connection with that Church. 
 The absence of all reference to him by Paul, and the whole tenor 
 of the apostle's address to the elders as the proper bishops or 
 overseers of the Church there,^ sufficiently establish these two 
 points : first, that at that time Timothy was not at Ephesus, having 
 no connection of an official kind with the Church at that place ; 
 and second, that there was a Church there fully organized and 
 complete without him. 
 
 2d, The first, and indeed the only, express intimation in 
 Scripture of the presence of Timothy at Ephesus, is contained in 
 
 ^ " Take heed to yourselves and .to the -whole flock over -which the Holy 
 (Ihost hath set you as bishops" (sv u i^ctz to Tluiv^ct. to uytov idiTO i-TriaKOTov;). 
 —Acts XX. 2S. [Cf. Alford in he] 
 
238 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 the first epistle addressed to him by Paul, in a passage which 
 shows that he was present there only for a special purpose, and 
 not in consequence of any fixed connection with the Church of 
 an official kind. It appears that Paul, and Timothy as his attend- 
 ant, had been labouring at Ephesus together, when the apostle, 
 had occasion to leave it for Macedonia. In his parting charge 
 given at ISIiletus to the elders of Ephesus, Paul had forewarned 
 them : " After my departure shall grievous wolves enter in among 
 you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men 
 arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after 
 them."^ Whether this warning was given before or after the 
 date of Paul's leaving Timothy at Ephesus, has been disputed, 
 and it is not of material consequence to the argument. It is 
 inidoubted, that about that time dangers of false doctrine assailed 
 the Church at Ephesus ; and, to counteract the danger, Timothy 
 was left there by. the apostle. This was the special reason of 
 Timothy's presence at Ephesus, and not his fixed relation to the 
 Church there. " As I besought thee," says Paul in his letter to 
 Timothy, " to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into jNIacedonia, 
 that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 
 neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister 
 questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do."" 
 The object of Timothy's being left by the apostle at Ephesus was 
 not that he might enter upon a permanent connection of an 
 official kind with the Ephesian Church, but simply in order that 
 he might accomplish the specific end of meeting the crisis occa- 
 sioned by the disorders among the Ephesian converts. 
 
 3c/, The commission granted to Timothy for this special object 
 was plainly intended to be a temporary, and not a permanent 
 one. The words of the apostle already quoted seem obviously 
 to imply this. " I besought thee (jrapeKaXea-a ere) to abide still at 
 Ephesus" is not like the language of an apostle conferring a per- 
 manent appointment, or referring to a fixed connection between 
 Timothy and the Church of the Ephesians, but the very opposite, 
 implying, as it clearly does, a mere temporary residence and duty 
 there.^ It was a conmiission granted by Paul to Timothy as In's 
 delegate for certain specific purposes during his absence ; and 
 was to come to an end, either when the apostle once more per- 
 
 ^ Acts XX. 29 f. \ M Tjjji i 3 f_ 
 
 2 [Daille, Expos, de la pi-em. EpUre a Tim. Geneve 1G61, Serm. i.] 
 
Cii. II. § II.] PROniETS AND EVANGELISTS. 239 
 
 sonally resumed the work at Ephesus, or when the occasion which 
 demanded the intervention of the evangehst had passed away, 
 and he should be sent on a similar errand to other Churches. 
 That Paul had the expectation of returning to Ephesus and 
 relieving Timothy from his special superintendence there, is mani- 
 fest from such language as we find in the first epistle : " These 
 things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly : but 
 if I tarry long, that thou mightest know how to behave thyself in 
 the house of God." "Till I come, give attendance to reading, 
 to exhortation, to doctrine."^ That Timothy, after this, actually 
 left Ephesus to undertake other duty, seems capable of proof from 
 the second epistle addressed to him. Writing in that epistle from 
 Rome, Paul enjoins upon Timothy : " Do thy dihgence to come 
 shortly unto me ;" and again : " Do thy diligence to come before 
 winter:"^ And we cannot doubt that the command of the apostle 
 was obeyed, and that Timothy actually proceeded to Rome. That 
 his presence at Rome was required, not for any personal attend- 
 ance on Paul, at that time a prisoner in bonds, but for the service 
 of the Church, is rendered probable, in the first place, by the 
 Christian disinterestedness of the apostle, who would have been 
 the last man to have asked from Timothy the sacrifice of public 
 duty for the sake of his own private and personal gratification. 
 But this is made all but certain by the reason which Paul gives 
 for requesting the presence of Timothy at Rome, — namely, that 
 the other companions of his missionary labours were absent; and 
 also by the request to bring ]\Iark along with him to Rome, 
 because he was profitable for the ministerial work. " Do thy 
 diligence to come shortly unto me : for Demas hath forsaken me, 
 having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessa- 
 lonica; Crescens unto Galatia; Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke 
 is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee : for lie is profit- 
 able to me for the ministry T^ Add to this, that by implication 
 at least, if not by positive assertion, it may be pretty satisfactorily 
 proved that Timothy was not even at Ephesus when the second 
 epistle was addressed to him, summoning him to Rome. In the 
 twelfth verse of the fourth chapter, Paul gives a piece of informa- 
 tion not consistent with the idea that Timothy was at Ephesus at 
 the time : " And Tychicus," says the apostle, " have I sent to 
 Ephesus." And the conclusion is confirmed by the subsequent 
 1 1 Tim. iii. 14 f., iv. 13. 2 2 Tim. iv. 9, 21. ^ 2 Tim. iv. 9-11. 
 
240 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 verse, which seems to take for granted that Timothy was actually 
 at that moment at Troas : " The cloak which I left at Troas 
 with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee." So strong 
 and clear is the evidence, that when Timothy was left behind by 
 Paul at Ephesus, his stay was no more than temporary, and his 
 connection with the Church there not a permanent office in it, 
 but the reverse. 
 
 But let us next take the case of Titus, and inquire whether 
 his commission to Crete gave him a permanent connection with 
 the Church there, or rather was of a special and extraordinary 
 nature. In this instance also, it can be made out no less clearly 
 than in the instance of Timothy, that the purpose of the evan- 
 gelist's presence in this particular field of labour, and his actual 
 stay there, were both of a temporary kind. 
 
 First, The object of Titus' presence in the Church at Crete 
 was of a special kind, and not requiring or implying a permanent 
 connection with it. The Apostle Paul had himself been labour- 
 ing there, and had laid the foundation of a Christian society; 
 but, acting upon the general principle, which he seems to have 
 adopted, of preaching the Gospel himself, and handing over to 
 his assistants the task of arranging the ecclesiastical polity of the 
 society he had called into spiritual life, he appoints Titus for this 
 object. " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest 
 set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain (KaraaTrjarj^;, 
 constitute, or settle) elders in every city as I appointed thee."^ 
 The nature of the object to be accomplished implies that the 
 commission was a special and temporary one, involving no fixed 
 or official relationship on the part of Titus to Crete. The evan- 
 gelist was left in the island to complete the work begun, but left 
 unfinished by the apostle ; and this no more involved, on the part 
 
 1 [" Sed videtur nimium Tito permittere, dum jubet eum prteficere omni- 
 bus Ecclesiis ministros. H«c enim fere regia esset potestas ; deinde hoc modo 
 et singulis Ecclesiis jus eligeudi, et Pastorum Collegio judiciiun toUitur, id 
 vero esset totam sacram Ecclesise admiiiistrationeni profauare. Verum re- 
 sponsio facilis est, no.n permitti arbitrio Titi ut unus possit omnia, et quos 
 voluerit Episcopos Ecclesiis iinponat ; sed taiitum jubet ut electiouibus prsesit 
 tauquam moderator, sicuti necesse est. 1 1 tec loquutio satis trita est. Sic 
 dicitur Consul, aut Interrex, aut Dictator Consulcs crcaxsc, qui comitia cligen- 
 dis ilUs habuit. Sic quoque de Paulo et Barnaba loquitur in Actis Lucas 
 (Acts xiv. 23) (xitpoTovmcti'Tig ccvtoi; 'z-psaiivrepov;), non quod soli prajficerent, 
 quasi pro imperio, Pastores Ecclesiis nee probatos nee cognitos : sed quia 
 idoneos homines, qui a populo electi vel expetiti fuerant, ordinarent." — Calvin 
 ill Zoc] 
 
Cii. II. § II.] PROPHETS AND EVANGELISTS. 241 
 
 of Titus, a permanent connection with the Church of Crete than 
 it did on the part of Paul. 
 
 Second, That the stay of Titus in Crete was no more than 
 temporary, and that he soon left it, is sufficiently proved in the 
 same epistle. Paul evidently contemplated, at the time he wrote 
 to Titus, relieving him immediately from his duties at Crete by 
 sending another of the apostle's companions and fellow-labourers 
 in his place ; and Titus is told that, on the arrival of this sub- 
 stitute, he was himself forthwith to join Paul : " ^Yhen I shall 
 send Artemas unto thee, or Tychicus, be diligent to come unto 
 me to Nicopolis ; for I have determined there to winter,"^ That 
 Titus actually left Crete and joined Paul at Nicopolis, we cannot 
 doubt ; and there is no evidence whatever in Scripture that he 
 ever returned to Crete, to resume the duties from which the 
 apostle thus relieved him ; on the contrary, our latest infor- 
 mation regarding Titus, contained in the Second Epistle to 
 Timothy, which is almost universally held to be the last in 
 date of the Pastoral Epistles, shows him engaged in labour in 
 Dalmatia.^ 
 
 Both as regards Timothy and Titus, then, there seems sufficient 
 ground in Scripture for saying that the commission which they 
 bore in connection with Ephesus and Crete respectively was a 
 special one ; that the object of their presence in these Churches 
 involved no fixed or permanent relationship to them ; and that 
 their actual residence in these places was but short, and not, so 
 far as we know from Scripture, at any time resumed. 
 
 But besides the special lines of proof already referred to 
 with respect to Timothy and Titus, there is one general kind of 
 Scripture evidence of much weight in the argument in support 
 of the extraordinary character of their office as evangelists, and 
 against its involving any standing or permanent connection with 
 any particular Church. I refer to the evidence arising out of 
 the relation which they sustained to the Apostle Paul, — a relation 
 incompatible with the notion of their holding or exercising the 
 functions of any fixed office in any one ecclesiastical society. 
 Timothy and Titus were, in their character as evangelists, the 
 almost constant attendants upon the apostle, and his companions 
 in his missionary journeys, — were at his side, and ready to do 
 
 1 Titus iii. 12. 
 
 2 2 Tim. iv. 10. [Cf. Alford's Prolegomena to the Pastoral Epistles.'] 
 
 VOL. II. Q 
 
242 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 his errauds among the Churches, when he could not himself be 
 present, or to complete the work which he had begun, but could 
 not personally overtake. In the wide range of duty which his 
 apostolic labours embraced, and in " the burden which came upon 
 him daily, the care of all the Churches," Paul had no means of 
 supplying the necessary limitation of his own exertions, and his 
 own often unavoidable absence from the scene, where guidance 
 and counsel were especially required, except by delegating to 
 others his powers, in so far as the occasion demanded. And 
 there was a little band whose hearts the Lord had touched, and 
 who were drawn to the apostle by the power of that strong per- 
 sonal attachment, and love, and admiration, which the character 
 of Paul was so fitted to call forth among the young, who followed 
 him as the companions of his ministry and labours, and were at 
 hand to bear his special commissions to whatever new quarter 
 called for his interposition, or needed his peculiar care, — his 
 representatives to the Churches in organizing their polity, in 
 rectifying their disorders, in conveying to them his apostolic 
 instructions, and in carrying out his apostolic decisions. 
 
 As the companions or delegates of Paul, we find the names 
 of not a few who seem to have received the office of evangelist 
 under his commission ; as, for example, " Tychicus, a beloved 
 brother, and faithful minister in the Lord ; " " Epaphroditus, my 
 brother and companion in labour ; " " Mark, who is profitable to 
 me for the ministry ; " " Luke, who only is with me." But con- 
 spicuous in that little circle of youthful and zealous labourers are 
 Timothy and Titus, both in their personal attendance on the 
 apostle, and in the frequency with which they bore his connnis- 
 sion as his representatives to the Churches. We find Timothy 
 the companion of Paul at Rome during his first imprisonment 
 there ; we find his name honourably linked to that of the apostle 
 in his letters to the Churches of Corinth, of Thessalonica, of 
 Philippi, and of Colosse, and to Philemon ; he is spoken of in the 
 Epistle to the Romans as Paul's fellow-worker at Corinth ; we 
 find Paul rejoicing over his recent deliverance from imprisonment 
 in the Epistle to the Hebrew^s ; we see him the joint labourer 
 with Paul in the Church at Ephesus, and left behind with 
 special instructions to complete the work of the apostle, who had 
 departed ; and we witness him summoned by the apostle to 
 Rome toward the close of his life, and in the near prospect of his 
 
Ch. II. § II.] PROPHETS AND EVANGELISTS. 213 
 
 martyrdom.^ In like manner we find Titus the very frequent 
 attendant on the apostle, and the bearer of his commission to 
 the Church. At Troas, Paul "found no rest in his spirit, be- 
 cause he found not Titus his brother ;" at Philippi he was joined 
 with the apostle in his active labours there ; to Corinth he was 
 sent on a special mission in connection with the collection for the 
 poor saints at Jerusalem ; in Crete he was left behind by Paul to 
 complete what the apostle's hands had not been able to overtake ; 
 and from Rome we find Paul sending him on a special mission to 
 Dalmatia.^ 
 
 These labourers, ever at Paul's side, and ever ready to carry 
 his instructions to distant Churches, were not, and could not be, 
 attached to any particular Church as holding a fixed and perma- 
 nent office among its members. Their office was extraordinary ; 
 their commission had its origin and its close in apostolic times ; the 
 position of the evangelists, like the positions of the apostle and the 
 prophet, must be reckoned among those provisional arrangements 
 of the primitive Church, which formed the transition to its perma- 
 nent and settled condition. There is no evidence from Scripture 
 that the office of evangelist was a fixed and standing office in the 
 Christian society ; on the contrary, there is every evidence that it 
 was extraordinary and temporary.'' 
 
 1 Rom. xvi. 21 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 10 ; 2 Cor. i. 1, 19 ; Phil. ii. 19 ; 1 Thess. iii. 2 : 
 Ilob. xiii. 23 ; 1 Tim. i. 2, etc. ; 2 Tim, i. 2, etc. 
 
 2 2 Cor. ii. 13, vii. 6, 13, 14, viii. 6-23, xii. 18 : Gal. ii. 1 ; Titus i. 5, etc. ; 
 2 Tim. iv. 10. 
 
 3 Voetius, Polit. Eccles. torn. iii. lib. iii. Tract, ii. cap. iii. Ayton, Orig. 
 Comtit. of the Christ. Church, Ediu. 1730, pp. 40-48, 435-439, Append. 
 22-28. Ui\^n, Church of ChriM, Lond. 1851, *pp. 416-424. Cunninaham, 
 Worlat, vol. ii. pp. 241-244. [Prynne, The Unbishoping of Timothy and^Titus, 
 Loud. 1661 (1st ed. 1836). FoiTester, Rectim Instruendum, 1684, pp. 127- 
 167. Brown, Letters on Puseyite Episcopacy, Ediu. 1842, pp. 189-217 ; Plea 
 of Presbytery, Glasg. 1840, pp. 206-232. Kostliu, Das Wesen der Kirche, 
 Stuttgart 1854, p. 84 f. Rothe, Anfange der christl. Kirche, Wittenberg 
 1837, pp. 259-263, 305 £f. For an account of the functions of the Scottish 
 '•superintendents," and the "visitors" or "commissioners of provinces," 
 whose duties were somewhat analogous to those of evangelists during the 
 time when the Reformed Church of Scotland was in process of organization, 
 see the First r,ook of Discipline, ch. vii. Cf. Second Book of^Disripline, 
 ch. ii. vii. xi. 9-14 ; Dunlop's Collection, vol. ii. pp. 538-546, 614-616, 792 f. ; 
 Alex. Henderson, Oocernment and Order of the Church of Scotland, Lond. 
 1641, pp. 1-5 ; Calderwood, Ilieron. Philadelphi de Pegim. Scotican Ecclesix 
 Ejiistola, and his Epistolx Philadelphi Vindiciiv, published along with the 
 Altare Damascenum, Lugduni, Batav. 1708 ; Voetius, Polit. Eccles. Pars i. 
 lib. i. cap. vi. § 17, Pars ii. lib. iv. Tract, i. cap. iv. ; M'Crie, Life of Knox. 
 6th cd. vol. ii. pp. 283-286. The difference between the superintendents of 
 
244 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 our Church and diocesan bishops has been briefly summed up by Dr. M'Crie, 
 Miscell. Works^ Edin. 1841, pp. 178 f. : " They were not episcopally ordained ; 
 they derived all their authority from the Chmxh ; the exercise of their power 
 was bounded and regulated by the General Assembly, to. which they were 
 accountable, and gave an account of their conduct at every meeting ; they 
 were not acknowledged as holding any distinct or permanent office in the 
 Church, but merely as persons to whom a provisional superintendency was 
 committed from reasons of expediency at that period. Even Ai'chbishop 
 Spottiswood, in attempting to evade these facts, has been betrayed into a 
 glaring corruption of the original document. (Comp. Spottiswood's Historie, 
 pp. 152-158, with the head 'Of Supermtendents ' in First Booh of Disci- 
 pline.y " The bishops who embraced the Reformation were not admitted to 
 exercise any ecclesiastical authority as bishops; and when some of them 
 wished to be employed as superiulendeuts, they were rejected for want of 
 requisite quahfi cations."] 
 
Ch. III.] POPISH SYSTEM OF CHURCH POLITY. 245 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE POPISH SYSTEM OF CHURCH POLITY. 
 
 Those preliminary discussions in which we have dealt with 
 the question of the extraordinary office-bearers in the apostolic 
 Churchj have to some extent cleared our way to the main sub- 
 ject before us. In separating between what was characteristic 
 of the period of transition, and what belonged to the perma- 
 nent state of the early Church, we have taken an important 
 step towards ascertaining its ordinary and normal condition ; and 
 besides this, we have been enabled to lay down certain general 
 positions, which will be of use in our subsequent argument. In 
 addressing ourselves to the discussion, there are four leading 
 systems of Church government that present themselves to our 
 view, and claim attention, — the Romanist, the Episcopalian, the 
 Independent, and the Presbyterian. A brief and general review 
 of the principles involved in these systems, and the positions main- 
 tained by their adherents, will enable us to discuss the whole 
 subject of Church government, or the question of the parties 
 by whom Church power is administered. We shall begin by 
 taking into consideration the particular scheme of ecclesiastical 
 polity advocated by the adherents of the Church of Rome. 
 
 The doctrine of the Popish Church in regard to the constitu- 
 tion and government of the Christian society, is briefly set forth 
 in the decree of the Council of Florence, a.d. 1438-39, — one of 
 those councils held by Romanists to be oecumenical and authori- 
 tative : " Also we decree that the Holy Apostolic See and the 
 Roman Pontiff have a primacy over the whole world ; and that 
 the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of St. Peter, the 
 prince of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ, and head 
 of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; 
 and that to him, in the person of the blessed Peter, our Lord 
 
246 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 Jesus Christ has committed full power of feeding, ruling, and 
 governing the universal Church." ^ 
 
 There are at least three bold and comprehensive positions 
 asserted in this authoritative statement of the views of the 
 Church of Rome as to the form and constitution of the ecclesi- 
 astical society. First, it is asserted that Peter was invested by our 
 Lord with such a superiority over the other apostles as to be their 
 official head, and in an exclusive and peculiar sense the depositary 
 of his Master's Divine power and authority over the Church. 
 Second, it is asserted that this primacy of Peter, being not per- 
 sonal but official, was transmitted by him, along with all the 
 powers and prerogatives that belonged to it, to his successors in 
 office, — those successors being the Roman Pontiffs. And third, 
 it is asserted that this ecclesiastical supremacy conferred on 
 Peter, and by him transmitted to his successors at Rome, is of 
 such a nature and amount as to constitute them, in the proper 
 sense of the term, the vicars of Christ, holding and adminis- 
 tering vicariously His spiritual authority over the Church, — 
 the Roman Pontiff for the time being as much the head of the 
 ecclesiastical body as the Saviour once was on earth, with full 
 powers to feed, order, and rule the universal Christian society. 
 These three general positions are plainly involved in the decree 
 of the Council of Florence, and are exemplified in the system 
 of ecclesiastical polity set up and administered in the Romish 
 Church. The subordinate office-bearers in the Popish Church 
 hold their place and authority in dependence upon the sovereign 
 Pontiff, who is invested both with infallible authority and with 
 supreme and unlimited power. He has the right to enact laws 
 binding upon all the members of the Church, to determine 
 controversies of faith without appeal, to impose and remove 
 spiritual judgments at his own pleasure. The functions of the 
 whole c.ollege of apostles are vested in the chair of St. Peter at 
 Rome, or rather, the whole delegated power of their Master is 
 conferred on him who is the earthly vicar of Christ ; and through- 
 out the Christian Church, and among the whole body of those 
 who have ever been baptized, the opinions, actions, and persons 
 of all are under the control of the Pope, without any limitation 
 affixed to his jurisdiction, or any appeal open from his decision. 
 
 ^ Concil. Florent. Sess. xxv. Perceval, The Roman Schism, Loud. 183G, 
 p. 153 f. 
 
Cii. III.] POPISH SYSTEM OF CHURCH POLITY. 247 
 
 The remarkable combination of compreliensiveness and unity in 
 this scheme of ecclesiastical autocracy is obvious. From one 
 centre of infallible and universal authority, the order, government, 
 discipline, and doctrine of the entire Church system of Rome are 
 developed. In that centre there sits the vica?' of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ on earth, with world-wide jurisdiction and unchallengeable 
 infallibility, and the persons, actions, sentiments and beliefs of every 
 member of the Christian society, all the outward authority and in- 
 ward grace of the universal Church, are in his hands, and subject 
 to his disposal and control. Such are the fruits of the Romish 
 doctrine of the supremacy of the Pope, — the rich inheritance of 
 that primacy alleged to have been left to Peter by our Lord.^ 
 
 There can be little doubt that the system just delineated is 
 the true exhibition of the Popish theory of ecclesiastical polity ; 
 it is countenanced by the public confessions of the Church of 
 Rome, as well as by the works of her most eminent theologians. 
 At the same time, considerable difference of opinion prevails 
 among Romanists as to some points in the Romish scheme of 
 Church power. With some, as Thomas Aquinas and Baronius, 
 the supremacy of the Pope involves directly an absolute sove- 
 reignty both in spiritual and in temporal things ; while, accord- 
 ing to others, as Bellarmine, the Papal supremacy includes a 
 sovereignty in temporal things, not directly, but indirectly. With 
 others still, as Bossuet and the assertors of the Gallican Liberties, 
 it is a supremacy limited to spiritual matters, and allowing of an 
 appeal from the Pope to a General Council.^ This latter point, 
 
 ^ [" About what," says Bellarmiue at the commencement of the Preface 
 to his five books, De Summo Pontijice, — "about what is the controversy when 
 we debate concerning the primacy of the Pontiff? I may answer in one 
 word : About the sum and substance of Christianity (de summa rei Chris- 
 tianse). For the question is, whether the Church ought to stand any longer, 
 or whether it should be dissolved and faU. For what is the difference between 
 asking if the foundation ought to be removed from the building, the shepherd 
 from the flock, the general from the army, the sun from the stars, the head 
 from the body, and asking if the building ought to fall, the flock to be scat- 
 tered, the army to be dispersed, the stars to be darkened, the body to lie 
 dead? . . . The Catholic faith teaches us that every virtue is good, every 
 vice bad ; but if the Pope were to err and to enjoin vices or prohibit virtues, 
 the Chm'ch would be bound to believe the vices to be good and the virtues to 
 be bad, unless she were willing to sin against conscience." — Lib. iv. cap. v. 
 De Maistre, The Pope, Dawson's Transl. Lond. 1850, pp. xvi. xxv. 11, etc. 
 Manning, Engl, and Christendom, Lond. 18G7, pp. 206 ff.] 
 
 ^ Amesius, Bellarm. Enerv. lib. iii. cap. ix. Cunningham, Works, vol. i. 
 pp. 82 £f. 101-132. [Edgar, Variations of Popery, 2d ed. ch. iii. pp. 12-4-132.] 
 
248 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 indeed, or the question of the inferiority of the Pontiff to a 
 General Council, and of the restriction of his power to spiritual 
 matters, is the main difference between the Ultramontane and 
 Cismontane parties in the Romish communion. But these 
 differences of opinion, found within the bosom of the Church 
 itself, as to what more or less is involved in the supremacy of 
 the Pope, do not affect the general theory of Church government 
 which rests upon that dogma. The structure and administra- 
 tion of the Church as an ecclesiastical system would be the 
 same upon the Romish theory, even taking up the lowest view 
 of the Papal supremacy entertained by any Romanist, even sup- 
 posing it were shorn of all temporal authority whatsoever, and 
 also made subordinate to a General Council. Let us endeavour 
 to understand what grounds in reason or Scripture are to be 
 found to support the superstructure of such a system of Church 
 polity. 
 
 I. There are certain general considerations connected with 
 the unity of the Church which are relied upon by many Roman- 
 ists, as apart from express Scripture authority, sanctioning this 
 system of ecclesiastical polity. It is the natural, or rather inevi- 
 table result of the Romish doctrine of Church unity, as belonging, 
 in its highest character, not to the invisible, but to the visible 
 Church of Christ. 
 
 The dogma of the Papal supremacy is so unlike the Scripture 
 representations of the fisherman of Galilee and the thrice fallen 
 apostle, that not a few, more especially of modern defenders of 
 the dogma, have been contented to abandon, or to pass by in 
 silence, the Scripture argument altogether, and to rest the system 
 upon extra-scriptural evidence. The favourite resource of such 
 controversialists is the necessity of the doctrine of the Papal 
 supremacy to maintain and to represent the essential unity of 
 the Christian Church. And in the Romish sense of unity, the 
 necessity of a visible head and centre of the ecclesiastical system is 
 apparent. The doctrine of the oneness of the Christian society is 
 very strongly and explicitly laid down in Scripture. " There is 
 one body and one spirit," says the apostle in the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians, " even as ye are called in one hope of your calling ; one 
 Lord, one faith, one baptism." The ordinary figure under which 
 Scripture represents the oneness belonging to the Christian Church 
 is that of the human body with its many members, but its essen- 
 
Ch. III.] POPISH SYSTEM OF CHURCH POLITY. 249 
 
 tial unity embracing them all.^ Romanism adopts this idea, 
 which Scripture suggests, of an organic unity as essential to the 
 Christian society, and transfers it from the invisible to the visible 
 Church ; making this oneness to consist, not in the spiritual con- 
 nection of all its members Avitli an invisible Head in heaven, but 
 in their political or ecclesiastical connection with a visible head 
 on earth. The Papal unity, so far as it exists, is the thorough 
 and perfect realization of the unity attributed in Scripture to the 
 Christian Church ; with this difference— and a most fundamen- 
 tal one — that it is a merely outward and ecclesiastical unity, and 
 not an inward and spiritual one. If the unity of the Church 
 could be completely realized according to the Romanist theory of 
 it, we should have a huge, carnal, and political system the exact 
 external counterfeit of the true inward and invisible union which 
 actually belongs to the mystical body of Christ. Under one 
 visible head are arranged, according to their rank and place in 
 the society, both office-bearers and members ; all equally connected 
 with the supreme source of authority and order, holding their 
 position from him, and in this connection with a common centre, 
 finding a common connection with each other. The Pope is the 
 centre of unity in the Romish theory of the Church ; by his uni- 
 versal and supreme authority binding into one visible corporation 
 the whole members of the Christian Church, and reducing to a 
 certain outward uniformity in faith, and worship, and order, all 
 the parts of the ecclesiastical society. A more perfect and im- 
 posing system of external unity than that presented by the Church 
 of Rome the world has not seen ; exhibiting as it does a vast cor- 
 poration with its office-bearers and members alike under subjec- 
 tion to one visible head, and each holding his place in relation to 
 every other in the body ecclesiastical, in virtue of his subordination 
 to the common source of unity and power. Setting out from the 
 fundamental idea of an organic unity, to be realized, not in an 
 invisible Church, but in a visible ecclesiastical society, it must be 
 admitted that the complete development of that idea is found in 
 the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. This theory is the only one, 
 proceeding on such an assumption, that is consistent with itself, 
 and complete.^ Any attempt to stop short of one visible society 
 
 1 Eph. iv. 4, 12-16, V. 23, 29-32 ; Col. i. 18-24 ; 1 Cor. xii. 12-27. 
 
 2 [Heuce the numerous attempts among English High Cluirchmcn to mate 
 out an abstract unity among all bishops,—" cujus a singulis in solidum pars 
 
250 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWEE. [Pakt IV. 
 
 subject to one Head, the only fountain of authority within it, and 
 therefore the only source of order and union, leaves the Church, 
 considered as a visible association, a broken and disjointed thing, 
 made up of a number of independent bodies, differing from each 
 other in forms of government and faith and worship, but not. 
 constituting, in the highest sense of the term, one communion 
 and one Church. Absolute organic unity, if it can be attributed 
 to a visible Church, is only realized in the so-called Catholic 
 Church and in the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. 
 
 It is on this ground that the dogma of the supremacy of the 
 Pope has, by not a few, been argued and defended. Abandoning, 
 or but faintly appealing to, the evidence which Scripture can 
 be brought to exhibit directly in favour of such a system, they 
 represent the supremacy of the Pope as the necessary result and 
 expression of that organic unity which they believe belongs to the 
 outward or visible Church. Such is the ground taken up, more 
 especially in modern times, by those defenders of the Papal supre- 
 macy who belong to the philosophical school of Romanists ; as for 
 example, IMohler, De JSIaistre, and others. With them, the Papal 
 supremacy is essentially the legitimate consummation and develop- 
 ment of the unity of the Christian Church.^ 
 
 Now, the fundamental error in such an argument is the as- 
 sumption with which it sets out. The oneness of the Christian 
 Church is not an ecclesiastical union, but a spiritual one ; organic 
 unity belongs to it, not as a visible system, but an invisible. 
 That unity is realized, not in the outward connection of all 
 
 tenetur" — and by means of this "one visible abstract bishop" to break the 
 force of those passages in tlie Fathers, asserting analogies between the Jewish 
 hierarchy and the Christian ministry, which have always done such good 
 service in the argmnent for the Papal suiDremacy. Others content themselves 
 with the fact that the Fathers of the fom-th and fifth centuries did not them- 
 selves draw the same practical inference from their own similes which their 
 successors did. " That which Aaron and his sons and the Levites," says 
 Jerome in his epistle to Evangelus, " were in the Temple, the same let the 
 Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons claun to be in the Church." On which Dr. 
 Wordsworth remarks : " He does not say ' The Bishop,' as if there were to be 
 only one, — a Poi^e. This, therefore^ is no argument (as some have objected) 
 in favour of Popery, that is, of one universal Bishop." — Synodal Address, 
 1864, Edin. 1807, p. 20. Cf. Bellarm. de Rom. Puntif. lib. i. cap. ix. etc. 
 Litton, Church of Christ, pp. G80 if.] 
 
 ^ [This line of reasoning has been very powerfully pressed by ^lohler in 
 his work on Unity in the Church. On the Cyprianic and Pseudo-Ignatian 
 theory of the Church, his argument seems not only able, but perfectly 
 unanswerable. Die Einheit in der Kirche, 2te Aufl. 2te Abth. ; see esp. 
 pp. 236-252.] 
 
Cn. III.] POPISH SYSTEM OF CHURCH POLITY. 251 
 
 connection of all Christians with one unseen Head in heaven. 
 The difference between the Romanist and Protestant systems on 
 this subject may be traced back to the fundamental difference in 
 their views of what is the true and normal idea of the Church of 
 Christ. With Romanists, the initial idea of the Church is that 
 of an outward institute ; with Protestants, the initial idea of the 
 Church is that of an inward and spiritual influence. With the 
 former, the visible Church is the primary and fundamental con- 
 ception ; with the latter, the invisible Church is the normal con- 
 ception of the Christian society. And hence the different manner 
 in which they interpret and apply those passages of Scripture 
 which declare the unity or oneness of the Christian Church, — 
 the Romanist asserting a unity which shall be of an outward and 
 visible kind, realized in the ecclesiastical connection of all Chris- 
 tians with an earthly head ; the Protestant maintaining a unity of 
 a spiritual kind, realized in the saving connection of all Christians 
 with their glorified Head in heaven. The Romanist theory of the 
 Church, which makes its essence to consist in external character- 
 istics, necessarily leads to the notion of a unity external, and pal 
 pable also ; no other kind of oneness is consistent wnth the Church 
 system peculiar to Popery. And that external unity is only realized 
 in a way at once consistent and complete, when it is expressed in 
 the shape of a society, one in outward organization and fellow- 
 ship, all the members and office-bearers of which hold of the same 
 visible head, and are in subjection to the same central authority.^ 
 There seems to be no intermediate system tenable between an 
 organic unity wholly visible, and resulting in one catholic eccle- 
 siastical corporation under subordination to the same supreme 
 head on earth, and an organic unity wholly spiritual, and result- 
 ing in one universal spiritual Church in invisible communion 
 with one unseen Head in heaven. The theory of semi-Romanists 
 and Protestant High Churchmen is inconsistent with itself, and 
 incomplete. With them, the Bishop is the fountain of authority 
 and centre of union in the Christian Church ; and the primacy of 
 the episcopal office in each diocese is substituted for the primacy 
 of the Pope in the universal Church. The Bishop, the repre- 
 sentative of the apostolic office, or the representative of Christ, 
 
 1 Litton, Church of Christ, Lond. 1851, pp. 383-398, 417-487. [See 
 above, vol. i. pp. 29-40.] 
 
252 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 within his own diocese, is the bond of life and order and unity 
 in the Christian society. Such is the idea first formally, perhaps, 
 exhibited in the so-called Epistles of Ignatius/ and more fully 
 brought out in the writings of Cyprian. But in this shape the 
 theory is manifestly inconsistent and incomplete. The outward • 
 unity, resulting from the episcopate within the limits of any one 
 diocese, did not come up to the idea of the unity of the universal 
 Church. From such a theory, there could result nothing beyond 
 the aggregation of many dioceses or communities — each a dis- 
 tinct ecclesiastical corporation, and each independent of any and 
 all the rest — into one combination ; connected merely by a simi- 
 larity of governments, and not by one government, — forming 
 many societies linked together by a fragile tie, but not properly 
 one society and community of Christians. Such a loose and dis- 
 jointed alliance of independent unities did not, and never could, 
 realize the proper idea of one society and one visible organization." 
 The Pseudo-Ignatian and Cyprianic theory of the Church could 
 
 ^ [On these celebrated epistles, which have always been the stronghold of 
 controversialists on the Prelatic side, but which ha-ve dwindled by degrees in 
 their hands from fifteen to eight, from eight to seven, from seven to six, and 
 from six to three, see Cunningham, Works, vol. ii. pp. 108-120.] 
 
 2 " It seems difficult," observes Mr. Litton, "to refuse assent to the fol- 
 lowing observations of one who at one time was a zealous maintainer of 
 Cyprian's doctrine of unity, but who subsequently became sensible of its in- 
 completeness, except when viewed as a stage of transition to the Papacy : — ' It 
 may possibly be suggested that this universality which the Fathers ascribe to 
 the Catholic Church lay in its apostolical descent, or again m its Episcopacy ; 
 and that it was one, not as being one kingdom or civitas, "at unity with 
 itself," with one and the same intelligence in every part, one sympathy, one 
 ruling princijale, one organization, one communion, but because, though con- 
 sisting of a number of independent communities, at variance (if so be) with 
 each other, even to a breach of communion, nevertheless all these were pos- 
 sessed of a legitimate succession of clergy, or all governed by Bishops, Priests, 
 and Deacons. But who will in seriousness maintain that relationship or that 
 resemblance makes two bodies one ? England and Prussia are both monar- 
 chies ; are they, therefore, one kmgdom ? England and the United States are 
 from one stock ; can they, therefore, be called one state ? England and Ire- 
 land are peopled by different races ; yet are they not one kingdom still ? If 
 unity lies in the apostolical succession, an act of schism is, from the nature of 
 the case, impossible ; for as no one can reverse his parentage, so no Church 
 can undo the fact that its clergy have come by lineal descent from the 
 Apostles. Either there is no such sin as schism, or miity does not lie in the 
 Episcopal form or in Episcopal ordination.' — Newman, On the Development of 
 Christ. Doctrine., 2d ed. pjj. 25<S f. De ^[aistre has expressed the same thought 
 more concisely : ' Soutenir qu'une foule d'Eglises independautes torment une 
 Eglise ?(?ie et universelle, c'est soutenir, en d'autres termes, que tons les gou- 
 vernements politique de I'Europe ne forment qu'un seul gouvernement tin et 
 rmiverseV — Du P((j)e, lib. i. c. 1." 
 
Cii.III.] POPISH SYSTEM OF CHURCH POLITY. 253 
 
 only fiucl its complete and consistent development in the Romish 
 doctrine of one visible catholic society and one supreme head, 
 under which all the inferior societies and authorities of a visible 
 Episcopacy might unite. And hence the doctrine of the hierarchy 
 embodied in the theory of Cyprian, grew, and was developed until 
 it found its only consistent and perfect expression in the system 
 of the Church of Rome.^ 
 
 There is a sense, indeed, in which it may be truly said that 
 the A'isible Church of Christ on earth is one body, however 
 widely scattered and distinct the local societies included under it 
 may be. They are all one, as included not only in the same 
 profession of faith, but also in the same external covenant rela- 
 tion to Christ as their Head. But the higher relation of a 
 saving and invisible spiritual connection with Christ as the Head, 
 belongs only to the invisible Church, and is nowhere expressed 
 or embodied in an outward and palpable form. The external and 
 visible unity of the Church of Rome, resulting as it does in the 
 Popish claims to catholicity, and in the supremacy of its one head 
 on earth, is inconsistent with the scriptural idea of the unity 
 of the Christian Church in its complete sense ; belonging, as this 
 unity does, not to the visible, but to the invisible- and mystical 
 body of Christ. That theory of Church unity upon which the 
 Popish idea of the supremacy of the successors of Peter is made 
 by many of its adherents to rest, has no real foundation in the 
 Word of God.^ 
 
 II. There are certain scriptural intimations bearing upon the 
 position of Peter among his brother apostles, which are adduced 
 by Romanists in support of the doctrine of his official primacy. 
 The scriptural evidence appealed to by the advocates of the 
 Papacy on this point is of the very slenderest kind, and certainly 
 wholly insufficient to support the magnificent superstructure of 
 ecclesiastical polity reared upon it. 
 
 Istj The precedency of Peter in the college of apostles is 
 argued from his name generally appearing first in any list of 
 them given in Scripture, and from the place he usually occupied 
 
 1 Litton, Clmrcli of Christ, Lonrl. 1851, pp. G58-695. [Jameson, Cypi-i- 
 anus Isntimus, Edin. 1705, pp. 154-198.] 
 
 2 Litton, pp. 487-509. [See above, vol. i. pp. 41-53 ; Jewel, Defence of 
 tie Apologie of the Churche of Englande, Lond. 1570, 16 Juuii, pp. 403-406, 
 615.] 
 
254 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 as leader or representative of the rest, in speaking or acting on 
 many occasions recorded in the Gospel histories. 
 
 Now, in reference to this point, there is a very plain distinc- 
 tion to be drawn between a precedency which is personal and a 
 precedency which is official, — the one pertaining to tlie man, and 
 the other pertaining to the office held by him. That Peter was 
 in certain respects superior to his brethren in the apostleship, in 
 natural gifts and energy, or in zeal and devotedness in his 
 Master's service, may be readily conceded; and that this superi- 
 ority marked him out on many occasions as the natural leader or 
 spokesman of the rest, may be no less readily allowed. And this 
 is all that can fairly be argued from the evangelical narrative as 
 belonging to him. But this personal precedency or superiority 
 over the rest is a very different thing from that official superi- 
 ority claimed for him by the adherents of the Church of Rome, 
 and necessary to their theory. Such a personal precedency of 
 one man over others, is what necessarily arises out of the differ- 
 ent characters and endowments possessed by the members of 
 every society in which men meet and act together, and can no 
 more be transmitted by the individual who enjoys it to another 
 than he can transfer to him his own personal character or qualifi- 
 cations. Peter, on not a few occasions, took the place or lead 
 assigned to him by the rest of the twelve; he stood forward as 
 the leader or spokesman of the Apostles, acting and speaking on 
 behalf of the others. But there is no evidence in Scripture that 
 this personal superiority was ever transmuted into an official 
 superiority, as if, not the man, but the office-bearer, was different 
 from the rest. That the circumstance of Peter's name appearing 
 first in the lists of the apostles given in the Gospels is no evi- 
 dence of official precedent, is apparent from the fact, that in other 
 passages of Scripture, when Peter and others of the apostles are 
 mentioned, the order of names, as found in the Gospels, is not 
 adhered to, but those of some others of the apostles occur first.^ 
 
 2d, The primacy of Peter among the apostles is very generally 
 made to rest by liomanists upon the words addressed to him by 
 our Lord, as recorded in the sixteenth chapter of the Gospel by 
 Matthew: " And Jesus answered and said unto him. Blessed art 
 thou, Simon Bar-jona : for flesh and blood hath not revealed it 
 unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also 
 1 John i. 44 ; 1 Cor. i. 12, iii. 22 ; Gal. ii. 9. 
 
I 
 
 Ch. III.] POPISH SYSTEM OF CHURCH POLITY. 255 
 
 unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build 
 my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 
 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : 
 and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in 
 heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed 
 in heaven." ^ 
 
 Now, in reference to this passage, it is not necessary to go 
 into the many different interpretations that have been given of 
 it, all of them excluding the idea of an official primacy granted 
 to Peter by our Lord. Some of these interpretations assert that 
 "the rock" that was to be the foundation of the Church, as 
 declared in this passage, is not meant of Peter, but of Christ Him- 
 self. Others of them assert that " the rock " is to be understood 
 of the previous confession made by Peter when he said, " Thou 
 art the Christ, the Son of the hving God," rather than of the 
 apostle personally. I cannot help thinking that the natural 
 interpretation of the passage does seem to involve the declaration 
 that, in some sense, and to a certain effect, Peter is to be re- 
 garded, in his official character of an apostle, as upholding the 
 superstructure of the Christian Church. The allusion in the 
 ]iassage to the name given to the apostle by our Lord, (tv et 
 IIerpo<i, KOI iirl ravrrj rfj irerpa olKoSofiija-cii fiov rrjv eKKXrjcriav, 
 seems naturally to imply that in a certain sense the Church 
 was to be built upon the apostle, as its support. But while 
 admitting this, it can be easily proved that this declaration to 
 Peter conveyed to him no superiority over the other apostles, 
 and constituted him the foundation of the Christian society in 
 no other sense or way than that in which the other apostles are 
 to be regarded as its foundation also. 
 
 In the first j)lace, it is apparent that, in whatever sense Peter 
 Avas constituted the foundation of the Church, it can only be in 
 that inferior and secondary sense in which such an honour is 
 consistent with the prerogatives of Christ, as the true and proper 
 foundation of the Church. Its Divine Author and Head is the 
 only real rock on which the Christian Church is built ; for 
 " other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is 
 Jesus Christ." '^ 
 
 In the second place, there seems to be sufficient ground for 
 affirming that the declaration and promise made to Peter by our 
 1 Matt. xvi. 17-19. - 1 Cor. iii. 11. 
 
256 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 Lord were made to liim, not individually, but as the represen- 
 tative, on tliis occasion, of his brother apostles, and that tlie 
 privilege conferred through him was conferred on all. The 
 occasion on which our Lord's words were spoken, was one on 
 which, not Peter separately, but all the apostles, had been ad- 
 dressed and appealed to by Christ : " When Jesus came into 
 the coasts of Csesarea Pliilippi, He asked His disciples, saying, 
 Whom do men say that I the Son of man am ? " And after 
 their reply, stating the opinion of others, our Saviour renews the 
 question, still addressing, not Peter, but all the apostles : " But 
 whom say ye that I am ? " It was in answer to this question 
 that Peter, standing forth as the spokesman of the rest, gave 
 utterance to the confession in their names as well as in his own : 
 " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And it is 
 hardly possible to believe that the promise of our Lord, granted 
 in answer to this joint confession, was restricted to Peter, and 
 did not include the other apostles in whose behalf, as much as 
 for himself, he had spoken. 
 
 Li the tliird 2yicice, the special privilege granted to Peter 
 by our Lord's promise, of becoming the foundation or the 
 founder of the Christian Church in a secondary sense, is a 
 privilege which other express declarations of Scripture, made in 
 the same terms, confer equally upon the other apostles. " Ye 
 are built," says the Apostle Paul to the Ephesians, " upon the 
 foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself 
 being the chief corner stone." ^ That new Jerusalem which 
 .Tohn saw in the Apocalypse, had, we are told, " twelve founda- 
 tions, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the 
 Lamb." ^ In other words, we are expressly taught that, in the 
 same sense in which Peter was the founder of the Church, the 
 other apostles were the founders of it also. 
 
 In the fourth place, the power or authority over the Chris- 
 tian society, conveyed by our Lord to Peter on this occasion, 
 is the very power at other times handed over to the rest of the 
 apostles as rulers of the Church. It is plain that the authority 
 implied in the place assigned to Peter as the foundation of the 
 Church is in this passage to be interpreted by the words that 
 follow : " And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom 
 of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be 
 i Eph. ii. 20. - Rev. xxi. 14. 
 
Ch. III.] POPISH SYSTEM OF CHURCH POLITY. 257 
 
 bound in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall 
 bo loosed in heaven." This language is obviously explanatory 
 of the power implied in the office or privilege of being the 
 foundation of the Christian Church, assigned to Peter. Now 
 this very power is, in the chapter next but one following, con- 
 veyed in the very same terms to all the apostles, when, in con- 
 nection with the command to cast out the offender who refused 
 to hear the Church, our Lord says, not to Peter, but to all the 
 apostles: "Verily I say unto you. Whatsoever ye shall bind on 
 earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on 
 earth shall be loosed in heaven." ^ And again, a power of the 
 same nature and amount is conferred once more upon all the 
 apostles, when receiving the authoritative commission from our 
 Lord before His departure : " Whose soever sins ye remit, they 
 are remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are 
 retained." '^ So very strong and distinct is the evidence, that the 
 privilege conferred upon Peter in the declaration of our Lord, 
 although addressed to him as the representative of the others, 
 was not intended for him alone, but was a privilege to be shared 
 in equally by all the apostles. 
 
 od, The official superiority of Peter among the apostles is 
 sometimes based by Romanists on the commission given to him 
 by our Lord after the resurrection, to feed the lambs and the 
 sheep of Christ.^ 
 
 It is hardly necessary to deal with this argument. The thrice 
 repeated injunction, " Feed my lambs," " Feed my sheep," so 
 pointedly addressed to Peter, might have reminded him, as it was 
 no doubt intended to remind him, of his threefold denial and fall ; 
 but it could hardly by any possibility convey to his mind tlie idea 
 of superiority over his brethren. The very same injunction to 
 feed the flock of Christ — iroifMalvetv rrjv iKKXrja-iav — is given more 
 than once to the presbyters or bishops of the Church, as part 
 of their ordinary vocation, and implies no distinctive or superior 
 authority.* Indeed, the history of Peter after he received this 
 charge, coupled with that of the other apostles and disciples, as 
 it is to be gathered from the Acts and the Epistles, is a sufficient 
 evidence of the interpretation he himself put upon these words, 
 and of the absence of any attempt to claim or exercise official 
 
 1 Matt, xviii. 18. 2 John xx. 23. 
 
 3 John xxi. 15-17. ^ Acts xx. 28 ; 1 Pet. v. 2. 
 
258 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 superiority over his brethren. In that history we see him the 
 same ardent and earnest man, ever foremost among his equals, 
 but asserting no official precedence over them, and sometimes 
 frankly confessing his faults and inferiority.^ In the Acts of 
 the Apostles he appears on the same level with the rest of the 
 disciples in council, and in labours in the cause of the Church. 
 At Antioch he erred in conduct and speech, and was rebuked 
 sharply by Paul, and submitted to the brotherly censure.^ In 
 his own Epistle to the Christian Jews scattered abroad through- 
 out the world, there is not the slightest trace of the high and 
 paramount authority claimed for him by Romanists, — a silence 
 on the point not to be accounted for, on the supposition that it 
 actually belonged to him. In the Epistle to the Romans, addressed 
 to the Christians in the very place where it is alleged that he had 
 the seat of his ecclesiastical supremacy, his name and power and 
 office are nowhere mentioned, — an evidence in itself conclusive 
 against the Eomish dogma of the primacy of Peter. In short, 
 the whole inspired history of the Church after the ascension of 
 our Lord, alike by its silence and its express assertions, contradicts 
 the theory of Peter's absolute and official superiority to the rest 
 of the apostles. 
 
 So much for the first and leading proposition involved in the 
 Popish theory of Church government, namely, that Christ con- 
 ferred upon Peter an official supremacy over the other apostles 
 and over the Church at large. The absence in Scripture of any 
 evidence for such an assertion, or rather, the positive contra- 
 diction which Scripture evidence affords to it, supersedes the 
 necessity of our entering upon a consideration of the two remain- 
 ing propositions in the Romanist scheme of ecclesiastical polity, 
 founded as they are upon the first. The second assumption im- 
 plied in the Popish theory, or the assertion that Peter transmitted 
 his official supremacy to his successors, the Roman Pontiffs, is 
 contradicted iDy these two considerations : first, that the apos- 
 tolical office, whatever powers or prerogatives belonged to it, was, 
 as we have already seen, extraordinary, and terminated with the 
 apostles themselves ; and second, that there is no evidence in 
 Scripture, and nothing but the slenderest possible presumption 
 from ecclesiastical antiquity, to show that Peter was ever at Rome, 
 far less to show that he was bishop of the Church there. The 
 
 ^ Acts xi. 8-17 : Gal. ii. 11 ; 2 Pet. iu. 15 f. ^ Qal. ii. 11-21. 
 
Ch. III.] POPISH SYSTEM OF CHURCH POLITY. 259 
 
 tliird assumption involved in the Popish theory, or the assertion 
 that the supremacy of Peter was such in nature and amount as 
 to constitute him and his successors in office the true vicars of 
 the Lord Jesus Christ on earth, — ruhng with His power and 
 authority over the universal Church, and administering vicariously 
 in the Christian society the absolute supremacy and supernatural 
 infallibility of our Lord, — is contradicted by the whole tenor of 
 Scripture, which tells us that the office of Christ is peculiar to 
 Himself, and incommunicable, and that He has not handed over 
 His place or His glory to any earthly successor. The theory of 
 the Romish Church involves a daring dishonour to Christ the 
 HeacV 
 
 ^ Turrettin, Op. torn. iii. loc. xviii. qu. xvi.-xx. Amesius, BeUarm. Enerv. 
 lib. iii. Salmasius, De Primatu Papx. Perrone, Prxlect. Theoloq. Parisiis 1842, 
 torn. ii. pp. 883-1040. Ciuiningliam, Work><, vol. ii. pp. 168-171, 207-226. 
 [Calvin, Inst. lib. iv. cap. vi. vii. Whitaker, Prxlectlones in Controversiam 
 de Romano Pontijice. Barrow, The Pope's Supremacy. Stillingfleet, Doct. 
 and Pract. of the Church oj Rome, CunDingham's ed. pp. 160-196.] 
 
260 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 CHAPTER lY. 
 
 THE PRELATIC SYSTEM OF CHURCH POLITY AS OPPOSED TO 
 THE PRESBYTERIAN. 
 
 Setting aside the ecclesiastical theory of the Romish Church, the 
 arguments in favour of which we have already discussed and dis- 
 posed of, there remain for our consideration three forms of polity, 
 the distinctive peculiarities of which are commonly known under 
 the names of the Episcopalian or Prelatic, the Presbyterian, and 
 the Independent systems. There are certain positions which ai'e 
 common to these three systems of Church government. Begin- 
 ning with the inferior office, the order of deacon is one recognised 
 under all these three systems as a standing and Divine institution 
 in the Christian Church. Further, the office-bearer known under 
 the name of presbyter or elder, or, from his chief function, pastor, 
 is also acknowledged by the advocates of these three systems to 
 be a standing functionary in the Christian society. There may 
 be, and there are, different views entertained of the duties and 
 powers of these office-bearers by the parties adhering to the dif- 
 ferent schemes of Church government now referred to. But 
 these two offices, at least, are admitted by all of them to have 
 been Divine appointments, not of a temporary, but of a perma- 
 nent character, in the ecclesiastical body. The two orders of 
 presbyters and deacons, acknowledged by all the three parties, 
 are held by Presbyterians and Independents to be the only ranks 
 of standing office-bearers divinely instituted in the Church ; while 
 Episcopalians contend that, in addition to these, there is a tldrd 
 order, superior in place and authority to both, and forming part of 
 the permanent arrangements of the ecclesiastical society. In addi- 
 tion to presbyters and deacons, the advocates of Prelacy assert, 
 against the view both of Presbyterians and Independents, that 
 there is an order of bishops or prelates distinct from the former 
 
Ch. IV.] PRESBYTERIANISM AND PRELACY. 261 
 
 two, and equally of standing authority in the Christian Church. 
 Presbyterians and Independents occupy common ground in com- 
 bating this distinctive principle of Prelacy, and denying the 
 existence and authority of the order of bishops as apart from 
 elders or presbyters. There are other points in regard to the office 
 of elder or presbyter where the views of Presbyterians and Inde- 
 pendents separate. But they agree in repudiating the three orders 
 of office-bearers necessary to the Episcopalian theory, and in 
 denying that there is any Scripture warrant for the office of 
 bishop, in the Prelatic sense of the word, as a distinct and supe- 
 rior ordinance in the Christian society.^ 
 
 In proceeding to discuss the question of Church government 
 as between Presbyterians and Independents on the one side, and 
 Episcopalians on the other, it is of great importance that we keep 
 in view what is essential and peculiar to Episcopacy, and what is 
 not. We have no dispute with Prelatists as to the existence and 
 permanent nature of the office of presbyters in the Church, as an 
 order set apart more especially to minister in the Word and Sacra- 
 ments. We have no dispute with Prelatists as to the existence 
 and standing character of the office of deacon, subordinate to the 
 presbyter ; though we may differ somewhat as to the proper duties 
 that belong to the office. The main and essential distinction 
 between Episcopalians and Presbyterians relates to the order of 
 bishops as separate from and superior to both elders and deacons, 
 and vested with peculiar powers and authority not belonging to 
 either of them. According to the Episcopalian theory as commonly 
 held, the distinction between bishops and presbyters is twofold, 
 — a distinction expressed in the language of the old divines as 
 comprehending a difference in regard to the " potestas ordinis " 
 and the " potestas jurisdictionis : " in other words, the diffei'ence 
 
 ^ [The Council of Trent having to deal with the fact that all the Refor- 
 mers had rejected the Divine right of Prelacy, and that in England, where 
 alone the form of it had been retained, it was only defended as an ancient 
 and lawful ecclesiastical arrangement, is very express in its language on the 
 subject : " Si quis dixerit in Ecclesia catholica non esse hierarchiam Divina 
 ordinatione institutam qufe constat ex episcopis, presbyteris, et ministris: 
 anathema sit. Si quis dixerit episcopos non esse presbyteris superiores, vel 
 non habere potestatem confirmandi et ordinandi ; vel earn quam habent illis 
 esse cum presbyteris communera . . .: anathema sit. Si quis dixerit episcopos 
 qui auctoritate Romani Pontificis assumuntur non esse legitimos et veros 
 episcopos, sed figmentum humanum : anathema sit." — Condi. Trid. Canones 
 et Decreta, Sess. xxiii., De ^acr. Ord. can. vi.-viii. Cf. Bellarm. de Clericis, 
 cap. xiv. XV.] 
 
262 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 asserted by tlie Episcopalian theory between the order of bishops 
 and the order of presbyters is exhibited in the right belonging to 
 bishops, and not to presbyters, of ordaining to office in the Church, 
 and further, in the power appertaining to bishops and not to 
 presbyters, of exercising government and administering discipline 
 in the Christian society. This, according to the generally received 
 form of the Episcopalian doctrine, is the proper and essential dis- 
 tinction between the bishop and the presbyter in the Christian 
 Church. The bishop alone has the power of ordination and 
 jurisdiction ; the presbyter has no power to ordain or to rule. 
 And the question in debate between Episcopalians and Presby- 
 terians, setting aside what is not essential to the controversy, is 
 simply as to the existence of an order of office-bearers in the 
 Church superior to presbyters, and exclusively possessed of the 
 powers of government and ordination. A bishop supreme in 
 authority and independent in powers within his own diocese, alone 
 having the right of ordination, and ruling singly over the sub- 
 ordinate ranks of the presbyters, deacons, and Church members, 
 embodies, according to the Prelatic theory, the proper ideal of the 
 Episcopal as distinguished from other forms of ecclesiastical polity. 
 Tlie right of the rulers of the Christian society to meet to- 
 gether regularly in a Church Court for united counsel and action, 
 and to legislate with real authority and effect, not merely for the 
 clergy, but for the whole body of the Church, although in practice 
 it is almost peculiar to Presbyterianism, is yet, in a certain sense, 
 and for certain limited purposes, admitted or claimed by Episcopa- 
 lians as competent to their system. Prelacy does not altogether 
 deny the lawfulness of the Church acting through a Court made 
 up of office-bearers under the form of a Synod or Council, although 
 it may seldom seem to act upon the admission to much practical 
 effect ; still, in so far it may be said to coincide with the system 
 of Presbyterianism as exhibited in her Church Courts. And on 
 the other side, the lawfulness of conceding a certain precedency, 
 not of permanent office, but as a matter of arrangement and con- 
 venience, to certain office-bearers over the rest in the Courts of 
 the Church, or for the sake of more convenient and concentrated 
 ecclesiastical action elsewhere, is not denied by Presbyterians, 
 but, within certain limits, is avowed and acted upon.^ Presby- 
 
 ' [Thus Calvin, speaking of the only primacy, which, for the sake of argu- 
 ment, he is willing to concede to Peter among the apostles, and which he 
 
Ch. IV.] PEESBYTERIANISM AND PRELACY. 263 
 
 terianism does not disown the lawfulness of a temporary or even 
 a constant moderator, appointed over his brethren by their voice, 
 with a view to expediting business or securing order, but having, 
 in virtue of this precedency, no superiority of permanent office or 
 original authority over others. All Presbyterians hold that pres- 
 byters met for common action should and must have a president, 
 by whatever name he may be designated. What precise degree 
 of authority should be given to such a president, and what the 
 length and conditions of his tenure of office ought to be, are 
 matters of detail, to be settled by every Church upon principles of 
 Christian expediency and common sense, with a reasonable regard 
 to the exigencies of the time and the lessons of Church history, 
 though, above all, " in accordance with the general rules of the 
 Word, which ought always to be observed."^ The concession by 
 Episcopalians within certain restricted limits of the existence and 
 powers of Church Courts, and the concession by Presbyterians 
 of the lawfulness of a precedency, not of original rank, but of 
 occasional appointment, are points on which the two systems 
 approximate or practically coincide."^ But the proper and essen- 
 tial distinction between the two systems is the assertion by Epis- 
 copalians, and the denial by Presbyterians, of Scriptural warrant 
 
 holds was all that the bishops had among their co-presbyters in the early- 
 centuries, when, as he says, " even although some exception should be taken 
 to some of their appointments, yet still, seeing that they strove with an honest 
 purpose to observe what God had instituted, they did not go far astray from 
 it : " Hoc enim fert natura, hoc hominum ingenium postulat, ut in quovis 
 coetu, etiamsi sequales sint omnes potestate, unus tamen sit veluti mode- 
 rator, in quera alii respiciant. Nulla est curia sine consule, nullus consessus 
 judicum sine prjetore sen qusestore, collegium nullum sine prjefecto, nulla sine 
 magistro societas." " Quibus docendi munus injunctum erat, eos omnes (in 
 the early post-ajDostolic Church) nominabant presbyteros. Illi ex suo numero 
 in singulis civitatibus uuum eligebant, cui specialiter dabant titulum episcopi : 
 ne ex jequalitate ut fieri solet dissidia nascerentur. Neque tamen sic honore 
 et dignitate superior erat episcoptis ut dominium in collegas haberet ; sed 
 quas partes habet consul in senatu, ut referat de negotiis, senteutias roget, 
 consulendo, monendo, hortando, aliis prseeat, auctoritate sua totam actionem 
 regat, et quod decretum communi consilio fuerit exsequetur, id muneris sus- 
 tinebat episcopus in presbyterorum coetu. Atque id ipsmri pro temporum 
 necessitate fuisse humano consensu iuductum fatentur ipsi veteres." — Inst. 
 lib. iv. cap. iv. 2, vi. 8.] 
 
 ^ Cunningham, Works, vol. ii. p. 235. 
 
 " [It was upon these points of approximation that Archbishop Usher, ac- 
 cording to whose view the bishop of the early centuries was just the constant 
 moderator of the presbytery, differing from his colleagues " gradu tantum, non 
 ordine," founded his " Reduction of Episcopacie unto the Form of Sy nodical 
 Government received in the ancient Church." Lond. 1656 (first proposed in 
 1641). Cf. Hoornbeek's notes on it, Dissert, de Episcopatu, Utrecht 1661. 
 
264 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWEK. [Part IV. 
 
 for a third order of ordinary and permanent office-bearers in the 
 Church above presbyters and deacons, having exclusively in their 
 hands the potestas ordinis and the potestas jimsdictionis, and 
 necessary to the existence of a true, or at least of a regularly 
 constituted, Church.^ 
 
 Such being the distinctive character of the Episcopalian 
 system, it is not difficult to understand what the kind of Scripture 
 evidence is that would be relevant and necessary to establish the 
 truth of it. Sufficient proof might be adduced in one or other 
 of two ways. In the first p>lace, it might be shown by Episco- 
 palians that the office of bishop, as distinct from presbyter, had 
 been actually instituted by Christ or His inspired followers in the 
 New Testament Church, and the Scripture proof for the original 
 institution of the office, without any warrant given us to believe 
 that it was extraordinary or temporary, would be sufficient evi- 
 dence of the truth of the Prelatic system. The evidence for the 
 formal institution of the order of bishop at first by our Lord or 
 His apostles would settle tlie controversy. Or, in the second 
 place, in the absence of any evidence for the separate or formal 
 institution of the Prelatic office at first, still if proof could be 
 led from Scripture of the exercise of the peculiar and distinctive 
 powers of the office by a standing order of men, distinct from 
 
 ^ [" The question is not,'" says Turrettin, "regarding a distinction of ar- 
 rangement or polity between different ministers of the same Church, in virtue 
 of which one may rank above the rest and preside in Church Courts (in sacris 
 Conventibus), whether under the name of bishop or superintendent. We do 
 not deny that this may be conveniently done with a view to all things pro- 
 ceeding in seemly form and order in the House of God. As is the case in 
 several fVotestant and Reformed Churches, which, with a view to the preser- 
 vation of good order, have thought it well to have a certain presidency and 
 superiority (■rptxTTotir/aj/ et vTrspox'yiv quandam) among their pastors, and which 
 have accordingly their bishops, superintendents, prelates, dekans, inspectors, to 
 whom belongs JMre ecdesiastico a certain higher dignity and authority than to 
 the other pastors. [We may possibly question the expediency of some of these 
 arrangements among the Lutheran Churches to which Turrettin alludes ; no 
 one disputes their abstract lawfulness, or their theoretical consistency with the 
 thoroughly Presbyterian principles of those who founded them.] But the 
 question is regarding a distinction of power both as to degree of order, in virtue of 
 which the bishop shall be the superior in office and dignity, and the presbyter 
 the inferior ; and as to jurisdiction, in virtue of which the latter shall be subject 
 to the dominion of the former : this is what our opponents hold, and we deny. 
 Again, the question is not regarding an ecclesiastical right as derived from an 
 ancient custom which began to prevail not long after the times of the apostles. 
 We readily grant that this was the case. But the question is regarding a Divine 
 right, as founded on the appointment of Christ and the practice of the 
 apostles; which we deny." — Loc. xviii. qu. xxi.] 
 
Ch.1V. §1.] PRESBYTERIANISM AND PRELACY. 265 
 
 presbyters in the New Testament Church, such proof would be 
 relevant and sufficient to establish the Scriptural truth of the 
 Episcopalian theory. The evidence for the exercise of proper 
 Prelatic powers by a permanent body of men distinguished from 
 presbyters in Scripture, even although no proof could be brought 
 for the formal institution of the office itself at first, would be 
 enough. By one or other of these two methods, the system of 
 Prelacy might be satisfactorily proved from Scripture. But if 
 no evidence satisfactory or sufficient can be brought to establish 
 the fact of the original institution of the office of diocesan bishop 
 by Christ or His apostles, and further, if, in the absence of that, 
 no evidence can be brought to prove the existence and exercise of 
 the proper powers of the episcopate in the Prelatic sense of the 
 term, by a standing body of office-bearers distinct from presbyters, 
 then the proof for the Episcopalian scheme of Church govern- 
 ment completely fails. We believe that Scripture affords ample 
 ground and warrant for meeting, with a decided negative, both 
 the propositions now referred to as the only competent or relevant 
 evidence which would suffice to prove the truth of the Episco- 
 palian pretensions. Scripture evidence denies that any such 
 office as that of diocesan bishop was ever instituted by our Lord 
 or His inspired followers. Scripture evidence denies that the 
 distinctive powers of the office were ever held or exercised by 
 ordinary and permanent office-bearers in the New Testament 
 Church, separate from presbyters. The discussion of these two 
 general propositions will enable us to review the question of 
 Church government as between Episcopalians and Presbyterians. 
 
 SECTION I. — NO EVIDENCE IN SCRIPTURE, BUT THE REVERSE, 
 FOR THE APPOINTMENT BY OUR LORD OR HIS APOSTLES OF 
 AN ORDER OP BISHOPS, AS DISTINCT FROM PRESBYTERS. 
 
 I. Christ, in instituting the office of apostle, did not institute 
 the office of diocesan bishop. 
 
 There is very considerable misapprehension as to this point. 
 It is admitted by all parties that the apostles possessed and 
 exercised the powers and prerogatives which, according to the 
 theory of Episcopalians, properly belong to the office of bishop. 
 And hence, when it is demanded of Episcopalians to point out 
 in Scripture the evidence for the institution of the peculiar office 
 
266 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 of bishop in the Prelatic sense of the word, they almost all with 
 one consent appeal to the institution of the Apostolate as the evi- 
 dence for the institution of the Episcopate also. It is admitted, 
 and indeed cannot be denied, that there is no passage in the New 
 Testament which records the institution of the office of diocesan 
 bishop as a separate thing from the office either of the apostles, 
 or of the evangelists, or of the presbyters of the apostolic Church. 
 The Prelatic theory denies that in the institution of the office of 
 presbyter we have any record of the institution of that of bishops; 
 for this would be to confess that they were identical, and not two 
 distinct offices. And therefore Episcopalians, having no record 
 of any separate institution of the order of prelates, are forced 
 to seek for it in the recorded institution of the office, either of 
 apostle or evangelist. The great majority of Episcopalians in 
 the present day assert that in the institution of the apostolic office 
 we have also the institution of the office of diocesan bishop. 
 
 Now in this assertion there is a fallacy of a very important 
 kind, and one fatal to the Prelatic argument. It involves the 
 mistake of confounding or identifying the '^aplafiara — certain 
 of the gifts or powers which may belong to a man in an office — 
 with the office itself; and the investiture of an individual with 
 such powers with the appointment of the same individual to the 
 formal office in connection with which they may be found. The 
 supereminent commission with which the Twelve were invested, 
 gave them, besides their peculiar prerogatives, the ordinary powers 
 belonging to the inferior and permanent office-bearers in the 
 Church ; as apostles, they could do all that bishops or presbyters 
 or deacons could do in the ecclesiastical society. But the posses- 
 sion of such powers by the apostles did not invest them with the 
 o^^ce of bishop or presbyter or deacon, nor make the apostolic 
 office to be identical with all or any one of these. The apostles 
 exercised all the functions and authority of those offices attached 
 to the names of evangelist, and prophet, and bishop, and presby- 
 ter, and deacon, and much more. But they were still apostles, 
 and did not cease to be so, even while occasionally discharging 
 some of those inferior functions which were destined to be per- 
 manent in the Christian society. In short, the powers that may 
 be exercised in office are not to be identified with the office itself. 
 These powers may be devolved upon a man for a temporary pur- 
 pose, and on a special occasion, while the man himself has not 
 
Cfi. IV. § I.] PEESBYTERIANISM AND PRELACY. 267 
 
 been invested with the formal office. So it is in ordinary life, 
 and so it is in the Church. The commander of an army may do 
 the work and take the place of a common soldier in it, when some 
 crisis in the battle may call for such a step ; but he is not on 
 that account to be reckoned a common soldier. The ruler of the 
 state may in some emergency be called upon to discharge the 
 functions of his own minister; but his office has not on that 
 account been changed from that of a king into that of a states- 
 man. And so it is in the case of the apostleship. The powers 
 occasionally exercised by the Twelve in connection with the de- 
 partments of labour or authority, usually appropriated to other and 
 inferior functionaries in the Church, did not invest the apostles 
 with the formal and separate office which such persons possessed. 
 In the course of the inspired history we may see apostles serving 
 tables and ministering to the necessities of the saints ; but they 
 do not on that account become deacons. We may see them 
 preaching, ordaining, dispensing Sacraments, exercising ecclesi- 
 astical discipline ; but that does not make them, in the technical 
 sense of the words, either presbyters or bishops. 
 
 The argument, then, of the Episcopalians, when they point to 
 the institution of the apostleship, as also the institution of the 
 Prelatic office, is altogether insufficient and unsound. It pro- 
 ceeds upon the mistaken assumption that the possession and 
 occasional exercise by the apostles of the powers which Pre- 
 latists attribute to the Episcopate, is the same thing as the formal 
 possession by the apostles of the office itself. It is no doubt 
 true that, along with other and far higher powers, the apostles 
 did possess both the " potestas ordinationis " and the " potestas 
 jurisdictionis," proper, according to the Prelatic theory, to the office 
 of a bishop. But the possession of such powers, involved as they 
 were in the supereminent and temporary office of the apostleship, 
 is not the same thing as the investiture of the apostles with the 
 office of diocesan bishop. 
 
 It is of very great importance in the discussion, that this point 
 should be cleared from all the misapprehensions that prevail 
 among Episcopalian controversialists in regard to it. Our general 
 position is, that the admitted fact of the possession and exercise 
 of Prelatic functions by apostles, in connection with the extra- 
 ordinary office and powers which they held, is not identical with 
 their investiture with the formal office of prelate or diocesan 
 
268 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 bishop ; and tlierefore that the institution of the office of the 
 apostleship, which we find in Scripture, is not identical with, 
 and does not imply, the institution of the office of bishop in the 
 Prelatic sense of the word. There are three distinct grounds on 
 which this general proposition may be established. 
 
 1st, There is no assertion in the Word of God, and no evi- 
 dence whatever, to prove that the apostles possessed and exercised 
 the various and different powers that belonged to them in any 
 other character or capacity than as apostles. If there had been 
 any intimation, direct or indirect, given us, that at different 
 times, and in their different proceedings, the apostles appeared 
 in different capacities, at one time as apostles, at another time as 
 bishops, on a third occasion as presbyters, and on a fourth occa- 
 sion as deacons, there would have been some ground for the 
 assumption of Episcopalians, that they held not the office of 
 apostle alone, but other offices also, involved in, and necessarily 
 connected with, the apostleship. If it could have been proved 
 from Scripture, that when an apostle exercised the powers of 
 government and ordination, it was in his capacity as a bishop ; 
 or that when he ministered in the Word and Sacraments, it was 
 in his character of a presbyter ; or that when he carried to Jeru- 
 salem, and distributed to the poor saints there, the contributions 
 of the Churches, it was in virtue of his office of a deacon, — then 
 indeed something would have been done in the direction of estab- 
 lishing the Episcopalian theory. But if there be no such evidence 
 in Scripture, — and if, on the contrary, there is reason to believe 
 that these various powers were exercised by the apostles, not in 
 virtue of their special ordination to the separate offices of bishop 
 and presbyter and deacon, but in virtue of the general and super- 
 eminent power which belonged to the one and undivided office of 
 apostle, — then everything is against the gratuitous assumption of 
 Prelatists. The total want of any evidence to show that they ever 
 acted in any other capacity than as apostles, or in virtue of any 
 other office than the peculiar one belonging to their order, seems 
 to exclude the hypothesis that in the institution of the Apostolate 
 we have the Scripture institution of the Episcopate also. 
 
 2d, The separate and distinct mention in Scripture of the 
 institution of the offices of presbyter and deacon apart from the 
 apostleship, and the absence of any mention of the institution of 
 the office of diocesan bishop apart from the apostleship, seem 
 
Ch. IV. § I] PRESBYTERIANISM AND PRELACY. 269 
 
 fairly to exclude the Episcopalian assumption, that in the erection 
 of the apostolic office we have the office of diocesan bishop in- 
 stituted also. There cannot be a doubt that the powers of the 
 presbyter and of the deacon, as much as the powers of the 
 diocesan bishop, were exercised by the apostles, and connected 
 with their office. And if the circumstance that the functions of 
 an office were exercised sometimes by the apostles, proves that 
 the office itself belonged to them, and was instituted along with 
 the apostleship, then the same reasoning must apply to the office 
 of presbyter and deacon that applies to the office of diocesan 
 bishop, and we should have in the original institution of the 
 apostleship the institution also of the Presbyterate and Diaconate, 
 as much as the Episcopate. Upon the Prelatic theory consistently 
 carried out, the offices of presbyter and deacon must have their 
 origin and institution in the erection of the apostleship, as well as 
 the office of diocesan bishop. That this is not the case, is suffi- 
 ciently proved by the express record in Scripture of the institu- 
 tion of both these offices of presbyter and deacon apart from the 
 apostleship. We read of the separate erection both of the 
 Diaconate and the Presbyterate, subsequently to the origin and 
 establishment of the apostolic office. Without such mention of 
 the formal institution of these offices apart from the apostleship, 
 and of the exercise of the powers appropriate to them by two dis- 
 tinct orders of men not apostles, we should have had no Scrip- 
 ture warrant for saying that the Pi'esbyterate and Diaconate were 
 separate offices in the Church at all. And the fact that there is 
 no such mention of the institution of the office of diocesan bishop 
 apart from the apostleship, and no proof — as we shall see by and 
 by — that the proper powers of the office were exercised by any 
 standing staff of separate office-bearers, must, upon the very 
 same principle, be held as depriving of all Scripture warrant the 
 office and order of prelate in the New Testament Church.^ 
 
 ^ " The question now before us is," says an able modern divine of the 
 English Church, dealing with the Tractarian theory of ecclesiastical govern- 
 ment : " Did Christ Himself deliver this form of ecclesiastical polity (the Epis- 
 copal) as that by which His Church was to be distinguished from other reli- 
 gious societies ? DifBcult of proof as this may appear, it is in the last resort 
 affirmed ; and the way in which it is made out is as follows : Christ ordained 
 the twelve — or eleven — apostles to be governors and teachers of His Church : 
 in their apostolic commission were comprised three distinct subordinate ones, 
 — the commissions of bishop, presbyter, and deacon, — so that, in fact, though 
 these offices are not found to have been formally instituted by Christ Himself, 
 
270 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 dd, The single commission delivered by our Lord to His 
 apostles, proves that it was a single office with which He invested 
 them, and not a plurality of offices involving two, or three, or 
 four distinct and separate orders in His Church. In that one 
 and undivided commission which made them apostles, we have 
 evidence that, whatever were the multitude of separate powers 
 or gifts conferred upon them, their office was one and undivided 
 also. We have not a distinct commission answering to each of 
 the offices alleged to have been conferred, — one for the Diaconate, 
 with power given to them to serve tables ; a second for the Pres- 
 byterate, with power given to minister in the Word and ordinances; 
 — a third for the Episcopate, wuth power conferred on them to 
 ordain and to rule : and a fourth for the Apostolate, with powers 
 embracing those of all the four, and others besides. 
 
 That the Twelve were appointed to the apostleship, we know 
 
 from the commission delivered to them by Christ ; but that they 
 
 liad an ordination as bishops, presbyters, and deacons separately, 
 
 is discountenanced very strongly by the silence of Scripture on 
 
 the subject. If the Episcopalian theory had been the true one, — 
 
 if under the one name and the one commission given to them 
 
 as apostles a congeries of different and separate offices had been 
 
 included, — we must have had some very express statements 
 
 or eyen to have been formally in being until the Church had existed for some 
 time in the world, yet they were present implicitly from the first ; each of 
 the apostles having in himself the polity of the Chiu-ch in all its plenitude, 
 and the apostolic college by degrees shedding the three orders, hitherto en- 
 veloped in their own persons, as need required : first, the Diaconate ; then the 
 Presbyterate ; and lastly, the Episcopate. Several difficulties here present 
 themselves to the mind. In what passage of Scripture is Christ recorded to 
 have delivered to the apostles three distinct commissions, with different 
 powers attached to each ? . . . The apostolic office comprised in itself powers 
 much more extensive than those which were afterwards distributed between 
 bishops, priests, and deacons. But we search in vain for the formal union 
 of the three orders in the persons of the apostles. And be it observed, the 
 theory requues such a formal devolution of the orders ; for no one can trans- 
 mit to another an office with which he has not himself been formally invested. 
 He may create for the first time a new office, or he may empower others to 
 do certain acts, — as, for instance, to preach or to ordain, — which he has here- 
 tofore reserved to himself ; but to make over an office to another, requires 
 that the person making it over have been himself, by competent authority, 
 formally invested with it, and empowered by the same authority to transmit 
 it. If we are to believe that the apostles evolved out of themselves, or out of 
 their own commission, the three offices in question, proof must bo given of 
 their having themselves been formally invested with the offices. But of this 
 no sufficient proof is offered. That the Twelve were appointed to be apostles of 
 Christ, is declared in Scripture; but when and where they wereordaiued bishops, 
 priests, and deacons, nowhere appeal's." — Litton, Church of Christ, p. 215 f. 
 
Ch. IV. § I.] PRESBYTERIANISM AND PRELACY. 271 
 
 of Scripture to counterbalance the evidence to the contrary 
 drawn from the one ordination to their office as apostles. We 
 should require very explicit proof to warrant us in believing that 
 beneath the terms of that single commission were comprehended 
 several distinct offices, one of which — the apostleship — was, by 
 the confession of all parties, extraordinary and temporary ; and 
 others of which — the Episcopate, Presbyterate, and Diaconate — 
 were to be ordinary and permanent, and yet separated from each 
 other. There is no principle whatever laid down in the com- 
 mission itself to enable us to separate between the extraordinary 
 and temporary office admittedly held by them, and the ordi- 
 nary and standing office alleged to have been included under 
 the same commission, or to separate between these latter among 
 themselves. Episcopalians have no directory for this in the 
 terms of the appointment of the apostles by our Lord at first, 
 but stand indebted wholly to their owni arbitrary and gratuitous 
 assumption for the ability to divide the apostolic commission into 
 separate parts and parcels, and to assert that one portion of it, 
 giving the right to ordination and government in the Church, 
 belongs to one office, and another portion of it, giving a right to 
 administer Word and Sacrament, to a second office, — both of 
 them being permanent and ordinary in the Church ; and that 
 other portions of the commission still, giving special endowments, 
 belonged to yet another office, which was extraordinary and to be 
 abolished. The very terms of the commission indeed show that 
 the office to which the apostles were appointed was one and 
 undivided, alike when they entered upon it, and when with their 
 own lives it came to an end. 
 
 Upon such grounds as these, then, we are warranted in 
 asserting that in the institution of the apostleship we have no 
 record of the institution of the Episcopal office, in the Prelatic 
 sense of the term. 
 
 II, The apostles, in instituting the office of evaneglist, did not 
 institute the office of diocesan bishop. 
 
 The great majority of Episcopalians in the present day appeal 
 to the establishment of the apostleship as the proper evidence for 
 the institution of the office of diocesan bishop ; but some of them 
 — and this was perhaps, on the whole, the favourite argument 
 when the notion of the Divine right of Prelacy was first taken 
 up on Protestant ground by the school of Bancroft and Laud 
 
272 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 — put the matter in a slightly different shape, and point to the 
 institution of the evangelist's office as the proper origin of the 
 Prelatic. That the evangelists, like the apostles, were possessed 
 of all the powers subsequently attributed to prelates, and, in 
 virtue of their extraordinary office, often acted as prelates might 
 have acted, exercising both the " potestas ordinationis " and the 
 "potestas jurisdictionis " in addition to their extraordinary autho- 
 rity as evangelists, there can be no doubt. In the unsettled and 
 critical [state of an infant Church in a heathen land, with few or 
 no regular office-bearers at all, or amid the disorders of false 
 teachers, factions, and heresies arising in a society of young and 
 unstable converts, an ample measure of exceptional and discre- 
 tionary authority might obviously be needed by the deputies of 
 an apostle.^ But the very same argument applies to the case of 
 evangelists, when referred to as the source of the Prelatic office, 
 which we have found applicable to the case of apostles when ap- 
 pealed to for the same purpose. It cannot be alleged that the 
 office of evangelist, in its full extent and in all its powers, is 
 identical with what Episcopalians regard as the ordinary office 
 of bishop now. The evangelist was endowed with supereminent 
 authority and supernatural powers, unknown to the ordinary office- 
 bearers of the Church ; and to that extent even Episcopalians will 
 allow that their office was extraordinary, and has ceased. And if 
 it be still alleged that under the extraordinary and temporary office 
 
 ^ [We have a vivid picture of such disorders in Paul's Epistles to the Corin- 
 thians, and in the earliest of the genuine remains of the apostolic Fathers, — the 
 letter of Clemens Romanus to the same Church. It is noteworthy that in neither 
 case is there the slightest hint of the Prelatic remedy for schism. ' ' There 
 is nothing in the epistle of Clement which directly or by implication affords 
 any countenance to the notion that bishops, in the modern sense, then existed 
 or were thought necessary ; while, from the general substance and leading 
 object of the epistle, it is perfectly manifest, that if there had been any bishop 
 at Corinth, or if the see had been vacant at the time, as some ingenious Epis- 
 copalians have fancied, or if the idea, which seems afterwards to have prevailed 
 had then entered men's minds — viz. that Prelacy was a good remedy against 
 schism and faction, — something must^ in the circumstances, have Ijeen said 
 which would have proved this. So clear is all this, that the more candid 
 Episcopalians admit it ; and the latest Episcopalian historian. Dr. Wadding- 
 ton, now Dean of Durham, after asserting, without evidence, that all the 
 other Churches were provided with bishops by the apostles, adds : ' The 
 Church of Corinth seems to have been the only exception. Till the date of 
 St. Clement's epistle, its government had been clearly Presbyterial, and we do 
 not learn the exact moment of the change' {Hist, of the Church, Lond. 1833, 
 p. 21). It is rather unfortunate for our Episcopalian friends that the Church 
 of Corinth should have been the exception ; for if Prelacy is felt to promote 
 unity, peace, and subordination, and if this consideration was present to the 
 
Cii.IY. §1.] PRESBYTERIANISM AND PRELACY. 273 
 
 there was included the ordinary and permanent office of prelate, 
 — if it be asserted, as many Episcopalians do assert, that Timothy 
 and Titus, although extraordinary evangelists, were ordinary dio- 
 cesan bishops too, — and if the institution of the office of prelate 
 is held to be involved implicitly in the institution of 'the higher 
 office of evangelist, — then the very same process of reasoning, 
 applicable to the case of the apostolic office, when adduced as the 
 source of Episcopacy, is applicable no less to the evangelistic. 
 Firsfy there is no evidence whatever, but the reverse, in the Word 
 of God to prove that evangelists ever acted in the capacity of 
 diocesan bishops, and not in the character or capacity of evan- 
 gelists. Second^ the separate institution of the office of presbyter 
 and deacon, while there is no institution of the office of diocesan 
 bishop apart from that of evangelist, goes to show that the 
 prelate's office is not, like the presbyter's, a separate and standing 
 one in the Church of Christ. TJurd, the special aqd single com- 
 mission given by the apostles to the office of evangelist shows 
 that it was one office, and not two united together under one 
 name. The application of these general propositions will dispose 
 of the argument of those Episcopalians who seek for the institu- 
 tion of the office of prelate in the institution, not of the apostolic, 
 but of the evangelistic office. 
 
 III. The circumstance that the terms bishop and presbyter 
 are invariably used in the New Testament as but different titles 
 
 mind of the apostles in establisliing it, — and all this they commonly allege, — 
 there is no undue presmuption in saying that the Apostle Paul would surely 
 have taken care that, whatever other Churches might have been left to the 
 evils and disorders of Presbyterial government, the proud and factious Church 
 of Corinth should have been subjected in good time to the wholesome restraint 
 of Episcopal domination. There is another unfortunate circumstance about 
 this solitary exception. The Church of Corinth happens to be the only one 
 about whose internal condition, with respect to government, we have any 
 very specific or satisfactory evidence applicable to the end of the first century ; 
 and Ave are expected, it seems, to beUeve that all the other Churches were at 
 this time in a different condition in respect to government, from the only 
 one whose condition we have any certain means of knowing. Dr. Wadding- 
 ton admits that the government of the Church of Corinth was at this time 
 ' clearly Presbyterial,' but he says it was the only exception. • Well, then, 
 we put this plain question : Will he select (nii/ other Church he cliooses, and 
 imdertake to jiroduce evidence half as satisfactory that its government at 
 this time was Prelatic? The remains of antiquity afford no sufScient mate- 
 rials for doing so ; and the important fact therefoi'e stands out, that the onli/ 
 Church about whose internal condition we have any clear and satisfactory 
 evidence applicable to the first century, had a government ' clearly Presby- 
 terial.' '' — Cunningham, Works, vol. ii. p. 245.] 
 
 VOL. II. S 
 
274 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 for the same ecclesiastical office, demonstrates that there was no 
 institution of the office of bishop separate from that of presbyter. 
 
 It is not difficult to recognise the reason for the use of the two 
 terms, TrpecrySurepo? and eVtcr/coTroi?, as applicable to the same 
 undivided office. The first of these, Trpecr/Surepo?, was the title 
 appropriated to the office of elder in the Jewish synagogue; and 
 when transferi'ed to the Christian Church to denote a certain class 
 of its office-bearers, it was employed as the term best understood 
 and most famihar in the case of Churches, the members of which 
 belonged, mainly or exclusively, to the Jewish race. The second 
 of these, eVtWoTro?, was a word in general use among the Greeks 
 to denote any kind of overseer; and when transferred to the over- 
 seers of the Christian society, it was made use of in the case of 
 Gentile Churches especially, in preference to the other term, 
 carrying with it Jewish associations, not understood by Gentile 
 Christians. The general use in the New Testament of these two 
 words seems 'to be regulated for the most part, although with 
 some exceptions, by a regard to this principle.^ But that these 
 words were but different titles of the same official personage, is 
 abundantly proved by a variety of passages in the New Testa- 
 ment. The proof indeed is so strong as to be now acknowledged 
 to be conclusive as to the point by the most candid of the Epis- 
 copalian controversialists. It is not necessary to do more than 
 advert briefly to the evidence. 
 
 1. In the twentieth chapter of the Acts we are told of Paul, 
 that " from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders — 
 Tov'i irpea^vrepov^ — of the Church. And when they were come 
 to him, he said unto them, . . . Take heed unto yourselves, and to 
 all the flock over the which tlie Holy Ghost has made you bishops 
 — eTnaKOTTovi — to feed the Church of God, which He hath pur- 
 chased with His own blood." ^ It is not possible for any inge- 
 
 1 [Neander, Hbt. of lite Plant, of the Christ. Church, Hylaud's Transl. vol. 
 i. pp. 164-178.] 
 
 ^ Acts XX. 17 f., 28. [" This circumstance," says Dean Alford (that, 
 namely, of the Ephesian presbyters being called bishops), " began very early 
 to contradict the growing views' of the apostolic institution and necessity of 
 prelatical episcopacy. Thus Irenseus, ii. 14, 2 : 'In Mileto convocatis ('])iscopis 
 et preshyteris qui erant ab Epheso et a 7'eUquis ])roximis ciritatihus.'' Here we 
 see, (1) the two, bishops and presbyters, distinguished, as if both were sent for, 
 in order that the titles might not seem to belong to the same persons ; and 
 (2) other neighbouring Chvu-ches also brought in, in order that there might 
 not seem to be i-TrtaaoTroi in one Church only. That neither of these was the . 
 case, is clearly shown by the plain words of this verse (ver. 17). T • . So early 
 
Ch.iv.§i.] presbyterianism and prelacy. 275 
 
 nuitj — and a good deal has been expended upon this point by 
 some Prelatic writers — to evade the conchision, that in this pas- 
 sage the two terms are appHed indiscriminately to the same persons, 
 as different titles of the one office that they held. 
 
 2. In the Epistle to Titus we have similar and equally decisive 
 evidence : " For this cause," says the apostle, " left I thee in Crete, 
 that thou shouklest set in order the things that are wanting, and 
 ordain elders — 'jrpecr/3uTepov<i — in every city, as I had appointed 
 thee : if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having 
 faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly. For a bishop 
 — eTTiWoTToi? — must be blameless, as the steward of God."^ In 
 this passage we again find the two terms used interchangeably 
 in reference to the same office. More than this, according to 
 the Episcopalian theory, Titus was, at the date of these instruc- 
 tions to him, bishop of Crete, and yet, in total contradiction to 
 that assumption, we find him in this passage told to ordain a 
 plurality of bishops in every city of his diocese.^ 
 
 3. The language of the Apostle Peter is also decisive as to 
 the use of these terms : " The elders — irpea^vjepovi — which are 
 among you I exhort, who am also an elder — o-vfiTrpear^vTepo'i 
 — and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker 
 of the glory that shall be revealed: feed the flock of God which 
 is among you, taking the oversight thereof, or doing a bishop's 
 office in it — eVio-zcoTrowTe? — not by constraint, but willingly ; not 
 for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind ; not as lording it over the 
 (Lord's) heritage — KaraKvptevovre'^ rwv KKi']pwv, — but being en- 
 samples to the flock." ^ 
 
 did interested and disingenuous interpretations begin to cloud the light which 
 Scripture might have thrown on ecclesiastical questions. The E. V. has hardly 
 dealt fairly in this case with the sacred text in rendermg sTrtax.oTrrtvg (ver. 28) 
 ' I <rt:rsee !•.<,'' whereas it ought there, as in all other places, to have been ' hishnps,^ 
 that the fact of elders and hishops having been orlginallii and apo.ttolicallij 
 s/iitniijimou.t might be apparent to the ordinary English reader, which now it 
 is not." — Alf. in he. Cf. his essay on the "Union of Christendom in its 
 llonic Aspect," Coutemp. liev. Feb. 1868. This passage, in fact, with 1 Pet. 
 V. 1 f., and " Easter''' instead of " The Passover '^ in Acts xii. 4, are perhaps 
 tlic only instances in which we may trace, in otir generally admirable and 
 most impartial version, the shadow of the rising school of Bancroft.] 
 
 ' Tit. i. 5-7. 
 
 2 [This difficulty has been got over by Bishop Taylor and others, by sup- 
 posing that Titus was an archbishop, and that he was to appoint " one bishop 
 in one city, many in many." "This deduction," however, as Dr. EUicott 
 remarks, in his commentary on the passage, " is certainly precarious." Cf. 
 Rothe, Anfange, pp. 181 ff.] '■^ 1 Pet. v. 1-3. 
 
276 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH rOWER. [Part IV. 
 
 4. By necessary inference, the same fact is established by the 
 opening salutation found in the Epistle to the Philippians: "Paul 
 and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in 
 Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops — eTrtcr/coTroi? 
 — and deacons." ^ Here, as in other cases, we find the inspired 
 writer mentioning a plurality of bishops in one city. He sends 
 his salutations to them, to the deacons, and to the private mem- 
 bers of the Church. He omits and makes no mention of the 
 presbyters, — a fact impossible to reconcile with the Episcopalian 
 theory of the existence of such office-bearers, separate from 
 bishops, at Philippi ; and which can only be explained on the 
 Presbyterian view, that they were the same persons, and not 
 distinct and separate office-bearers. 
 
 Such is the kind of evidence which is at hand to establish the 
 general fact that the terms bishop and presbyter are employed in 
 the New Testament as titles of the same ecclesiastical office ; and 
 it seems impossible to resist the conclusion that Scripture, in 
 speaking thus, and in uniformly applying the two words to the 
 same office, meant us to understand, not two offices, but one. 
 
 ^ Phil. i. 1. [" Tlie combination of the scriptural and extra-scriptural 
 evidence," says Dr. Cunningham, " in regard to the Church at Philippi, has 
 sadly perplexed the EpiscoiDalians. Some of them, such as Dr. Hammond, 
 contend that the bishops of whom Paul speaks, were bishops in the modern 
 sense of the word, i.e. prelates ; but that Philippi was a metropolis, and had 
 an archbishop, the bishops being the suffragans of the province, and the 
 primate or metropolitan himself being either dead or absent when Paul wrote. 
 But the more judicious among them admit that these bishops were just pres- 
 byters ; and they add that the bishop, properly so called, in the modern sense, 
 must have been either dead or absent when Paul wrote, oi\ that a prelate 
 had not yet been appointed, the episcopate being still exercised by the apostle 
 himself. But, unfortunately, it appears from Polycarp's letter, written about 
 seventy years after, when the apostles v^ere all dead, that the Church of 
 Philippi was still under the government of presbyters and deacons, without 
 any trace of a bishop. What is to be done with this difficulty ? Why, we 
 must just trjj to suppose again, that the bishop was either dead or absent. 
 Bishop Pearson says, and it is literally all he has to say upon the point : ' Sed 
 quis prsestabit Episcopum Philippensium tunc in viris fuisse ? Quis pra^stabit 
 Philippenses ideo a Polycarpo consilium non eftlagitasse quod tunc temporis 
 Episcopo ipsi hand potirentur ? ' ( Viud. P. ii. p. 168.) Presbyterians are not 
 bound, and certainly will not undertake, to produce proof, as Pearson de- 
 mands, that the bishop of Philippi was then alive. It is quite enough for us 
 that there is no trace of the existence of any such fimctiouary in the Church 
 of Philippi, — no evidence that they had had, or were again to have, a jsrelate 
 to govern them ; while it is further manifest, that if the reason why they 
 asked Polycarp's advice was, as Bishop Pearson chooses to imagine, because 
 the see was vacant at the time, it is not within the bounds of possibility that 
 there could have been no hint or trace of this state of things in the letter 
 itself, Philippi surely should be admitted to be another exception. Its 
 
Cii. IV. §1.] PKESBYTEUIANISM AND niELACY. -277 
 
 Looking back upon the wliole argument, we seem fairly 
 justified in saying that there is no Scrij)ture evidence whatsoever 
 for the institution of an office of diocesan bishop, as separate from 
 that of a presbyter, in the New Testament. It is a most remark- 
 able fact, and one pregnant with meaning, that we have no 
 account in Scripture of the origin of such an office, or of the 
 ordination of any man to it; and that the advocates of the Epis- 
 copahan system are compelled to seek for its first institution in 
 the institution of the apostolic or evangelistic offices. We have 
 seen that there is no evidence, but the reverse, for believing that 
 in the recorded origin of the office of apostle or evangelist we 
 are at liberty to date the desiderated origin of the Prelatic office 
 also. And further, we have seen that the use of the terms 
 bishop and presbyter in the New Testament forbid the supposition 
 that these offices had a separate institution or separate existence 
 in the Church.^ Even were there no additional proof of the 
 soundness of the Presbyterian theory of Church government 
 as opposed to the Episcopalian, the evidence which has already 
 emerged would be amply sufficient to establish it." 
 
 government, likewise, was clearly Presbyterial, and this, too, after all the 
 apostles were dead, and consequently after all the arrangements which they 
 sanctioned had been introduced. So far, then, as concerns the oithj two 
 apostolic men, of whom it is generally admitted that we have their remams 
 genuine and uncorrupted, it is evident that their testimony upon this point 
 entirely concurs wath that of Scripture, that they furnish no evidence what- 
 ever of the existence of Prelacy, and that their testimony runs clearly and 
 decidedly in favour of Presbyterial government ; and if so, then this is a blow 
 struck at the root or foundation of the whole alleged Prelatic testimony from 
 antiquity. It cuts off the first and most important link in the chain, and 
 leaves a gap between the apostles and any subsequent Prelacy, which cannot 
 be filled up." — Works, vol. ii. p. 247 f.] 
 
 ^ See cs\). Pi'incipal Cunningham's admirable summary of the facts relative 
 to the gi-adual change in the phraseology employed with respect to ecclesi- 
 astical office-bearers from the apostolic and inspired use of the words, which 
 began towards the end of the second century, and culminated with the Papal 
 supremacy, and his comment on the significance of that change. Works, vol. 
 ii. pp. 'l('>i ff. [Compare the veiy similar remarks of Calvin on Phil. i. 1 and 
 Tit. i. 7, Comnuut. ed. Tholuck, vi. pp. 167, 466.1 
 
 - Turrettin, Op. torn, iii, loc. xviii. qu. xxi. Voetius, Polit. Ecc.les. Pars 
 ii. lib. iv. Tract, i. cap. iv. v. Ames. Bellarm. Euerv. torn. ii. lib. iii. cap. iv. 
 Beza, De divers. Ministrorum Gradibns, Genevse 1594. Jas Div. Miinsterii 
 Evanfielici, by the Provincial Assembly of London, Lond. 1654, Part ii. ch. 
 iv. vii. Append. 1-8, etc. Clarkson, No Evidence for Diocesan Churches, 
 — Primitice Episcopacy stated and cleared from the Ilohj Scriptures and 
 Ancient Records, in his select works, Wycliffe Soc. ed. Lond. 1846, ii.-iv. 
 Jameson, Sum of the Episcopal Controversy, Edin. 1702, ch. i.-iii. [Calvin, 
 Inst. lib. iv. cap. iii. 4-9, iv. 1-5, vii. 23, xL 1, 4, 6, etc. Miller, Letters 
 concerning the Constit. and Order of the Christ. Miiiistry, Philadelphia 1830, 
 
278 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 SECTION II. NO EVIDENCE IN SCRIPTURE, BUT THE REVERSE, 
 
 OF THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS OF A DIOCESAN BISHOP 
 BY ANY DISTINCT AND PERMANENT ORDER OF OFFICE- 
 BEARERS, APART FROM THAT OF PRESBYTERS. 
 
 As has been already stated, there are two ways, and no more 
 than two, in which the doctrine of Episcopacy could be fairly 
 established by Scripture evidence, as against the views of Presby- 
 terians. If it could be proved that the third order of diocesan 
 bishop had been instituted by Christ or His inspired followers as 
 an order distinct from any other in the New Testament Church, — 
 and we had no reason to believe that the office was extraordinary 
 or temporary, — this evidence of its express institution would be 
 decisive of the controversy. Or, failing any evidence for its formal 
 institution, if it could be proved from Scripture that the distinc- 
 tive powers belonging to the office were usually possessed and 
 exercised by a distinct and standing order of men in the Church 
 separate from other office-bearers, this, too, would be enough to 
 settle the debate. By either of these methods of proof, the doctrine 
 of Episcopacy might be relevantly and sufficiently established. 
 We have already seen that, by the first method of proof, the 
 advocates of Episcopacy have signally failed to make out their 
 case. They cannot adduce any evidence of a Scripture kind to 
 show^ where, or when, or by what authority the office of diocesan 
 bishop was first instituted in the New Testament Clnirch, as an 
 office distinct from any other. When the question as to its origin 
 and institution is put to them, they are forced to have recourse to 
 the hypothesis of an implicit and not an explicit institution of the 
 office, — of an origin involved in the origin of the Apostolate, and 
 not distinct, and by itself.^ In this respect it furnishes a striking 
 contrast to the other two permanent and ordinary offices in the 
 Church. We can tell where and when the office of deacon was 
 
 2cl ed. pp. 14-79. Rothe, Avfdncje der cJiristl. Kirche, Wittenberg 1837, pp. 
 173-221, 239-243, 269-263, 305 ff. Neander, Church Hist. Torrey's Transl. 
 vol. i. pp. 2f)0-275, 302 f. Giesclcr, Eccks. Hist. Davidson's Transl. vol. i. 
 pp. 88-93, 105 ff. For further references to works on Church government, 
 see the Author's notes on the literature of this department, Append. I.] 
 
 ^ " This theory," as Mr. Litton justly remarks, " is more fanciful than 
 solid." . . . "Moreover, it is at variance with the precedent furnished by the 
 elder dispensation, to which, however, we are directed as the pattern of the 
 Christian Episcopate ; the high priest, priests, and Lovites corresponding, it 
 is said, with the bishops, priests, and deacons. Neither in Moses, tlie law- 
 
Ch. IV. §11] PRESBYTERTANISM AND PRELACY. 279 
 
 instituted; and that not implicitly or constructively, as involved 
 in some other and different office, but formally and separately by 
 itself. In like manner we can point to the origin of the Pres- 
 byterate, and to the express and formal ordination of men to that 
 office, apart from any other in the Ne\y Testament Church. But 
 of the origin and institution of the alleged third order of office- 
 bearers, and of the ordination of men to the office of diocesan 
 bishop as a formal office, not implied in or identical with any 
 other, we have no mention in Scripture at all. No candid or 
 intelligent controversialist will contend that this is a fact of small 
 significance in the argument. No man would say that if the 
 history of the institution of the offices of deacon and presbyter, 
 and of the ordination of men to these as formal offices, had been 
 blotted out from the page of Scripture, we could have had the 
 same clear and satisfactory evidence for their standing place in 
 the arrangements of the Church as we now have; or that it 
 would have been reckoned a very satisfactory or conclusive argu- 
 ment for the existence of these offices, to have asserted their con- 
 structive or implicit institution, as involved in the institution of the 
 apostolic office. And yet this is the assertion to which the advocates 
 of Prelacy have been compelled to have recourse, in giving an ac- 
 count of the origin of the office of diocesan bishop. The entire 
 absence of all Scripture evidence for its separate institution must 
 be regarded as an argument of very great weight in the discussion. 
 But this argument will be greatly strengthened, and become 
 absolutely conclusive, if we can add to it the further consideration, 
 that the powers proper to the so-called office of bishop have never 
 been exercised, in so far as Scripture informs us, — and no extra- 
 scriptural evidence, as we have already seen, can be admitted 
 when the question is concerning a Divine right, and not concern- 
 ing the mere human pedigree of a human institution,^ — by a 
 
 giver of the old covenant, nor in Aaron, the first high priest, was the Mosaic 
 polity embodied, or its offices concentrated to be shed off in succession, as 
 need should seem to require : the whole of that polity was delivered by God 
 to Moses in the form in which it was to remain, the subordinate offices being 
 as distinctly defined and appropriated to certain persons as the high-priest- 
 hood itself was. . . The draft of the ecclesiastical institution proceeded in every 
 part alike directly from God, and the office of the Levites and that of the high 
 priest stood on the same footing of Divine institution." — CInirch of Christ, 
 p. 247. 
 
 1 [" The claim of Episcopacy to be of Divine institution, and therefore 
 obligatory on the Church," says Bishop Onderdonk, '• rests fundamentally 
 on the one question : Has it the authority of Scripture ? If it has not, it is 
 
280 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 standing order of men separate from other office-bearers in tlie 
 Church, but, on the contrary, have always been exercised by the 
 order of presbyters. It is of much argumentative importance to 
 know that the first method of proof for Episcopacy entirely fails, 
 and that there is no evidence from Scripture, but the reverse, to 
 prove that the office of bishop as a distinct office was ever instituted. 
 But it will add conclusive force to the argument, to show that 
 tlie second method of proof also fails, and that there is no evidence 
 from Scripture to prove that the distinctive powers assigned by 
 Prelatists to the office of bishop were ever exercised by a standing 
 order of men separate from the other office-bearers in the Church; 
 and that, on the contrary, there is sufficient evidence to prove that 
 they were usually and universally exercised by presbyters. To 
 this branch of the argument we now address ourselves. 
 
 The distinctive peculiarity of the system of Episcopacy, as 
 opposed to Presbyterianism, lies in the assertion by Episcopalians 
 of the existence of a third order of office-bearers in the Church, 
 possessed of powers a])propriate to themselves, and denied to the 
 rest. These are the " potestas ordinationis," or the right, denied 
 to presbyters, of ordaining to office in the Church; and the 
 " potestas jurisdictionis," or the right, also denied to presbyters, of 
 exercising government and dispensing discipline in the Church. 
 
 not necessarily binding . . . This one point slioukl be kept in view in every 
 discussion of the subject ; no argument is wortli taking into account that has 
 not a palpable bearing on the clear and naked topic, — the scriptural evidence 
 of Episcopacy." — Episcopacy tested by Scripture, I.ond. 1840, p. 1 (first publ. 
 in America, 1831). In this, of course, the author now cited differs from 
 many High Churchmen, who hold that it is one of the great proofs of the 
 insufficiency of Scripture, as the sole rule of faith, that we cannot establish 
 Episcopacy from it, but must have recourse for that purpose to the Epistles 
 of Ignatius, — e.g. Ne"\vman, On Development, 2d ed. p. 107 ,; Tracts for ti ", 
 Times, No. 85. All Presbyterians, however, will gladly hail Dr. Onderdonk's 
 admission, although it was one which he himself seemed inclined somewhat tf 
 modify at an after-stage in the controversy which his essay excited. It would 
 have been well had all Episcopalian writers set as clearly before them the 
 essential difference between trying to prove that Prelacy is a venerable insti- 
 tution, known and honoured in the early Church, presumably even sanctioned 
 by the last of the apostles after the canon of Scripture was closed, and trying 
 to establish a Jus Divinum on post-apostolic opinion and practice. We wel- 
 come the testimony of the ancient Churcli in its proper place, and for the 
 ends which it is competent to accomplish. "Where it happens to be clear and 
 decided, it may possibly throw light on some obscure text of Scripture, and 
 incline us to one interpretation of it rather than another. But no human 
 hand, were it of martyr or of saint, can add one stone to the essential struc- 
 ture of the Christian Church, which must stand complete on the foundation 
 of the apostles and prophets of the New Testament, or not at all.] 
 
Ch.IV. §11.] rRESBYTERIANISM AND PRELACY. 281 
 
 According to the Prelatic theory, as expkiined by almost all who 
 hold it, the power of ordination and the power of ruling are 
 peculiar to bishops, and so characteristic of the office that they 
 cannot be separated from it. Where the right to ordain or to 
 rule can be proved to exist, as belonging to any one in the Church, 
 there the office and presence of a bishop are to be recognised ; 
 and where these can be proved to be awanting in the case of any 
 office-bearer, there the functions of a presbyter or deacon, but not 
 of a bishop, are to be acknowledged. Now this principle, neces- 
 sarily implied in any system of Prelacy, properly so called, affords 
 an easy and certain test to enable us to bring to the bar of Scrip- 
 ture the pretensions put forth by its adherents. Is the twofold 
 right of ordination and of government in the Christian Church 
 one which, according to Scripture, rightfully appertains to a dis-- 
 tinct class of men, holding ordinary and permanent office in the 
 Church, and separate from presbyters ; or does the right of ordi- 
 nation and government form one commonly and statedly exercised 
 by presbyters '^ It is vain to appeal to the extraordinary power 
 exercised by apostles and evangelists, who unquestionably both 
 ordained and ruled in the New Testament Church. Such powers 
 formed part of the general and supereminent functions that be- 
 longed to them in virtue of their respective offices of apostles and 
 evangelists. But these offices were temporary, and not standing, 
 in the Church : they have ceased ; the powers connected with 
 them have ceased with the offices themselves ; and the right to 
 ordain and to rule does not now remain in the Church, in conse- 
 quence of the office of apostle or evangelist remaining. If we 
 adopt the Episcopalian theory, the right of ordination and govern- 
 ment survives, only because the distinct and separate office of 
 bishops survives, and would cease were that office to be abolished, 
 and none but presbyters remain in the Church.^ A relevant and 
 sufficient proof, therefore, that the right to ordain and govern 
 belongs usually to presbyters, and is exercised by them in the 
 New Testament Church, is fatal to the Episcopalian theory. Let 
 us in the first place, then, inquire whether the " potestas ordina- 
 tionis," the right to ordain to office in the New Testament Church, 
 is one exercised by diocesan bishops alone, or whether, on the 
 
 ^ Perceval, Apology for the Doct. of Apost. Snccessmi, 2d ed. pp. iv. v. etc. 
 Manning, UnUij of the Church, 2d ed. p. 342. Smyth, Prelat. Doct. of Apost. 
 Succeasion, Boston 1841, pp. 62 f., 105, 111. 
 
282 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 contrary, it is one commonly exercised by presbyters. And, in 
 the second place, let us inquire whether the "potestas jurisdic- 
 tionis," the right to rule and administer discipline, is one belonging 
 to an order separate from that of presbyters, or, on the contrary, 
 appropriate to it. These two questions discussed and settled, will 
 determine whether there is any evidence in Scripture to prove 
 that the distinctive powers or office of a Prelatic bishop were ever 
 exercised by any class of office-bearers separate from presbyters 
 in the New Testament Church.^ 
 
 To begin, then, with the right to oi'dain, claimed by Episco- 
 palians as one of the exclusive functions belonging to the office of 
 bishop, there is sufficient Scripture evidence to demonstrate that 
 this power w^as always possessed and exercised by presbyters. 
 
 I. The nature of the office conferred upon presbyters implies 
 a right to ordain. 
 
 It is admitted on all hands, that presbyters, by Scripture 
 
 ^ [Next to the direct scriptural evidence for Presbyterianism, one of the 
 strongest arguments in its favour is to be drawn from that fonn of govern- 
 ment which we find in the Jewish synagogue since the time of what was 
 probably its first formal establishment by the hands of the inspired men who 
 led back the exiles from Babylon. That the polity of the Christian Church 
 was framed on the model, not of the temple, but of the synagogue, just as its 
 Sacraments arose out of Jewish ordinances which had no connection with the 
 temple services, is a point on which almost all theologians agree, at least since 
 the date of Vitringa and Selden's great works on the subject. The evidence 
 is of course partly drawn from extra-scriptural sources ; but it is strongly con- 
 firmed by many incidental notices in the Old and New Testament. The names 
 of the office-bearers, the general nature of the offices, the powers of discipline 
 in the hands of a consistory of elders, the elements of worship, the imposition 
 of hands in ordination instead of anointing, as in the consecration of priests, 
 are all points in common between the synagogue and the Church. " The 
 ordinary and regular form of government proper to the synagogue," says Mr. 
 Litton, " was on the Presbyterian model; as indeed there is only one passage 
 of Scripture (Luke xiii. 14) which appears to imply that there existed any 
 other. . . . The names which Christian ministers bear in the New Testament, 
 presbyter or episcopus, and deacon, are aU derived from the synagogue ; while 
 never once are they designated by the term ispsi/g, or priest, the proper title 
 of those who officiated in the temple. The very term itseK, synagogue, is, in 
 James ii. 2, applied to a Christian assembly. . . . But as regards Episco- 
 pacy, the analogy of the synagogue fails us. While there can be no reason- 
 able doubt respecting the derivation of the presbyters and deacons of a 
 Christian congregation from the corresponding officers of the synagogue, that 
 institution does not, with anything like the same degree of certainty, present 
 us with the historical type of a Christian bishop." — Church of Christ, Lond. 
 1851, pp. 249-2G7, 401 ff. Miller, Letters concerninq the Constit. and Ord. of 
 the Christ. Min. 2d ed. pp. 36-50, 277-284. Neander, Church Hist. Torrey's 
 Transl. vol. i. pp. 250-266. Vitringa, De Sjjnagoga Velere, esp. lib. ii. cap. ii. 
 ix.-xii. lib. iii. Pars i., Pars ii. cap. xix.-xxiii, Stillingfleet, Irenicum, 2d ed. 
 pp. 239-287.] 
 
Ch. IV. § II.] PRESBYTErJANISM AND PRELACY. 283 
 
 warrant, have authority to preach the Gospel, and to administer 
 the Sacraments. Presbyterians believe that this is the chief 
 work given them to do ; Episcopalians believe that it i's their onhi 
 work. Now, a very slight consideration will satisfy us that the 
 very nature of such an office implies the additional authority to 
 ordain, just as the greater must always include the less. AVhcther 
 we regard tlie nature of the work performed by presbyters when 
 they minister unto the Lord in Word and Sacrament, or the in- 
 structions given to them for the discharge of this duty, or the 
 conduct in reference to this point of the inspired servants of 
 Christ, it cannot fail to appear that the preaching of the Gospel 
 and administering the means of grace form tlie grand object for 
 which the Church itself, and more especially the office-bearers of 
 the Church, were instituted, and not the work of ordination and 
 government. The right to ordain and govern was a right of an 
 inferior kind, as compared with the right to preach the truth, and 
 to dispense the Sacraments of Christ. The ministerial authority 
 implied in the latter is of a higher order than the ministerial 
 authority implied in the former. That this is the case, is apparent 
 from the terms of the original commission, which gives authority 
 to the Church in express terms to preach the Gospel and admin- 
 ister the Sacraments to every creature, but makes no explicit 
 mention of the power to ordain or govern, because this was a 
 power implied and included under the authority to dispense the 
 Word and ordinances. It is apparent from the conduct of the 
 apostles, who made it the great work and highest aim of their 
 official life, not to organize the outward polity, but to minister to 
 the inward life of the Church. It is apparent from the very 
 nature of the thing itself, inasmuch as the power of ordination 
 and government is but the means to the higher and nobler end 
 of the ministry of the Gospel. It is apparent from the express 
 statement of the Apostle Paul, who enjoins that " the presbyters 
 who labour in word and doctrine be counted worthy of special 
 honour," as compared with those office-bearers who only "rule."^ 
 And such being the case, it is impossible to believe that presbyters, 
 who are invested with the higher ministerial authority of minis- 
 tering in Word and Sacrament, are excluded from the inferior 
 right of ordaining and governing in the Church. The superior 
 function must include the lower, as necessary to carry out the 
 1 1 Tim. V. 17. 
 
284 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 very object for which it has been conferred ; nor is it possible to 
 believe with Episcopalians, that presbyters, who are authorized to 
 discharge the hio;hest functions in the Christian Church, are not 
 themselves the highest order of functionaries. The powers of 
 the presbyter being above the powers of any other office-bearer 
 in the Church, as regards the nature of his duties, the office to 
 which these powers are permanently attached must be above any 
 other in the Christian society. 
 
 II. We have, in the case of Timothy, an express example of 
 the act of ordination performed by presbyters. 
 
 In writing to Timothy on the subject of his ministerial 
 functions, the Apostle Paul tells him, in language which can 
 hardly be misunderstood in its bearing on our present argument : 
 " Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by 
 prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery."^ 
 In this passage we have the imposition of hands, the recognised 
 Scriptural sign, and invariable accompaniment of ordination, and 
 we have this imposition of hands performed by the court or 
 council of presbyters.^ In short, wc have all the elements of 
 Presbyterian ordination exhibited in a Scripture example, which 
 it is impossible by any commentary to make more plain or con- 
 clusive as a precedent for the right to ordain, as claimed by the 
 Presbyterian theory for elders or presbyters, and denied to them 
 by Prelatists. There are two ways in which Episcopalians have 
 attempted, although in vain, to get rid of the evidence which 
 the ordination of Timothy furnishes against their fundamental 
 dogma that the "potestas ordinationis " is a right which belongs 
 to diocesan bishops alone. 
 
 In the first ^jlace, it is alleged by some Episcopalians, that 
 although the council of presbyters was present, and consenting to 
 the deed, yet the authoritative act of setting apart Timothy to 
 the office was performed by Paul alone. This explanation of the 
 passage is founded on a text which occurs in Second Timothy, to 
 
 ^ Mil cif^.iy^si rov iu aol ■)(,oe.pi(!y.ot.TOi, o shodn coi B/a 'Trpo'fyiTilot.g fitra. STridioiu; 
 Tuu xitpoiu rov Trpeafivrepiov. — 1 Tim. iv. 1-1. 
 
 2 [" An aristocracy and a monarchy," says Dr. Arnold, " are not so precisely 
 identical that the government of a single bishop can claim to be of Divine 
 authority, because the apostles appointed ia each Church a certain number 
 of bishops or elders. Nor can it be shown that, if the ordination by bishops, 
 one or more, be necessaiy, the consent of the Church, which was no less a 
 part of the primitive appointments, may be laid aside as a thing wholly in- 
 different." — Frar/m. on the Church, 2d ed. p. 7i^] 
 
Cii. IV. § II.] PRESBYTERIANISM AND PRELACY. 285 
 
 this effect : " Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that tliou 
 stir up the s\h of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my 
 hands." ^ The two passages of Scripture are held by some to refer 
 to the same investiture with office in the case of Timothy; and the 
 argument of Episcopahans is, that the apostle, in laying on his 
 hands, did authoritatively convey the right, and really ordain ; 
 while the presbyters, in laying on their hands, did no more than 
 express their consent to or approbation of the act. Now, in 
 reference to this objection by Episcopalians to the relevancy of 
 the case of Timothy to our argument, I would remark that it 
 takes for granted what is by no means a clear point — namely, 
 that the gift conferred by Paul on his adopted son was the same 
 gift as is spoken of as conveyed with the laying on of the hands 
 of the presbytery. It has been maintained by many commenta- 
 tors, and I think with good reason, that the gift conferred by 
 Paul was one of those extraordinary gifts — '^^aptafiara — of the 
 Holy Ghost, spoken of in the Epistle to the Corinthians, sucli 
 as " the Avord of wisdom, the word of knowledge, faith," etc.,' 
 which were usually bestowed upon evangelists, and conveyed only 
 through the imposition of an apostle's hands, while the gift con- 
 ferred by the presbytery was in reality the office of the ministry. 
 There are two considerations which countenance this interpre- 
 tation. First, there is an observable difference in the apostle's 
 phraseology when speaking of the two gifts, — the one kind of 
 expression being more appropriate to the case of an office occupied 
 by an individual, as when he says : " Neglect not — /a^ afxeXei — 
 the gift that is in thee, or the office belonging to thee, which was 
 conferred by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the 
 presbytery ;" the other kind of expression being more appro- 
 priate to a personal endowment pertaining to an individual, as 
 when he exhoi-ts him to " stir up — dva^wTrvpeXv — the gift of God 
 that Is in thee by the putting on of my hands. A man may well 
 be called upon " to take heed to," or "not to neglect" his office ; 
 he can hardly be exhorted to " stir it up." Second, from the 
 context it is plain that, in referring to the gift given with the 
 laying on of the hands of the presbytery, Paul is speaking of 
 Timothy's official authority and duty In the Church. Both in 
 
 ^ A<' »j!/ echixv ecvciuiiiiv'/iiTKu ai dtix^uTrvpuu to ^^xpiafcx tou 0£oy o eaTiv 
 iu aol S/flt r'/!i STTtdiaieag ruv p^s/jowv fiov. — 2 Tim. i. G. 
 2 1 Cor. xii. 8 ff. 
 
286 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 tlie verses which precede and in those which follow the passage 
 in question, we see the apostle enforcing upon the youthful evan- 
 gelist various points connected with his public labours in Ephesus : 
 " Be thou an example to the believers in work, in conversation," 
 etc.; " Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to 
 docti'ine; " These things command and teach," etc. And it is in- 
 connection with these precepts for his official actings that Paul 
 bids him not neglect the high and responsible office with which 
 he has been graced in the Church, and strengthens the exhorta- 
 tion by reminding him of the solemn ordination by which he was 
 formally set apart to its duties. On the other hand, when the 
 apostle refers to the gift communicated by himself, it is equally 
 clear from the context, that he is speaking of Timothy's per- 
 sonal and private character and duty, not of his official standing. 
 " When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, 
 which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and in thy mother 
 Eunice. For that cause I put thee in remembrance that thou stir 
 up the gift of God, etc. For God hath not given us the spirit 
 of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. Be not 
 thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me 
 His prisoner." This marked difference between the two passages 
 seems decidedly to favour the idea that the first gift was ordi- 
 nation to office in the Church, while the second had reference to 
 Timothy's personal quahfications and endowments. 
 
 But, even granting that the two passages refer to the same 
 transaction, and both speak of Timothy's ordination, as is held 
 by the majority of theologians, it is not difficult to meet the 
 objection of Episcopalians. We know that Paul had the powers 
 which presbyters commonly and permanently exercised, and on 
 no occasion was he more likely to exercise them than in the case 
 of the ordination of " Timothy, his dearly beloved son," to the 
 office of the Gospel ministry. And nothing could be more 
 natural on the part of the apostle, when he was " Paul the aged," 
 and in bonds, or more forcible and affecting, as addressed to the 
 youthful Timothy, than the statement by Paul calling to the 
 remembrance of his spiritual son how he had shared with the 
 presbyters in conferring on him, by imposition of hands, the 
 right and authority of the ministerial office. If the two passages 
 refer to the same transaction, as most theologians. Episcopalian 
 and Presbyterian, believe, then the imposition of hands by Paul, 
 
Ch. IV. § II.] PRESBYTERIANISM AND PRELACY. 287 
 
 and the imposition of hands by the presbytery, must have sub- 
 stantially the same significance and meaning. To assert an 
 essential difference between the two acts, is purely gratuitous. 
 To affirm that they are so distinct that the one authority conferred 
 the ministerial office, and the other did not, is a mere hypothesis, 
 having no ground whatever to rest upon, and contradicted by the 
 obvious meaning of the passage. And not only so, but the hypo- 
 thesis will not even serve the purpose of Episcopalians after they 
 have invented it. If, as is necessarily implied in their theory, the 
 ordination of Timothy constituted him, not a presbyter, but a 
 bishop, the fact that the hands of the presbytery concurred in any 
 sense in the act, is inconsistent with the Episcopalian system. 
 
 An attempt has been made by some adherents of Prelacy to 
 justif}' their drawing a distinction between the act of Paul and 
 the act of the presbytery in the ordination of Timothy, rested on 
 the ground that, in the mention of the one of these, or the impo- 
 sition of the apostle's hands, the preposition Sui is used, while, in 
 the mention of the other of these, or the imposition of the hands 
 of the presbytery, the preposition fxerd is used, as descriptive of 
 the connection between those acts and the right Timothy received 
 to the office. It is argued that the preposition Sid joined with 
 the genitive case always denotes the instrumental cause, — imply- 
 ing in this passage that it was Paul's hands that were the instru- 
 ment of conferring the title to the ministerial office ; and that 
 the preposition fxerd always denotes a concurrent, but not a causal 
 act, — implying in this passage that the laying on of the hands of 
 the presbytery merely expressed the consent or concurrence of 
 that body in respect of the ordination. It is not needful to enter 
 into the minute and detailed criticism which has been bestowed 
 upon these two Greek particles in order to make out this proposi- 
 tion. It is enough to say that the New Testament usage in 
 regard to these words does not justify the restriction of them to the 
 special meanings upon which Episcopalians would build their argu- 
 ment, — that the preposition 8id with the genitive does not always 
 imply in Scripture the instrumental cause, and that the prepo- 
 sition fierd sometimes does.^ The meaning of these prepositions 
 
 ^ [Among the wider meanings of S/ot with the genitive, Winer gives 
 '• along with," "accompanied with," " bei," " unter," "von der Ausriistnng 
 Jemandes und von den Umstanden und Beziehungen unter denen er etwas 
 thut," instancing 1 John v. 6, Heb. ix. 12, Rom. ii. 27, iv. 11, xii. 20. He 
 
288 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 is a matter to be determined by the construction and nature of 
 the sentence. It seems impossible, by any such attempt, to get 
 rid of the very expUcit and conclusive testimony by this passage 
 of Scripture to the ordinary right of presbyters to ordain. 
 
 In the second place, another attempt has been made by the 
 advocates of Episcopacy to avoid the force of this passage, by assert- 
 ing that the word translated presbytery — 7rpea/3vTepiov — denotes 
 the office, and not the council of the presbyters. According to this 
 translation of the word, the passage would come to be rendered, 
 " neglect not the gift of the presbyterate which is in thee, which 
 was given thee by prophecy with the laying on of hands." Now, 
 in reference to this rendering, and the bearing of it upon the 
 argument, there are three remarks which may be made. First, 
 the word irpea^vrepLov occurs only three times in the New Tes- 
 tament, being twice in addition to this example of it in Timothy.^ 
 In both the other cases it must be understood in the sense of the 
 council or court or body of the elders, and is, in fact, so rendered 
 in our version. In both cases it applies to the college of elders 
 which made up the Jewish Sanhedrim ; and when, in the passage 
 already quoted from Timothy, it is used in reference to the Chris- 
 tian Church, it plainly must have the same meaning of the coun- 
 cil, and not the office, of the presbyters. Second, the translation 
 proposed by Episcopalians does violence to the natural construc- 
 tion of the words, making the term Trpea-^vTeptov to be connected 
 with the word '^apLap.aro'i, in contradiction to the obvious syntax 
 of the passage. And third, even granting that the word denoted 
 the office, and not the college of presbyters, it would not serve 
 the purpose of the Prelatic argument, inasmuch as it would con- 
 fer upon Timothy the office of a presbyter instead of the office 
 of a diocesan bishop, as the theory demands. Upon the whole, 
 we are, I think, warranted in saying that there is no possible 
 way, in consistency with the ordinary principles of Scripture 
 exegesis, of avoiding the conclusion, that this passage contains a 
 
 differs from KyjDke in tluuking that ,usTii. with the genitive " does not denote 
 the uistrumeut as sucli in good prose " (referring to the text in question as a 
 disputed case, and rendering it " mit, unter Hanihiuflegung, ziu/leich mit deni 
 Act der H."), but cites instances in less classic Greek in which it has this mean- 
 ing, and admits that, in some passages in the New Testament, as Luke xvii. 
 15, Acts xiii. 17, it approximates to it, — "doch streift es an diese Bedeu- 
 tung." — Grammatik des rieutestnmentl. Sprachidioms, 6te Aufl. pp. 337, 339. 
 Alexander, Primiiive Church Offices, New York 1851, pp. 46-49.] 
 ^ Luke xxii. 66 : Acts xxii. 5. 
 
Cu. IV. § II.] PRESBYTERIANISM AND PRELACY. 289 
 
 distinct precedent for the power of ordination being exercised by 
 presbyters.^ 
 
 III. "VVe have another example of the authority to ordain as 
 exercised, not by diocesan bishops, but by presbyters, recorded in 
 the thirteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 The narrative is to this effect : " Now there were in the 
 Church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as 
 Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of 
 Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod 
 the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and 
 fasted, the Holy Ghost said. Separate me Barnabas and Saul for 
 the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had 
 fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them 
 away."^ Of the parties mentioned in this extract, we know that 
 Saul and Barnabas had been invested with the extraordinary 
 offices — the one of an apostle, the other of an evangelist — previ- 
 ously to the date of this transaction. Further, of the remainder, 
 we are told that some, although it is not mentioned which of them, 
 held the special and temporary office of prophets in the Church 
 at Antioch. But, setting aside these, it appears that there were 
 others who were simply teachers {BiSda-KoXot) or presbyters in 
 the Church. AYe have here, then, all that is necessary to make 
 up a true ordination, — the authoritative designation to an eccle- 
 siastical work and mission, the imposition of hands as the Scrip- 
 tural sign of the investiture with office, the accompanying 
 religious service of prayer and fasting, and the result, or the 
 going forth of the parties so ordained to the work to which they 
 were appointed; and we have all this done by presbyters, in 
 conjunction with other parties, combining together equally to 
 perform the ordination. And, to crown all, we have this example 
 of presbyters ordaining sanctioned by the Holy Ghost : " So they, 
 being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed." 
 
 The only objection worthy of notice brought by Episcopalians 
 against this authority for ordination by presbyters, is the fact, 
 admitted by all parties, that the persons ordained, Paul and Bar- 
 nabas, had, previously to the date of this transaction, held extra- 
 
 ^ [Gillespie, Miscell. Quest, ch. viii. ; Assertion of the Gov. of the Church of 
 Scotland, Ediu. 1641, pp. 131-147. Smyth, Preshjtery the Script, and Prim. 
 Polity, Boston 1843, pp. 186-199. Plea of Preshjtery, Glasgow 1840, pp. 
 25-31.] 
 
 ^ Acts xiii. 1-3. 
 
 VOL. II. T 
 
290 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 ordinary offices in tlie Clmrch, — the one as an apostle, the other 
 as an evangelist. But, admitting this fact, it must be remembered 
 that the extraordinary offices of apostle and evangelist were not 
 the same thing as, and did not include, the formal office of pres- 
 byter or minister, although they comprehended the powers usually 
 exercised by the presbyter or minister. We have already had 
 occasion to argue this point at some length. The exercise of the 
 powers of an office does not necessarily imply the possession of 
 the formal office itself, unless when it can be shown that the 
 exercise of such powers permanently and necessarily belongs to 
 the party as his distinctive function. The Apostle Paul and the 
 evangelist Barnabas had, before the date of the ordination re- 
 corded in the thirteenth chapter of the Acts, exercised the powers 
 of ministers or presbyters in preaching and dispensing ordinances ; 
 but these powers were not distinctively the functions that belonged 
 to them as apostle or evangelist. The distinctive and essential 
 peculiarity of the office of apostle or evangelist was not the power 
 of preaching the Gospel which they held in common with other 
 office-bearers ; so that it would be a mistake to imagine that 
 because they were, the one an apostle, and the other an evan- 
 gelist, previously to the date of their ordination to the Gentile 
 mission, they must necessarily have held the formal office of 
 presbyter or minister. There is no evidence, and no reason to 
 believe, that either of them had been invested with the office 
 previously to this time ; and when they were solemnly set apart, 
 therefore, by prayer and imposition of hands to the ministry 
 among the Gentiles, it was an instance of true and regular ordi- 
 nation. The presbyters at Antioch, under the immediate instruc- 
 tions of the Holy Ghost, proceeded by ordination to install them 
 into the formal office of the Presbyterate. 
 
 Upon the grounds now indicated, we are prepared to argue 
 that the first of those distinctive powers claimed by Episco- 
 palians for diocesan bishops — the " potestas ordinationis " — was 
 not peculiar to them, but, on the contrary, was commonly and 
 statedly exercised by presbyters.^ A brief discussion of the Scrip- 
 
 1 Jus Div. Minist. Evang. Loud. 1654, Part i. pp. 181 ff., Part ii. pp. 
 16-24, 50-61, 88, etc. [Gerhard, Loci Theolog. ed. Preuss, torn. vi. pp. 
 106, 151-159. Miller, Letters on the Christ. Ministry, 2d ed. pp. 24-36. 
 King, Expos, ami Def. of the Preshjt. Form of Church Gov. Glasgow 1853, 
 pp. 239-270. Barnes, Inquiry into the Organ, and Gov. of the Apostolic 
 Church, Loud. 1845, pp. 221-246. As regards the apocalyptic angels, to 
 
Ch. IV. §11.] PRESBYTERIANISM AND PRELACY. 291 
 
 ture evidence with respect to the second of the distinctive powers 
 claimed by them, will suffice to show that the " potestas jurisdic- 
 tionis," or the right of government and discipline, did not belong 
 to prelates exclusively, but was enjoyed and exercised by pres- 
 byters. 
 
 1st, The very nature of the office of presbyter implies autho- 
 rity to govern and rule. 
 
 The very same argument applies here as in the case of the 
 right to ordain ; and it is unnecessary to repeat it. The power 
 of bearing rule and exercising government and discipline in the 
 Church, is undeniably a lower exercise of ministerial authority 
 than the power to preach the Gospel and administer the seals of 
 the covenant of grace. And yet, by the admission of all parties, 
 presbyters are vested with this highest kind of power as their dis- 
 tinctive function, — a circumstance that renders it very difficult 
 to believe that they are excluded from the lower power of ruling 
 in the Church, or that this lower power is one of the two distinc- 
 tive peculiarities that mark the highest order of office-bearers in 
 
 whom some Episcopalian controversialists have recourse in the last resort, 
 although the confessedly metaphorical character of the book may prevent us 
 from being quite certain that we have selected the right interpretation of one 
 of its many symbols from the multitude of renderings which commentators 
 have proposed, yet Stillingfleet's conclusion seems a very reasonable one, and 
 might be confirmed by various exegetical arguments: — " If in the prophetical 
 style an unity may be set down by way of representation of a multitude, 
 what evidence can be brought from the name that by it some one particular 
 person must be understood ? And by tliis means Timothy may avoid being 
 charged with ' leaving his first love,' which he must of necessity be, by those 
 that make him ' the angel of the Church of Ephesus' at the time of writing 
 these Epistles. Neither is this anyways solved by the answer, that the 
 name 'angel' is representative of the whole Church, and so there is no neces- 
 sity the angel should be personally guilty of it. For, first, it seems strange 
 that the whole diffusive body of the Church should be charged with a crime 
 by the name of the angel, and he that is particularly meant by that name 
 should be free from it. As if a Prince should charge the Mayor of a Cor- 
 poration as guilty of rebellion, and by it should only mean that the Cor- 
 poration was guilty, but the Mayor himself was innocent. Secondly, if many 
 things in the Epistles be directed to the angel, but yet so as to concern the 
 whole Ijody, then of necessity the angel must be taken as representative of 
 the body ; and then why may not the word ' angel ' be taken only by vfny of 
 representation of the body itself, either of the whole Church, or, loJdch is far 
 more probable, of the Consessus or order of presbyters in that Church ? We 
 see what miserably unconcluding arguments those are which are brought for 
 any form of government from metaphorical or ambiguous expressions, or 
 names promiscuously used, which may be interpreted to different senses." 
 — Iren. 2d ed. p. 289. Durham, Comment, on Rev. Glasg. 1788, pp. 65 ff., 
 82, 2:38-249. As to the idea of James being bishop of Jerusalem, see Rothe, 
 Anfange, pp. 263-276 ; Cunningham, Works, vol. ii. pp. 44, 240 f.] 
 
292 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 the Church, — that, namely, of diocesan bishop. Even Prelatists 
 have been struck with the contradiction involved in such a 
 doctrine. " Since I look upon the sacramental actions as the 
 highest of sacred performances," says Bishop Burnet, " I cannot 
 but acknowledge those who are empoioered for these must be of 
 the highest office in the Church."^ 
 
 2(7, There are a number of passages of Scripture which dis- 
 tinctly ascribe to presbyters the office of ruling and governing in 
 the Christian society. 
 
 1. We have Paul, in his address to the presbyters of the 
 Church of Ephesus, expressly charging them with the duty and 
 responsibility of governing the Church in which they had a 
 bishop's office. After summoning the elders of Ephesus to Mile- 
 tus, the apostle tells them : " Take heed, therefore, unto your- 
 selves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath 
 made you bishops, to feed — iroi^iaiveiv — the Church of God, 
 which He hath purchased with His own blood." The expression 
 here employed, as descriptive of the kind of charge the presbyters 
 were to take of the Church under them, is one significant of 
 government and authority as well as inspection. The use of the 
 word in Scripture, as well as in profane authors, amply demon- 
 strates this. 2. We find the Apostle Peter laying upon presbyters 
 the very same duty of government in the Church as is referred 
 to by Paul, and in a manner still more express and emphatic, and 
 more directly contradictory of the notion that ruling is the exclu- 
 sive function of bishops. " The presbyters wdio are among you 
 I exhort, who am also a presbyter : feed the flock of God which 
 is among you, taking the oversight thereof — i7riaK07rovvre<; — 
 not by constraint, but willingly." In addition to employing the 
 same word Troi/xacvo) as descriptive of the charge devolving on 
 presbyters, which was employed by Paul, and which includes the 
 idea of coercive authoi'ity, Peter here characterizes the work of 
 presbyters in the way of ruling by the very term eVtcj/coTrouz^re?, 
 which denotes episcopal government claimed for prelates as their 
 exclusive function. No declaration could more decisively de- 
 monstrate that bishops and presbyters stand on the same level 
 as to ruling authority in the Church. 3. There is one passage in 
 the First Epistle to Timothy which is especially clear and express 
 
 ^ Biirnot, Vinci of the Church and State of Scotland, Glasgow 1673, 
 p. 310. 
 
Cii. IV. § II.] PRESBYTERIANISM AND PRELACY. 293 
 
 as to the government entrusted to the hands of presbyters. In 
 giving directions as to matters in the Church of Ephesus, the 
 Apostle Paul instructs Timothy in this manner : " Let the pres- 
 byters that rule well be counted worthy of double honour."^ 
 The word here used — irpoearcoTe^ — is undeniably significant of 
 government and ruling authority. Such passages of Scripture 
 as these plainly show that the right to rule was one not confined 
 to diocesan bishops as their exclusive function, but was ordinarily 
 held and exercised by presbyters. 
 
 dd, There are many express intimations in Scripture that the 
 power of discipline belonged not to diocesan bishops, but to every 
 particular Church. 
 
 The example of the Corinthian Church, and many others that 
 could be referred to, clearly demonstrate this. A case of immo- 
 rality or public scandal was not a matter to be handed over to the 
 bishop, but to be dealt with by the Churches themselves, or by 
 the body of their office-bearers. So decisive is the testimony of 
 Scripture on this head, that it would be much more easy to argue, 
 with Independents, that the right of discipline belonged to the 
 members of the congregation at large, than to adduce any plausible 
 evidence for its being restricted to the bishop of the diocese. The 
 admitted interference of the apostles authoritatively in the dis- 
 cipline of the primitive Churches, and the oversight taken in the 
 matter by evangelists, are of no avail for the Episcopal argument, 
 unless upon the principle of first begging the question, or of first 
 assuming that the apostles and evangelists were ordinary diocesan 
 bishops. If this is denied, as we have seen that there is good 
 reason for doing, there is not the shadow of pi'oof to show that 
 discipline was the peculiar function of prelates ; on the contrary, 
 there is every evidence to prove that it belonged to the ordinary 
 rulers in the Christian society, that is, to the presbyters. 
 
 Upon a review, then, of the whole argument, we are led to 
 the conclusion that there is no Scriptural evidence in support of 
 the only two propositions relevant or sufficient to establish the 
 system of Prelacy, or Diocesan Episcopacy. In the first place, 
 there is no evidence whatever to prove that the office of bishop, as 
 a third order among the office-bearers of the apostolic Church, 
 was ever instituted by Christ or His apostles, — the circumstance 
 of the indiscriminate use by the inspired writers of the terms 
 1 1 Tim. V. 17. 
 
294 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 bishop and presbyter^ combining with the absence of any express 
 evidence on the point in Scripture to show that no such institu- 
 tion is to be acknowledged. And in the second place, failing 
 any evidence of its original institution, there is no proof that the 
 powers alleged to be distinctive and peculiar to the Episcopate, 
 were ever possessed or exercised commonly and as a permanent 
 function by any except presbyters ; and there is ample and 
 decisive proof that they were held and exercised by the latter 
 order of office-bearers in the apostolic Church. Upon the 
 ground of these two general propositions, we have reason to say 
 that Prelacy has no warrant in the Word of God."^ 
 
 ^ ["Hie locus," says Calvin, commenting on Tit. i. 5-7, "abimde docet 
 nullum esse Presbyteri et Episcopi discrimeu, quia nunc secimdo nomine pro- 
 miscue appellat quos prius vocavit Presbyteros. Imo idem prosequeus argu- 
 mentum utrumque nomen indifferenter eodem sensu usurpat, quemadmodum 
 Hieromymus tum hoc loco, tum in epistola ad Evagrium annotavit. Atque 
 hinc perspicere licet quanto plus delatum hominis placitis fuerit quam decebat, 
 quia abrogato Spiritiis Sancti sermone usus hominiun arbitrio inductus prse- 
 valuit. Mihi quidem non disi^licet quod statim ab ecclesise primordiis re- 
 ceptiun fuit, ut singula Episcoporum collegia imum aliquem moderatorem 
 liabeant : verum nomen officii, quod Deus in commune omnibus dederat in 
 unum solum transferri, reliquis spoliatis, et injurium est et absurdum. Deinde 
 sic pervertere Spiritiis Sancti linguam, ut nobis esedem voces aliud quam 
 voluerit significent, nimis profanae audacise est."] 
 
 - Calderwood, Altare Damascenum, cap. iv. Chemnitz, Examen Concil. 
 Tridevt. Pars ii. Loc. xiii. iv. Bucer, Dissert, de Gnhernatione Ecdesise. 
 Forrester, The Hierarchical Bisliops'' Claim to Div. Right Examined, Edin. 1699; 
 Plea of Presbytery, Glasg. 1840, pp. 1-299. King, Expos, arid Def. of the 
 Presbijt. Form of Church Gov. Ediu. 1853, pp. 161-270. Essays on the Prim. 
 Church Offices (by Dr. J. A. Alexander), New York 1851, Ess. ii.-v. Cunning- 
 ham, Works, vol.ii. pp. 100-119, 164-171, 227-266, 432 ; vol. iii. pp. 514-533. 
 [For further references to the voluminous literature of this subject, see Ap- 
 pendix I. The argument from mere human authority, although only to be 
 taken up ex ahundanti, is a very plain one. The only genuine and uncor- 
 rupted writings which have come down to us from men who companied with 
 the apostles, are " clearly Presbyterian" in their teaching. The most learned 
 of the Fathers of the fourth century took up precisely the Presbyterian view 
 of the early Church, and defended it by precisely the Presbyterian arguments. 
 Jerome was classed, for that reason, by one of the most eminent Romanist 
 divines of the sixteenth centmy, along with Ambrose, Augustin, Chrysostom, 
 etc., as holding the same heresy about bishops and presbyters which the 
 Church condemned in Aerius, in the AValdensians, in Wickliffe, and in the 
 Protestants. " Ergo in Hieronymo et Grsecis illis patribus olim propter 
 corum honorcm et reverentiam hsec senteutia aut dissimulabatm- aut tolera- 
 batur in illis ; contra in haereticis, quod in aliis quoque multis ab Ecclesia 
 dcclinarent, tauquam hseretica semper est damnata " (j\Iichacl Medina, quoted 
 by Gerhard, Loci Theolog. ed. Preuss, tom. vi. p. 154). To a partial and imper- 
 fect consensus of the later Fathers we oppose the unbroken consensus of all 
 the leading Reformers, joined with the anathemas of the Council of Trent and 
 the arguments of Bollarmine against what they justly held to be the Protest- 
 ant doctrine. To the theory and practice of the fallen and corrupt Churches 
 
Cii. IV. § II.] PRESBYTERIANISM AND PRELACY. 295 
 
 of Rome and of the East, we oppose the clear testimony of the symbolical books 
 of all the Cluu-ches of the Kcfonnation, not one of which, not even excepting 
 those of the Chnrch of England, asserts the Divine right of Prelacy ; almost 
 all of which, except those of the Church of England, when they treat of Chui-ch 
 government at all, assert the Divine authority of the essential principles of 
 Presbyterianism. We point to the notorious fact that not a single Church in 
 Reformed Christendom, except one confessedly founded on a compromise, 
 adopted the Prelatic system ; and we bring reason to show why this solitary 
 exception should have no weight whatever. A system expressly maintained by 
 the coiTupted Church of Rome, and expressly rejected on scriptural grounds 
 by all those great men to whom, under God, we owe our religious freedom and 
 pm-ity of faith and worship, can hardly be conceived to have a more over- 
 whelming weight of presumptive evidence against it. " After Medina,"- says 
 one of the most learned and accurate of modern Church historians, ' ' Richerius 
 defended the view of Jerome, and John Morin {de Sacr. Ofd.) asserted that 
 the opinion was at least not heretical — ' episcopos non jure Divino esse 
 presbyteris superiores ; ' yet, since the Trideutine Council, the ' institutio 
 Divina ' of the Episcopate and its original distmctiou from the Presbyterate be- 
 came the general doctrine of the (Roman) Catholic Church, which the English 
 Episcopalians also followed in this particular, while the other Protestant 
 Churches returned to the most ancient doctrine and regulation on the sub- 
 ject." — Gieseler, Eccles. Hist. Davidson's Transl. vol. i. p. 89. Conf. Boliem. 
 1535, art. ix. Conf. Helv. prior, 1536, c. 17, Lat. ed. 18. Art. Smalc. 1537, 
 P. ii. art. iv. 9, P. iii. art. x. De Potest, et Jurisd. Episc. 60-68. Conf. Sax. 
 1551, art. xi. Conf. Wiirtt. 1552, art. xx. Conf. Gall. 1559, art. xxix. xxx. 
 First Book of Discip. 1560, ch. iv. vi. ix. x. Conf. Belcj. 1566, art. xxx. 
 Conf Helv. post. 1566, c. xviii. Consens. Polon. 1570-83, in Niemeyer, pp. 
 562 ff., 575, 576. Second Book of Discip. 1578, c. ii.-viii. Form. Concord. 
 1577, X. 19. Decl. Thor. 1645, De Ord. Westminst. Form of Church Gov. 
 1645. Cf. Insiit. of a Christ. Man, 1537. Necess. Erud.for a Christ. Man, 
 1543. Neal, Hist, of Puritans, Lond. 1837, vol. i. p. 190, vol. iii. pp. 491-500.] 
 
296 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 CHAPTER Y. 
 
 THE INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OF CHURCH POLITY AS OPPOSED 
 TO THE PRESBYTERIAN. 
 
 If the conclusions to which we have been led by our previous 
 discussions are correct, they have narrowed to a considerable 
 extent the question that still remains for our consideration in 
 connection with the government of the Christian Church. We 
 have been enabled, through our previous argument, to separate 
 between what was extraordinary and what is ordinary in the 
 condition of the ecclesiastical body ; assigning to the former de- 
 partment as special and temporary the offices which we find 
 existing in the primitive Church of the apostle, the evangelist, 
 and the prophet. These belonged, not to the normal, but to the 
 transition state of the Christian Church, and have left behind them 
 no model for general or permanent imitation. Further still, we 
 have found that the office of bishop, in the Prelatic sense of the 
 word, as a third order in the Christian Church, possessed of 
 certain exclusive powers and functions, and separate from the 
 order of presbyter, has no warrant in the Word of God. Set- 
 ting aside these, we have nothing remaining in the way of fixed 
 and ordinary offices in the Church having any distinct foundation 
 in Scripture, except these two; first, the office signified by the 
 various names, used indiscriminately, of presbyter, bishop, or 
 pastor; and second, the office of deacon. These two orders of 
 office-bearers, as ordinary and permanent appointments in the 
 Christian society, are acknowledged by all pai'ties, whether Pres- 
 byterian, Episcopalian, or Independent, whatever difference of 
 opinion may be exhibited, theoretically or practically, in con- 
 nection with the duties belonging to their offices, or the authority 
 conferred on them. The original institution of these offices in 
 the New Testament Church, the appointment of distinct men to 
 exercise the duties of them, and the separate names, commission, 
 
Ch. v.] presbyterianism and independency. 297 
 
 and authority assigned to them, are matters lying so conspicu- 
 ously and markedly on the surface of Scripture, as to have called 
 forth a very general acknowledgment from all parties of the 
 existence and permanent standing in the Christian Church of 
 t^YO orders of presbyter, or elder, and deacon. 
 
 But in addition to the evidence adduced in previous lectures 
 bearing upon the point, there are more especially two passages in 
 the New Testament which serve to demonstrate, not only that 
 the offices of deacon and elder or presbyter are standing offices 
 in the Church, but that they are the only standing and ordinary 
 offices in the Christian society, and that we have no Scriptural 
 warrant for any other. This is a point of much importance in 
 regard to our future discussions, and forms a common ground 
 which the Presbyterian and Independent theories of Church 
 government occupy alike, and from which they start. We find 
 these two classes of office-bearers mentioned in such circum- 
 stances, and in such a manner, as to exclude the possibility of the 
 doctrine which asserts that there were usually and properly more 
 than these two in the apostolic Church. First, in the salutation 
 to the Church at Philippi by the Apostle Paul in his epistle to 
 converts there, we have distinct evidence of two classes of Church 
 officers, and no more than two. "Paul and Timotheus, the 
 servants of Jesus Christ to all the saints in Christ Jesus who 
 are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." Here we have 
 a letter from an apostle written to the Church at Philippi, 
 and addressed to the office-bearers and the members conjointly. 
 The members are addressed as " all the saints in Christ Jesus 
 which are at Philippi," and the office-bearers are addressed as 
 "the bishops and deacons there." ^ It is hardly possible to con- 
 ceive, that if there had been any other office-bearers besides 
 bishops and deacons in the Church at Philippi, they would have 
 been omitted in the apostolic salutation ; and it is just as difficult 
 to conceive that the Church at Philippi, the first fruits of Paul's 
 labours in Europe, over whose spiritual prosperity he so often 
 rejoices, was destitute of any class of office-bearers necessary for 
 or usual in other Churches. The conclusion seems to be irre- 
 sistible, that the bishop and the deacon were the only office-bearers 
 of an ordinary and permanent kind known in the apostolic Church. 
 Second, in the third chapter of the First Epistle to Timothy, the 
 1 Phil. i. 1. 
 
298 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 Apostle' Paul describes at length, for the information and guid- 
 ance of Timothy in his regulation and ordering of the Church at 
 Ephesus, the qualifications of those who should be appointed to 
 ecclesiastical office. From the first to the eighth verse we have 
 an account of the qualities that ought to characterize a bishop, 
 given with much minuteness and detail. From the eighth to the 
 fifteenth verse we have, wnth similar particularity, the qualifica- 
 tions of the deacon. And the object of these detailed instructions 
 is stated by the apostle himself to be fully to acquaint Timothy 
 with his duties in organizing the Church where he at that time 
 laboured. " These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto 
 thee shortly : but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how 
 thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God."^ The 
 conclusion to be dra^vn from this passage points very obviously 
 in the same direction as did the former one. In instructing 
 Timothy in the qualifications of the ecclesiastical office-bearers, 
 whom he was to appoint over the Church, we have mention of 
 these two, the bishop and deacon, but of no more than these two, 
 on an occasion when it is hardly possible for us to conceive that 
 Paul would not have referred to othefs, had others been in exist- 
 ence. Short of a formal declaration that there were two, but not 
 more than two, orders of office-bearers in the Christian Church, 
 which was not, in the circumstances, to be expected in regard to a 
 matter that must have been familiarly known to all Christians at 
 the time, it is not easy to conceive stronger or more satisfactory 
 evidence of an indirect kind to establish the point.^ 
 
 While the Presbyterian and Independent systems thus occupy 
 a common ground against Prelacy, in the acknowledgment of the 
 bishop and deacon as the only two office-bearers recognised in the 
 Church, there is a wide and material difference between the two 
 as to the distribution of power between office-bearers and men 
 bers, and as to the relations of one Christian society or Churc) 
 to another. It is important to mark the difference between our 
 
 i 1 Tim. iii. 14 f. 
 
 2 Jameson, Sum of the Episcopal Controversy, Edin. 1712, pp. 9-23. As 
 to the scriptural evidence for the office of deacon, and the duties rightly 
 attached to it, see Jus Div. Req. Eccles. Lond. 1646, pp. 175 £f. ; Rutherford, 
 Due Right of Presbyteries, Loud. 1644, pp. 159-172. [Smyth, Prcshi/t. the 
 Script, and Prim. Pol. Boston 1843, pp. 241-252. King, Expos, and JJef of 
 the Preshyt. Form of Church Gov. Glasg. 1853, pp. 21-48. Rothe, Anfange, 
 pp. 1G6-170.] 
 
Ch. v.] presbyterianism and independency. 299 
 
 views as Presbyterians and the Independent scheme on these two 
 points, namely, the distribution of power within the Church, and 
 the relations between the Church or congregation itself and other 
 Churches. The difference is expressed in the ordinary name by 
 which this system of Church order is known — the name of Congre- 
 gational Independency — referring as it does to the two distinctive 
 peculiarities of the system. Tliere are certain distinctive views 
 which belong to the adherents of that system as Congregation- 
 alists, and certain additional peculiarities that belong to them as 
 Independents. 
 
 Under the name of Congregationalism are included those 
 principles which lead them to assert for all the members of the 
 Church, as well as for the office-bearers, a share in its rule and 
 administration ; so that, to use the language of Dr. Wardlaw, 
 " the government in all its parts is to be administered in the pre 
 sence, and with the authoritative concurrence, of the Church col- 
 lectively considered."^ According to this distribution of power 
 in the Christian society, as asserted on the Congregational prin- 
 ciple, the act of the rulers is null and void without the act of the 
 members consenting with it ; the authority of the Church is not 
 deposited for its administration in the hands of office-bearers 
 alone, but is divided between them and the members, in such 
 proportions that the deed of the former is not lawful or binding 
 without the consent of the latter. Both parties must equally sanc- 
 tion the proceeding, before it can be authoritative in the proper 
 sense — the only dijfference between the rulers and the ruled being, 
 that it is the privilege of those in office, and not of others, in 
 ordinary circumstances, to originate and propose measures for the 
 adoption of the rest, and to execute them after they are adopted. 
 ,'' They p'opose to the Church whatever they may think conducive 
 ■ to its well-being," says Dr. Davidson, " making any regulations, 
 in harmony with the genius of Christianity, which they may 
 deem desirable for the Church's guidance, but alicays xcith the 
 
 concurrence and sanction of the brethren They alone 
 
 formally pronounce and execute any censure or sentence, in the 
 presence and icith the consent of the Church"'^ 
 
 Again, under the name of Independency are included those prin- 
 ciples which lead the denomination now referred to to assert that 
 
 1 Wardlaw, Congregational Independency, Glasg. 1848, p. 230. 
 • Davidson, Ecdes. Polity of the New Test. Lond, 1848, p. 275 f. 
 
300 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IY. 
 
 each worshipping congregation is a Church, independent of every 
 other congregation, — being with its office-bearers complete within 
 itself, and having no connection with others as parts of one eccle- 
 siastical system, or united under one ecclesiastical government. 
 According to this view, the government of each congregation is 
 a government separate from that of any other ; and the visible 
 Church in any country, comprehending, it may be, many congre- 
 gations, is not one body ecclesiastical, but many bodies distinct 
 from and independent of each other. " The independency," says 
 Dr. Wardlaw, " for whose Scriptural authority we plead, is the 
 independency of each Church in regard to the execution of the 
 laws of Christ, of every other Church, and of all other human 
 power whatsoever than what is lodged in itself. It is the full 
 competency of every distinct Church to manage without appeal its 
 own affairs."^ Theoretically, these two principles, characteristic 
 of Congregational Independency, are distinct from each other, so 
 that the one mio-ht be found existing without the other. But, 
 practically, they are found united in the case of the ecclesiastical 
 body commonly known under the name of Independents. They 
 constitute the two distinctive peculiarities which separate the 
 system of Independency from the system of Presbyterianism, and 
 in any comparison between the two theories of Church polity, 
 must both be taken into account. 
 
 SECTION I. — THE CONGREGATIONAL PRINCIPLE AS OPPOSED 
 TO PRESBYTERIANISM. 
 
 The principle which we have now to consider is that asserted 
 by Independents when they tell us that the office-bearers of the 
 Church " have no power either to make laws or to apply and 
 execute the laws that exist, independently of the concurrence of 
 their brethren," and that " the government of the ecclesiastical 
 body in all its parts is to be administered in the presence and 
 with the authoritative concurrence of the Church collectively 
 considered."^ This is the statement of Dr. Wardlaw, and accu- 
 rately expresses the views of Independents on this point, as main- 
 tained by them in opposition to Presbyterianism. It would be a 
 mistake to suppose that Presbyterianism, in maintaining a differ- 
 
 ^ AVardlaw, Congrer/atkmal Independency, p. 231. 
 2 Wardlaw, pp. 230, 320. 
 
Ch. V. § I.] PRESBYTERIANISM AND INDEPENDENCY. 301 
 
 ent theory on this point, overlooks or undervalues the importance 
 of the consent of the Christian members of the Church in her 
 authoritative proceedings. The s^pstem of Presbyterianism re- 
 quires that every proper means be employed, in the way of expla- 
 nation, persuasion, and instruction, to secure the concurrence of 
 the members in the acts and proceedings of the rulers of the 
 Christian society. But Presbyterians do not, like Independents, 
 hold that this consent is a condition upon which the lawfulness of 
 the acts of the office-bearers is suspended, or as much a necessary 
 element in any judgment of the ecclesiastical body as the consent 
 of the rulers themselves. On the contrary, the consent of the 
 members is, upon the Presbyterian theory, a consent added to the 
 authoritative decision of the office-bearers, not entering into it as 
 an element necessary to its validity, without which it would be 
 neither lawful nor binding. And the question between Presby- 
 terians and Independents is not whether the concurrence of the 
 members of the Church in the acts and proceedings of the office- 
 bearers is desirable, or in a right state of the Christian society 
 will be almost invariably obtained, but whether, in Dr. ^Yardlaw's 
 words, this concurrence is " authoritative," or the ingredient 
 which, and not the act of the rulei's alone, gives authority to 
 the ecclesiastical decision, and without which it would not be 
 binding. 
 
 In discussing this question, we shall have recourse to the same 
 method of argument as we used to test the Scripture authority 
 of the Episcopalian theory of Church government ; and we shall 
 find it no less applicable to the purpose of testing the proof 
 offered for Independency against Presbyterianism. On the prin- 
 ciple of Presbyterians, we assert that there is in the Church a 
 power of government and administration vested in an order of 
 office-bearers, separate from " the Church collectively considered," 
 and " exercised independently of the concurrence of the mem- 
 bers." This general proposition may be established in one or 
 other of two ways. First, we may prove from Scripture that 
 Christ or His apostles instituted an office of authority and govern- 
 ment in the hands of an order of men, separate from the Chui'ch 
 collectively, and independent of the members at large ; or, second, 
 we may, without any reference to the express institution of the 
 office, prove that the peculiar powers and authority of such an 
 office have been usually exercised and permanently administered 
 
302 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 by a distinct body of men, separate from and independent of the 
 Church collectively considered. If we can establish from the 
 Word of God the original institution of such an office of govern- 
 ment and administration, separate from and not dependent on the 
 members at large, then this will decide the controversy in favour 
 of Presbyterianism, and against the Independent scheme. Or if 
 we can prove from the Word of God that the distinctive powers 
 of such an office have been exei'cised commonly and statedly by 
 presbyters and deacons, and not by the members of the Church, 
 then this too will no less settle the dispute in the same manner. 
 We believe that there are materials in Scripture which give war- 
 rant for affirming both these conclusions, and which demonstrate, 
 first, that Christ and His apostles have instituted in the Church 
 an office of government, attached to a peculiar class of men, and 
 not to the members at large ; and second, that the distinctive 
 powers belonging to such an office ought always to be exercised 
 by a standing and separate order of office-bearers, and never, 
 unless in wholly exceptional circumstances, by the body of the 
 society. 
 
 That an office of government, power, and authority peculiar 
 to some and not common to all in the Church has actually been 
 instituted, we have very express evidence from the multitude and 
 variety of names given in Scripture to a distinctive and separate 
 order, implying the idea of power as belonging to them, and not 
 to others. The presbyters of the New Testament Church are 
 spoken of as rulers, as pastors, as overseers, as stewards, as govern- 
 ments (^Kv^epv^aeci), — words which all, more or less, include the 
 idea of authority and governing power as distinctive of the office 
 held by them. Indeed this point is so very abundantly and 
 clearly proved from the language of Scripture in regard to it, 
 that the Divine institution of the office of ruler in the Christian 
 Church is not denied, but, on the contrary, acknowledged and 
 maintained by Independents themselves. " That the elders, 
 bishops, or pastors," says Dr. Wardlaw in his work on Congrega- 
 tional Independency^ " are ordained in the Churches of Christ to 
 ' have the rule over them,' to be ' over them in the Lord, and 
 admonish them,' to 'feed the flock of God, taking the oversight 
 thereof,' — we maintain as distinctly, and insist upon as firmly, as 
 our brethren who differ from us." ^ This admission, which, unless 
 J Wai-dlaw, p. 310. 
 
Cu.V. §1.] PRESBYTERIANISM AND INDEPENDENCY. 303 
 
 at the cost of contradicting the express statements of Scripture, 
 7niist be made even by Independents, may be fairly and legitimately 
 said to involve a surrender of the whole point in dispute. If it 
 be granted that, by Divine institution, there are rulers in the 
 Church of Christ holding a distinct office from the members, then 
 it is impossible to reconcile this proposition with the principle of 
 Independency, which asserts the necessity of the " authoritative 
 concurrence" of all the Church to the validity of their acts of 
 rule. The dogma of an authoritative concurrence on the part of 
 the members necessary to the authoritative acts of the office- 
 bearers, amounts just to a partitioning of the office of government 
 in certain proportions between the two jiarties, — a division of the 
 power of ruling between the office-bearers and the members, in 
 such a manner that there can be no separate office belonging to 
 the one apart from the other. An office of ruling which is de- 
 pendent for its .authority on the consent of other parties, cannot 
 be a separate office at all ; and the admission which the very 
 express Scripture evidence on the point compels Independents to 
 make of the existence of such a distinct office in the Church, is 
 fatal to the fundamental principle of their system. 
 
 The dogma of Congregationalism, which makes the authori- 
 tative acts of the rulers of the Church dependent for their 
 authority on the sanction or consent of the ruled, could be asserted 
 and defended consistently only on the hypothesis that the office 
 of presbyter or ruler was not of Divine appointment at all, but a 
 human arrangement, dependent for its existence on the will of 
 the members, and for its power on the extent of authority dele- 
 gated to it by their voluntary submission. If the office of ruler 
 did not rest on the basis of Divine institution, but was an office 
 created by the votes of the members of the society, and limited in 
 its powers by the extent of permission they conceded to it, then 
 indeed the principle of Congregationalism might be true with 
 respect to the Christian Church. But in such a case the power 
 of government would reside, as in the instance of voluntary and 
 private societies, in the members at large, and not in the rulers as 
 separate from them ; there could be no distinct office of govern- 
 ment at all, apart from and independent of the Church in its 
 collective capacity, nor any rulers as an independent order in the 
 Christian society, distinct from the appointment and delegation 
 of the members. Whatever in argument or in theory may be 
 
304: PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 asserted, this is plainly the legitimate issue involved in the prin- 
 ciple of Congregationalism. The rulers of the Church admitted 
 in name are denied in effect; and instead of holding an office 
 Divine and independent, are made the mere delegates of the mem- 
 bers of the Church, with authority conditioned by their concur- 
 rence, and strictly limited by their commission. Upon the 
 Congregational theory, the office-bearers may have, over and above 
 what other members of the Church may possess, first, a power 
 of advising the Church to adopt certain measures ; and second, a 
 power of executing the measure after it is adopted. But so long 
 as it is asserted that their authority is limited by the condition of 
 the members giving or withholding their consent to its acts, they 
 cannot be said to have a power of authority at all, in the proper 
 sense of the word. And this is very much the doctrine which is 
 avowed by Dr. Davidson in his work in defence of Congregational 
 views. In addition to the power of instruction and exhortation 
 conceded to presbyters, Dr. Davidson says that they have the 
 power of " proposing to the Church whatever they may think 
 conducive to its well-being," and further, the power of " formally 
 pronouncing and executing any censure or sentence," but that 
 all that they do must be " always with the concurrence and sanc- 
 tion of the brethren."^ In these two respects, then, and in these 
 alone, the office-bearers differ from the members as regards rule, 
 — they are the advisers of the Church before any authoritative 
 decision is pronounced by the members, and they are the organs 
 of the Church in executing its decisions after they are pronounced; 
 but beyond this, they have no separate function of ruling. They 
 have no office of proper authority distinct from the body of the 
 members. In short, the Congregational principle is inconsistent 
 with the Divine institution of an office of rule in the hands of an 
 order of Church officers separate from the ordinary members ; 
 and the very explicit evidence which we have in the Word of 
 God for the institution of such an office, admitted as it is by 
 Congregationalists themselves, is sufficient to exclude the fun- 
 damental dogma peculiar to their ecclesiastical system. 
 
 In the undoubted Scripture evidence, then, which we have 
 
 for the Divine institution of the office of presbytei', as an order 
 
 distinct from the members of the Church, and including the 
 
 idea of power or authority as connected with the office, — an 
 
 ' Davidson, Eccles. Pol of New Test. p. 275 f. 
 
Cii. V. § I.] PRESBYTERIANISM AND INDEPENDENCY. 305 
 
 evidence not denied by Independents themselves, — we have a 
 fact which is inconsistent with the fundamental pecuHarity of Con- 
 gregationahsm, which implies a partition of authority between tlie 
 rulers and the ruled. But this evidence is greatly strengthened 
 by the consideration that, included in the general class of presbyter 
 or elder, there is a special kind of presbyter or elder set apart 
 more peculiarly to the exercise of the office of ruling in the 
 Christian Church. The Scriptures seem to point to three sorts 
 of office-bearers, all belono-Inci to the one common order of the 
 eldership, but distinguished fi*om each other by the peculiar 
 functions discharged by them respectively. First, there is the 
 preaching elder, so often spoken of in Scripture under the name 
 of " pastor," and other titles, significant of his distinctive work 
 of preaching the Word and dispensing ordinances. Second, there 
 Is the teaching elder, spoken of under the name of " teacher," 
 and apparently to be distinguished from the pastor in Scripture, 
 as more especially devoted to the duty of teaching or explaining 
 and interpreting the truth of God. And third, there is the 
 ruling elder, to be discriminated from both by having it as his 
 peculiar function to administer rule or government in the Church 
 of Christ. Standing upon the same footing, as all belonging to 
 the order of elder, there are these three varieties in the order to 
 be distinguished in Scripture. If, therefore, as Presbyterians 
 hold, there is a class of elders instituted by Christ in His 
 Church who are distinctively devoted to the work of ruling or 
 government, this fact brings out still more forcibly the unscrip- 
 tural nature of the Congregationalist principle, which divides 
 that government between office-bearers and the members of the 
 Church at large. 
 
 It is impossible to do more than merely advert, in the briefest 
 way, to the evidence for the Scriptural institution of the office 
 of ruling elder, as distinguished from those presbyters specially 
 set apart for preaching or teaching. 1. There is a strong pre- 
 sumptive argument in favour of ruling elders, distinct from 
 preaching or teaching elders, from the precedent afforded In the 
 Jewish Church for a similar order in the Christian, founded, as 
 the polity of the New Testament was, upon the model of the 
 Old Testament ecclesiastical government.^ 2. There seems to 
 
 ^ Gillespie, Assertion of the Gov. of the Church of Scotland, Edin. 1(!41, 
 ch. iii. ; Miscell. Quest, ch. xix. ; Plea (^Presbytery, Glasg. 1840, pp. 308-320. 
 
 VOL. II. U 
 
306 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 be a distinct reference to an office of government in the enu- 
 meration of ecclesiastical offices, given by the Apostle Paul in 
 the twelfth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. These offices 
 apparently fall to be ranged under the two general heads of 
 '' prophecy " and " ministry." " Having, then, gifts differing 
 according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, 
 let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, 
 let us wait on our ministering." Then, under the two heads 
 of prophecy and ministry, the apostle goes on to give the sub- 
 division — first, under the general head of prophecy: "he that 
 teacheth (6 SiSdaKcov), on teaching," — or the work of the doctor 
 or teaching elder ; " he that exhorteth (6 irapaKokcov), on exhor- 
 tation," — or the order of pastor or preaching elder ; and second, 
 under the general head of ministry or service : " he that giveth 
 or distributeth (o fi6TaSi,Bov<i), let him do it with simplicity," — or 
 the order of deacon ; " he that ruleth (6 Trpoicrra/xeyo?), with 
 diligence," — or the order of ruling elder.^ Such seems to be the 
 meaning of this rather difficult passage, pointing as it does to 
 the ruling. elder, as distinct from the teaching or preaching elder. 
 3. There is another passage in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 
 in whicli likewise allusion is made to the class of ruling elder, as 
 one of the offices in the apostolic Church : " And God hath set 
 some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly 
 teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, govern- 
 ments (avTiXij-^et,^, Kv/3€pvjjaeL<;), diversities, of tongues."^ In the 
 catalogue of offices, extraordinary and ordinary, in the apostolic 
 Church, the governments specified among the rest apparently 
 ought to be interpreted as referring to an office of ruling in the 
 Christian society. 4. But the decisive evidence for the office of. 
 ruling elder is to be found in the Mell-known passage in the First 
 Epistle to Timothy : " Let the elders that rule well be counted 
 worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word 
 
 1 Rom. xii. G-H. Gillespie, AKserlion of the Gov. cli. v. Rutherford, Due 
 Right of Preshyt. Lond. 10-44, pp. 15G-159. King, Expos, and Def of the 
 PresJnjt. Forvi of Church Gov. pp. 94-lOU. \_Vide Calvin in he. et Instil. 
 lib. iv. cap. iii. 8, 9. Conip. also the Second Jiook of Discipl. ch. ii. : " The 
 hail polity of the Kirk con.si«teth in three things, to wit, in Doctrine, Disci- 
 pline, and Distribution. "With Doctrine is aunexit the administration of 
 Sacramentis. And according to the pairts of this division ariseth a three- 
 fauld sort of office-bearers in the Kirk, to wit, of Ministeris or Preachers, 
 Eldcris or Governours, and Deaconis or Distributeris," etc.] 
 
 2 1 Cor. xii. 28. Gillespie, Assertion of the Gov. ch. vi. ; Jus Die. Reg. 
 Eccks. pp. 136-150. King, Expos, and Def. pp. 100-106. 
 
Ch. V. § I.] PRESBYTERIANISM AND INDEPENDENCY. ^'07 
 
 and doctrine." ^ A vast deal of minute and laboured criticism 
 has been expended on this passage, in order to make it bear a 
 meaning against its obvious sense. But the very explicit testi- 
 mony which it bears to two classes of elders, the one of whom 
 ruled exclusively, the other of whom, in addition to ruling, exer- 
 cised also tiie ministry of the Word, is so strong and conclusive, 
 that not a few, both among Episcopalians and Independents, 
 have been led to acknowledge the force of it.^ Nothing but a 
 very dangerous kind of wresting of the plain meaning of the text 
 will suffice to get rid of such an interpretation of it as carries 
 conclusive evidence in favour of the class of ruling, as separate 
 from preaching and teaching elders. The strong fact, then, of 
 the institution of a distinct class of presbyters for the express 
 purpose of government in the Christian society, in addition to 
 the general order of presbyters, who both preach and rule, serves 
 very greatly to confirm the evidence we have from Scripture 
 against the Congregationalist principle of a distribution of the 
 power of government between office-bearers and members in the 
 
 KOTTtuurs; tu 'Koyu kbc.1 hiOxaKxXt'ix. — 1 Tim. v. 17. 
 
 2 [So, among Independents, Cotton, Goodwin, Dr. John Owen, etc., Apal. 
 Narr. Lond. 1643, p. 8 ; Cambridge Platform of Chxirch Discipline, 1648, 
 ch. vii. With respect to what Gillespie calls " the footsteps of rulmg elders 
 in the Church of England," one specimen may suffice. Dean Nowell's Cate- 
 chism was sanctioned by the same Convocation which passed the Thirty-nine 
 Articles, and again ratified in 1571 and in 1603 ; it may therefore, with 
 Jewel's Apologji, be held to be of at least semi-symbolical standmg in the 
 English Church. The statement of this document on the subject of ruling 
 elders is as follows: "In Ecclesiis bene institutis atque moratis certa, ut 
 antea dixi, ratio atque ordo gubernationis instituebatur atque observabatur. 
 Deligebantiu" Seniores, id est, magistratus ecclesiastici, qui disciplinam ecclesi- 
 asticam tenerent atque colerent. Ad hos autoritas, animadversio, atque 
 castigatio censoria pertinebaut : hi, adhibito etiam Pastore, si quos esse 
 cognoverant qui vel opinionibus falsis, vel turbulentis erroribus, vel anilibus 
 superstitionibus vel vita vitiosa flagitiosaque magnara publice offensioncm 
 Ecclesise Dei adferrent, quique sine Coense Dominicae profanatione accedere 
 non possent, eos a communione repellebant atque rejiciebant, neque rursiun 
 admittebant donee poenitentia publica Ecclcsise satisfecissent." — Ed. 1572, p. 
 157. To prove the scriptural authority of such a consistory or kirk-session. 
 Dean Nowcll refers to 1 Tim. v. 17 and the other texts which Presbyterians 
 are in the habit of adducing: for the same purpose.] 
 
 3 On the subject of rulinj^ °lders and the ecclesiastical functions and duties 
 rightfully belonging to them, &2e especially Gillespie's ylswr/Zo/; of the Govern- 
 ment of the Church of Scotland, Part i. lie begins with a statement of the 
 scriptural authority for the term, and a repudiation of "the nickname of 
 ' lay elders,' by which," as he justly observes, " some reproachfully, and others 
 
308 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 II. It appears from Scripture, that the proper and distinc- 
 tive exercises of Church power and authority are uniformly and 
 statedly performed by the office-bearers of the Church, and never 
 by the members generally. 
 
 Even although we could not have proved the first institution 
 of a separate office of authority and power in the Christian society 
 attached to a distinct order, and not belonging to the Church 
 collectively, yet Scripture evidence of the stated and continual 
 exercise of tlie peculiar functions of such an office by a particular 
 class, to the invariable exclusion of the members at large, would 
 itself establish the Presbyterian doctrine against the Congregational 
 view. Now such evidence tliere is in abundance. Church power, 
 in all its various departments, whether exercised about doctrine, 
 ordinances, government, or discipline, is always administered in 
 the New Testament Church by parties in office, and never by the 
 members of the Church generally. That such is the fact, the 
 briefest reference to Scripture will suffice to demonstrate. The 
 titles and names expressive of ecclesiastical authority in Scripture 
 are restricted to a certain class, and not given indiscriminately to 
 all the members of the Christian society ; the qualifications neces- 
 
 ignorantly, call them." See also a brief but very admirable little treatise by 
 Alex. Henderson, published in 1641, The Government and Order of the Church 
 of Scotland, pp. lo, 30, 36 £f. ; Jus Div. Reg. Eccles. pp. 123-175 ; Voetius, 
 Polit. Eccles. Pars ii. lib. ii. Tract, iii. cap iv.-vii. ; Blondel, De Jure Plebis 
 in Regimine Ecclesiastico. [Among Lutheran divines, see J. H. Bohmer, 
 Observat. select. Eccles., in his ed. of De Marca's De Concord. Sacerdot. et 
 Imperii, Fraucf. 1708, and Gerhard, J^oci, ed. Preuss, torn. vi. pp. 17, 149 ff . ; 
 King, Expos, and Def, Part iv. ; Miller, Warrant, Nature, and Duties of the 
 Office of Ruling Elder, Edin. 1842 ; Lorimer, The Eldership of the Church 
 of Scotland, Glasg. 1841. For a very interesting account of the steps taken 
 towards the re -establishment of the presbyterate, in its full development, in 
 the various Protestant Churches at the Reformation, see Lechler, Gesch. der 
 Preshyterial und Sipiodal Verfassuuq seit der Reformation, Leiden 1854, pp. 
 7 ff., 13 f., 32, 42 ff., 59, 71, etc. : "Die Griinde fur Aufstellung vonAeltesten 
 nebcn den Geistlichen, zur Uebung der kirchlichen Zucbt, waren in dieser 
 Zeit vor alien Dingcn die Schriftindssigkeit des Aeltestenamts ; sodann die 
 geschichtliche Ehrwiii-digkeit desselbeu, sofern es in der apostolischen und 
 auch in der nachapostolischcn reincren Zeit bestanden hat ; drittens, die 
 sociale Zweckmiissigkeit dieser Einrichtung, sofern sie, (a) das Gehiissige einer 
 bloss durch die Geistlichkeit goubten Kirchcnzucht vermeidet, und mehr 
 Vertrauen und Ansehen geuiesst ; (b) sofern durch Aufstellung einer gemisch- 
 ten Bchbrde der etwaigen AVillkuhr, Eigenmiichtigkeit, und IJugerechtigkeit 
 einer lediglich clerikaleu und hierarchischen Verwaltung der Zucht vorge- 
 beugt wird. Mit anderen Wortou : der subjective Beweggrund zu Einfiih- 
 ruug von Aeltesten war, crstlich, Gehorsam gegen Gottes Wort, zweitens, 
 geschiciitlicher Sinn und Ehrfurcht vor dem reineren Alterthum, di'itteis, 
 praktische Weisheit " (p. 47).] 
 
► 
 
 Ch. V. § I.] PRESBYTERIANISM AND INDEPENDENCY. 309 
 
 saiy for administering Church power are required, not from all, 
 but from a few only ; the instructions for the due discharge of its 
 functions are addressed to a limited order, and not to the Church 
 collectively ; and the examples in the Word of God of the per- 
 formance of the duties attaching to the possession of ecclesiastical 
 authority are always examples of these duties being discharged by 
 men in office, and never by persons without office. 
 
 \st. The administration of Church power in connection with 
 doctrine is exhibited in Scripture as always belonging to pastors, 
 and never to the people at large. The chief and highest exercise 
 of Church power, to declare the mind of God from His Word, 
 and to preach the Gospel to sinners, is ever represented as the 
 work of presbyters, and never as the duty of the members of the 
 Church. It may be the right of the members of the Church to 
 elect the pastor to preach the Gospel, but it is not the right, in 
 ordinary circumstances, of the members to preach themselves, or 
 even to ordain to the office of preaching. There is no example 
 that can be quoted from Scripture of the private members of the 
 Church either preaching, in the strict sense of the word, or ordain- 
 ing preachers. The only instance alleged by Congregationalists 
 in support of their theory, that it is the inherent right of every 
 member to preach the Gospel, is the case of the persecuted dis- 
 ciples of Jerusalem, recorded in the eighth chapter of the Acts, 
 where it is said : " They that were scattered abroad went every 
 where preaching the Word."^ But in reference to the alleged 
 precedent, it cannot, in the first place, be proved that the scattered 
 disciples who preached were not pastors ordained to the work;'" 
 and in the second place, although it could be proved that they 
 were private members only, the extraordinary emergency of the 
 Church would both explain and justify the departure from ordi- 
 nary rule. As Presbyterians, we do not hold that, in an extra- 
 ordinary crisis or unsettled condition of a Church, necessity may 
 not be laid upon Christians not in office both to preach and to 
 ordain, rather than that the ordinance of the ministry should cease. 
 But we affirm that, in the ordinary and normal condition of the 
 Church, there is no Scripture precedent or warrant for the mem- 
 bers of the Church generally exercising this peculiar office, but 
 only for pastors or elders.^ 
 
 ^ ivotyyiKi^oiAivot Tou Xo'yow. — Acts viii. 4. 
 
 2 rSee above, vol. i. p. 45«.] » [See above, vol. i. pp. 452-4G6.] 
 
310 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 2d, The administration of Clinrch power in connection with 
 ordinances is always exhibited in Scripture as belonging to office- 
 bearers, and never to the members generally. In the case of 
 ordination, it is by the laying on of the hands of those in office 
 before, that office is conferred and transmitted. There is no 
 Scripture example of ordination by the Christian people ; and 
 the only attempt to show warrant for the right of the people to 
 ordain, is when Congregationalists confound or identify election 
 with ordination. In the case of the Sacraments, it is by the hands 
 of office-bearers that they are uniformly dispensed in Scripture. 
 There is not the shadow of evidence in the Word of God to prove 
 that private members ever baptized, or dispensed the bread and 
 wine of a Communion Table. The unvarying and stated exercise 
 of this branch of Church power by office-bearers, and the no less 
 unvarying and stated abstinence by members from all actions 
 involving the exercise of it, furnish conclusive evidence that the 
 power belonged to the one, and did not belong to the other. 
 
 M, The administration of Church power in its remaining 
 branch, or in connection with government and discipline, is always 
 represented in Scripture as belonging to persons in office, and 
 not to the members generally. That this is the case, is very satis- 
 factorily demonstrated by those titles expressive of ruling, those 
 instructions for the proper administration of authority, and those 
 qualifications for rightly exercising discipline, which we find so 
 very often in Scripture in connection with the office-bearers, and 
 not with the members of the Church. In these we have distinct 
 Scriptural evidence that the administration of government and 
 discipline formed part of the ordinary work of the former as office- 
 bearers, and was peculiar to their order, and not common to them 
 with all. To office-bearers, and not to members in general, were 
 such directions given as these : " Preach the word ; be instant in 
 season, out of season ; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long- 
 suffering and doctrine." " Against an elder receive not an accu- 
 sation, but before two or three witnesses." " Them that sin rebuke 
 before all, that others also may fear." " A man that is an heretic, 
 after the first and second admonition, reject." " These things 
 speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority."^ To office- 
 bearers, and not to private members, was the commission given, to 
 bind and to loose, to retain and remit sin, to hold and use the keys 
 1 2 Tim. iv. 2 ; 1 Tim. v. 19 f. ; Tit. ii. 15, iii. 10. 
 
Cii. V. § 1.] PRESBYTEltlANISM AND INDEPENDENCY. 311 
 
 of the kingdom of heaven. And the Scripture examples of the 
 actual administration of government and discipline in the apostolic 
 Ciiurch are all spoken of with reference to the office-bearers as 
 distinct from the members of the Church. 
 
 In opposition to this very strong and abundant evidence, 
 there are three passages of Scripture usually appealed to by 
 Congregationalists in support of their theory, that the power of 
 government and discipline belongs to the members of the Church 
 collectively. 
 
 The first passage is in the Gospel by Matthew, where our 
 Lord is giving instruction about dealing with the offences of a 
 brother : " If thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him 
 his fault between thee and him alone : if he shall hear thee, thou 
 hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take 
 with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three 
 witnesses every word may be established. And if he neglect to 
 hear them, tell it to the Church : but if he neglect to hear the 
 Church, let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican. 
 Verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be 
 bound in Iieaven ; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall 
 be loosed in heaven." ^ From this passage the Congregationalists 
 argue, that the power of discipline belongs to the Church col- 
 lectively in its members, and that the offending brother is to be 
 dealt with authoritatively by them, and not by the office-bearers. 
 Now, in regard to tliis objection, I remark, in the first place, that 
 it takes for granted that the word " Church " must mean a par- 
 ticular congregation, and cannot be understood of the Church 
 as represented by her rulers and office-bearers, — an assumption 
 not borne out by the language of Scripture. But, in the second 
 place — and this is really decisive of the question — the Christian 
 Church not being in existence at the moment when our Lord so 
 spoke. He must have referred, in the expression He used, to some 
 existing mode of ecclesiastical procedure known to the disciples, 
 if He was to speak intelligibly to them at all. That He did 
 allude, in the expression, " tell the Church," to the Jewish 
 Synagogue, seems to be quite undoubted, — intimating that the 
 procedure with respect to offenders among His disciples was to 
 be similar to what took place among the Jews in their Church 
 courts. The practice of the Synagogue vnist have been the 
 ' Matt, xviii. 15-17. 
 
312 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 practice suggested to the disciples by the peculiar language of 
 our Lord ; and that practice involved the invariable custom of 
 the Church dealing with offenders through her office-bearers, and 
 not in the meetings of her members generally. The argument 
 from this passage in Matthew, so far from being in favour of 
 Independency, is, on the contrarj'-, conclusive in support of the 
 Presbyterian theory.^ 
 
 The second passage usually referred to by Congregationalists, 
 is in the fifteenth chapter of Acts ; but as I shall have occasion 
 to discuss it in the next section, I postpone for the present any 
 consideration of it. 
 
 The third passage usually appealed to is in First Corinthians, 
 and refers to the excommunication of the incestuous person in 
 the Church of Corinth: "Fori verilj^," says the apostle, "as 
 absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as 
 though I were present, him that hath done this deed, in the 
 name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, 
 and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to 
 deliver such an one unto Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, 
 that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. . . . 
 Put away from among yourselves that wicked person." ^ And 
 again, on the repentance of the offender, and after suggesting his 
 restoration, the apostle, in Second Corinthians, says : " Sufficient 
 to such a man is this punishment which was inflicted of many."^ 
 Now, from this passage, Congregationalists argne, first, that in- 
 asmuch as the epistle is not addressed to the office-bearers of 
 the Church at Corinth, but to the members at large, the instruc- 
 tions of the apostle to deal with the offender must be understood 
 as addressed to the members also. This argument would imply 
 that every direction in the epistle not specially restricted, must 
 apply equally to all, — a principle of interpretation obviously 
 unsound, and contradicted by the fact of there being a variety 
 of injunctions in this very epistle, although not limited by any 
 express terms, yet plainly requiring to be limited to particular 
 classes by the very nature of the injunctions themselves. Direc- 
 tions, for example, about prophesying are given, without being 
 
 ' Gillespie, Aaroiis Rod Blossominrj, B. iii. ch. iii. v.; Assertion of the Gov. 
 of the Church of Scotland, Part i. ch. iv. [Wilson, The Kingdom of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, Edin. 1859, pp. 349-4;n.] 
 
 2 1 Cor. V. 3-5, 13. 
 
 ^ '/; tTTirifiix etvTYi sj Ctto toju %'Ktiovu'j. — 2 Cor. ii. 6. 
 
Ch. V. §1.] PRESBYTERIANISM AND INDEPENDENCY. 313 
 
 expressly limited to those among the members of the Church at 
 Corinth who were prophets, as they absolutely require, from the 
 very nature of the precepts, to be. And so also directions about 
 the administration of discipline are given, without any express 
 limitation of them to those qualified or authorized to administer 
 discipline, although such a limitation is no less required by the 
 nature of the directions given. But, second, from this same 
 passage Congregationalists argue that the sentence was actually 
 executed, not by the office-bearers, but by the members of the 
 Church at large ; as appears from the apostle's statements : " Put 
 aAvay from among yourselves that wicked person ; " and again : 
 " Sufficient to such a man is this punishment which was inflicted 
 of many." Now, in reference to this, it is sufficient to remark 
 that the sentence of excommunication, although pronounced by 
 the authority of the rulers, could be practically carried out only 
 by the aid of all the members of the Church co-operating with 
 the rulers, and withdrawing from the society of the person ex- 
 communicated. There was a duty lying upon the members of 
 the Church, to put away from their communion the offending 
 person upon whom the sentence had been pronounced ; and this 
 expulsion from the society of the Christian people, following 
 upon the sentence of the rulers, might well be called a punish- 
 ment inflicted of the many. This principle is quite sufficient to 
 explain the expression of the apostle in the Epistle to the Corin- 
 thians, without having recourse to an interpretation at variance 
 with the uniform language of Scripture elsewhere, restricting as 
 it does the power of government and discipline to the office- 
 bearers of the Christian society alone. 
 
 Looking back upon the whole argument, we seem to be 
 warranted in laying down these two propositions, subversive as 
 they are of the doctrine peculiar to Congregationalism. First, 
 we have distinct evidence in Scripture for the institution of an 
 office of rule and authority in the hands of office-bearers apart 
 from others, and not an office partitioned or distributed between 
 office-bearers and members. Second, we have distinct evidence 
 in Scripture that the administration of the powers of this office 
 in all the different departments of their exercise was invariably 
 conducted by Church officers, and not by the members of the 
 ecclesiastical body at large. These two propositions, established, 
 as we believe them to be, from the Word of God, are completely 
 
314 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 destructive of the fundamental principle implied in the term 
 " Congregationalism." ^ 
 
 SECTION II. — THE INDEPENDENT PRINCIPLE AS OPPOSED TO 
 PRESBYTERIANISM. 
 
 The two distinctive peculiarities of the system of Congrega- 
 tional Independency are marked out in the name by which it has 
 come to be known. The first of these, or the principle of Con- 
 gregationalism, which maintains that the proper office of ruling 
 in the Christian Church belongs to the members collectively, or 
 is partitioned in some manner between the members and office- 
 bearers, we have already considered at some length, and have 
 been led to reject it as without foundation in Scripture. The 
 second of these peculiarities, or the principle of Independency, 
 remains to be discussed. That principle, as the import of the 
 name suggests, is to this effect, that every congregation, includ- 
 ing its office-bearers, has within itself all the powers necessary for 
 accomplishing all the objects of a Church of Christ, irrespective 
 of every other; that it is complete in and by itself, to the exclu- 
 sion of all connection with other Churches, for the administration 
 of Word and ordinance, government and discipline ; and that 
 all association of congregations under one common rule, or sub- 
 ordination to any authority beyond themselves, is inconsistent 
 with the nature of the Church of Christ, and unscriptural. Ac- 
 cording to this view, the power of ruling in the Christian Church 
 is to be exercised within each particular congregation, apart from 
 every other, and not in the way of the office-bearers of several 
 congregations meeting for the exercise of a common authority 
 over them all, each individual society being absolutely indepen- 
 dent and separate from the rest in matters of government, disci- 
 pline, and order. 
 
 This independence and absolute separation of each congrega- 
 tion from every other in the exercise of ecclesiastical authority, 
 
 ^ Gillespie, Aaron's Rod Blossominy, B. ii. ch. ix. x. Wood, Little Stove, 
 etc., an Exam, and Refut. of Mr. Lockijer'a Lecture, Edin. 1654, pp. 184-281. 
 Brown, Vind. of the 'Preshyt. Form of Church Gov. Edin. 1805, pp. 11-117. 
 Whytock, Vind\ of Preshyter;/, Edin. 1843, pp. 22-63. Essays on the Primi- 
 tive Church Offices (Alexander), New Yoik 1851, pp. 1-68. Cunningham, 
 Works, vol. iii. pp. 543-554. [Lcclilcr, G'csch. dcr Presbyterial und Synodal 
 Verfassunrj seit der Reformation, Leiden 1854, pp. 78 ff.] 
 
Ch. V. §11] PRESBYTERIANISM AND INDEPENDENCY. 315 
 
 asserted by Congregational Independents, is a very natural and 
 indeed unavoidable consequence of the other distinctive principle 
 maintained by them — namely, that all government is to be exer- 
 cised by the Church collectively, and not by the office-bearers 
 alone. It is obviously impracticable for two or more different 
 congregations to associate or meet together for the ordinary 
 administration of a common government. If congregations are 
 to meet for ruling in common, it can only be through their office- 
 bearers associating as their representatives for that purpose. 
 And, on the other hand, while the principles of Congrega- 
 tionalism are inconsistent with the idea of association for the 
 exercise of a common government, the principles of Presby- 
 terianism very naturally or unavoidably lead to it. Presbyterians 
 assert that the right of governing is deposited in the hands of the 
 office-bearers of the Christian society, and not in the society 
 itself, — a principle that paves the way for the elders of different 
 congregations meeting together in the discharge of their peculiar 
 functions, and as tlie representatives of their several Churches, 
 for the exercise of a joint authority over the ecclesiastical societies 
 which they represent. Such meetings of elders or presbyters in 
 greater or smaller numbers, as the case may require or their 
 circumstances permit, may be called Courts, or Councils, or 
 Presbyteries, or Synods, without the name altering or affecting 
 the nature or amount of the ecclesiastical authority competent to 
 them as office-bearers of the Church. If the governing body in 
 a single and separate congregation — whether with Independents 
 you call it the congregational meeting, or whether with Presby- 
 terians you call it the congregational eldership, or consistory, or 
 kirk-session — have a certain power of government within it, the 
 same in nature and amount is the power of government ascribed 
 by Presbyterians to the eldership of many congregations, when 
 they meet for jointly ruling in the affairs of them all. In the 
 meeting of many rulers of different congregations for united 
 counsel and action in the government of them all, there will 
 indeed be certain advantages and an increase in influence and 
 authority gained for their proceedings by the union, not to be 
 found in the case of the eldership of a single congregation. But 
 the kind of authority in both cases is the same. The decision of 
 the congregational eldership, and the decision of the more gene- 
 ral council, met under the name of Presbytery or Synod, are in 
 
316 rARTIES WPIO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Rart IV. 
 
 their binding force precisely the same. Presbyterians demand 
 no other kind of authority for the proceedings of Presbyteries 
 or Synods than Independents ascribe to the decisions of their 
 congregational courts. The only difference is, that in the former 
 case you have a government comprehending many congregations; 
 in the latter case you have a government including no more than 
 one.^ Setting aside the question of the parties in whom the 
 power of government is lodged, which has already been under 
 our consideration, the real and essential point remaining for 
 discussion as between Presbyterians and Independents is, whether 
 or not it is lawful and right for the governing body of one con- 
 gregation to unite with the governing body of a second, or third, 
 or fourth, for the purpose of common counsel and joint authority 
 in the exercise of rule over all. Presbyterians hold that there is 
 warrant and precedent for this in the Word of God ; Indepen- 
 dents hold that it is incompetent and unscriptural. 
 
 The right or power of association in the exercise of government 
 in the case of more than one congregation is, then, the grand 
 question in debate between the adherents of Presbyterianism and 
 Congregational Independency. Other things are mere matters 
 of arrangement not essential to the question. The number, for 
 example, of rulers, more or fewer, who may meet together in one 
 body for the joint exercise of counsel and government in matters 
 affecting the interests of congregations, is a point of detail in no 
 way fundamental to the argument. Whether these associations 
 or courts shall be local, or provincial, or national, or oecumenical, 
 is also apart from the essence of the controversy, and must be 
 determined by considerations of expediency, or a regard to the 
 circumstances of congregations, or of the Church generally. 
 Further still, if it is lawful or Scriptural for the governing bodies 
 of different neighbouring congregations to associate for common 
 counsel and the exercise of a joint rule, this necessarily implies 
 that the members and rulers of each of these congregations singly 
 are subject to the authority of the whole representative convention. 
 In other words, such an association implies the subordination of 
 each congregation, and the rulers of each congregation, to the 
 common and more general authority of the higher courts. The 
 principle of subordination, and the right of appeal from the rulers 
 
 ^ Answer of the Assembly of Divines to the Reasons of the Disseniiii(j 
 Brethren, Lond. 1648, pp. 185-197. 
 
Ch. V. § II.] rRESBYTEPJANISM AND INDEPENDENCY. 317 
 
 of one congregation to the rulers of many, are involved in the gene- 
 ral principle, that it is competent and Scriptural for the governing 
 j)arties of the Church to associate together beyond the limits of an 
 individual congregation, for the exercise of ecclesiastical authority 
 and power in common. The warrant for Church courts, made 
 up of the office-bearers of several congregations for the purpose 
 of joint government, carries with it the warrant also for the sub- 
 ordination both of individuals and of narrower associations to the 
 more general conventions of rulers. 
 
 To a certain extent, the lawfulness of ecclesiastical Councils or 
 Synods has been admitted even by Independents. More especially, 
 the Independents of former times were accustomed to acknow^- 
 ledge the propriety, or even necessity, of the association of the 
 office-bearers of different Churches, with a power of advice, if not 
 of authority, as respects individual congregations. And although 
 modern Independents have considerably narrowed the concessions 
 made by their predecessors, yet many of them do not profess 
 to deny the lawfulness of ecclesiastical Councils for at least 
 consultation on the affairs of the Church, and of one congrega- 
 tion, through its office-bearers, asking advice or aid from the 
 office-bearers of another in matters of difficulty or common con- 
 cernment.^ But the real question in debate between the ad- 
 herents of Independency and those of Presbyterianism is as to the 
 right of elders or presbyters associating together from different 
 congregations, not only for the purpose of mutual consultation 
 and advice, but for the exercise of a common government. If 
 such a right can be established from Scripture, the proof is de- 
 cisive in favour of Presbyterianism, and against the Independent 
 theory. 
 
 I. The lawfulness of association among the office-bearers of 
 the Church for the exercise of common government, may be 
 argued from the unity of the visible Church. 
 
 I do not say that this consideration would of itself be deci- 
 
 1 Aiisiccr to Beaxons of Dissent. Breth. pp. 135 ff. BroAvn, Vind. of the 
 Prcshjt. Form of Church Gov. Edin. 1805, pp. 193-206. Wardlaw, Com/re(f. 
 Independ. Glasg. 1848, pp. 346-376. As regards the practicable workable- 
 ness, or rather unworkableness, of the Independent system iu this respect, see 
 the printed correspondence relative to a lengthened controversy between 
 certain Independent Churches in and near Glasgow, which arose about the 
 year 1844. It is referred to by Dr. Alexander in his Life of Wardlaw. Edin. 
 1856, pp. 423-426. [Cf. Edwards, Antapologia, Lend. 1644, pp. 1 36-164.] 
 
318 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 sive of the question, but it affords a very strong presumptive 
 evidence in favour of the right of association for the purposes of 
 government in the Church, in so far as circumstances make it 
 practicable. That there is a kind of oneness ^Adlich belongs to 
 the visible Church in consequence of the outward covenant re- 
 lationship in which it stands to Christ, that there is a seen and 
 external communion kept up by all the members of the visible 
 Church through means of the observance of the same outward 
 ordinances, and the enjoyment of the same outward provision of 
 means of grace, is a point which we have had occasion to consider 
 and demonstrate at a previous stage in our discussions.^ The 
 man who is admitted into the Christian society by the adminis- 
 tration of a Baptism common to all branches of it, becomes, in 
 virtue of his participation in the ordinance, not so much a mem- 
 ber of the local congregation or Church where he worships, as a 
 member of the catholic Church at large, having a right of mem- 
 bership throughout the whole. The man who is ordained to the 
 office of a pastor or minister in any local Church, becomes, in 
 virtue of his ordination, a minister of the visible Church through- 
 out the whole world, qualified and entitled to preach the Gospel, 
 not merely within the bounds of the single congregation over 
 which he is so set as overseer, but also in any other congregation 
 where Providence may order his lot. And upon the very same 
 grounds we are prepared to argue, that an office-bearer, set apart 
 not only to preach but to rule in any individual congregation, has 
 his office of ruling not confined to that congregation alone, but is 
 qualified and entitled to rule throughout the Church universal, 
 wherever circumstances may permit, or the edification of the body 
 of Christ may demand it. Every Christian pastor has a certain 
 relation to the whole body of believers, qualifying and authorizing 
 him to preach the Word of God wlierever throughout the visible 
 Church he may for a time have his abode, and making him a 
 minister of the Gospel, not amidst his own flock alone, but amidst 
 the members of other congregations. And the office of ruling, 
 to which he was admitted at his ordination as a presbyter, is co- 
 extensive with the office of preaching that belongs to him. As 
 one entitled to govern as well as to preach, he has a certain re- 
 lation, not only to the particular congregation where he ordinarily 
 rules, but also to the whole visible Church, and is qualified and 
 ' [See above, vol. i. pp. 8-11, 14-21, 29-53.] 
 
Cii.V. §11.] PRESBYTERIANISM AND INDEPENDENCY. 319 
 
 autliorized to use his gifts in that way wherever he may have a 
 call to act, and wherever the edification of the members of the 
 Church can be promoted by it. 
 
 This is plainly the proper theory of the unity that belongs to 
 the visible Church of Christ. No doubt, circumstances may pre- 
 vent, and do prevent, that unity from being practically realized. 
 The separation of congregations and Churches by distance of 
 place and difference of language — and, worse than that, their 
 separation caused by differences of doctrine and government and 
 worship — may make it impossible for such a system of visible 
 unity to be completely exhibited in actual fact. But notwith- 
 standing of this, it is unquestionable that the principles of visible 
 unity upon which Christ constituted and modelled His Church at 
 first have laid the foundation for the association of rulers and 
 office-bearers for the exercise of authority in common, and seem 
 fairly to require that association in so far as in the circumstances 
 of the Church it is practicable, or for edification. Although it 
 may be impossible to carry out the plan of an actual communion 
 in government among the office-bearers of the Church to the 
 whole extent of the visible society of Christians, yet this" is no 
 reason why it should not be carried out to any extent or realized 
 at all. A pastor is something more than a pastor within his own 
 congregation alone ; and a ruler in the Church is something 
 more than a ruler to his own flock alone. In both capacities, 
 they sustain such a relation to the Church universal as to lay the 
 foundations for union or association among the office-bearers of 
 the Church throughout different congregations for joint action, 
 mutual consultation, and common ruling. And the unity of 
 the visible Church seems to carry with it the warrant for such 
 communion in counsel and government to the whole extent to 
 which the circumstances of particular congregations, or the ad- 
 vantage of the Church at large, may permit or demand. Unless 
 there were some express prohibition to be found in Sci'ipture 
 directed against the lawfulness of such association for govern- 
 ment, the principles of unity established in the Church of Christ 
 seem both to countenance and require it.^ 
 
 1 Aimrer to Reasons of Dissent. Bretli. pp. 2-lG. Bro-wn, Vind. of 
 Preshyt. Form of Church Gov. pp. 211-222. [" The question raised by such 
 institutions as unions and confederacies among Christian societies," says Dr. 
 Alexander in reference to a defence by Dr. AVardlaw of the Congregational 
 Union, " respects not the desirableness of xmion among such societies, nor the 
 
320 rARTlES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 II. The lawfulness of association among the office-bearers 
 throughout the Church for the purpose of common government, 
 may be argued from the examples in Scripture of such union 
 amoncT the rulers of neighbourincr coniireo-ations. 
 
 One of the fundamental positions laid down by Independents 
 is, that the word " Church " — iKKXija-la — is never found in the 
 New Testament save in two significations, — first, as denoting the 
 whole mystical body of Christ, made up of true believers through- 
 out the world ; and second, as denoting a single congregation of 
 Christians, who could all assemble together for worship in one 
 place. On the other hand, while not denying that the word 
 eKKXrjo-la occurs in these two senses, Presbyterians are prepared 
 to prove that it is frequently used in Scripture to denote a com- 
 bination of more than one congregation, united together under a 
 common government, administered by one body of elders associated 
 for the purpose. The difference between the adherents of Inde- 
 pendency and of Presbytery on this point is a vital and funda- 
 mental one, involving the whole merits of the controversy. If it 
 could be proved that the word " Church" in the New Testament 
 always means either the whole body of believers throughout the 
 world, or else a single congregation consisting only of such a 
 number of members as could ordinarily assemble in one place for 
 the exercise of worship, government, and discipline, and that never 
 on any occasion is it used to denote several congregations, united 
 or represented by their office-bearers, then this proof Avoultl, with- 
 out actually settling the controversy in favour of Independency, 
 furnish a very strong argument on its behalf. If, on the other 
 hand, there is evidence that the word is repeatedly employed to 
 denote several congregations, united under and represented by an 
 association of office-bearers, or a Presbytery, then the proof is 
 decisive in favour of Presbyterian views. This latter proposition, 
 I believe, there are sufficient materials in Scripture to establish. 
 We do not deny that the word " Church" sometimes signifies only 
 
 importance of giving expression of mutual esteem and confidence in the waj's 
 specified by the preacher, but the Icgitimaci/ of forming such societies into one 
 conjoint body for this purpose. In the case of Independent Churches, this 
 question is further coniphcated by tiie question, wiiether such union of 
 Chui'chcs he possible, saving theUndependency of the Churches, — whether, in 
 other words, to say that a society is independent and comjjlete in itself, and 
 yet is part of another and larger society, be not a contradiction in terms?" 
 —Life of Wardlaw, p. 172. Durham, Cvnnnent. on the Revelation, Glasg. 
 1788, pp. 120-136.] 
 
Ch.V. §11.] PRESBYTERIANISM AND INDEPENDENCY. 321 
 
 a single congregation meeting in one place. We do not deny- 
 that the word " Churches," in the plural, is often employed to 
 denote congregations of Christians scattered over an extensive 
 district of country, and remote from each other ; as, for example, 
 when we hear of the Churches of Asia, or of Syria, or of Mace- 
 donia, or of Galatia, which very probably possessed separate and 
 distinct governing bodies. But we assert that very often the 
 word Church in the singular signifies more than one congregation, 
 united in no other way than as represented and governed by one 
 body of rulers ; as, for example, when we read of " the Church of 
 Jerusalem," or " of Antioch," or " of Corinth," in which cities we 
 are prepared to prove that there were different congregations, and 
 one common government. The use of the word Church in this 
 sense I have had occasion to refer to at an earlier stage in our 
 inquiries.^ But this point is so important, and so decisive of the 
 debate between Independents and Presbyterians, that I must 
 deal with it briefly once more. There are two parts, then, in the 
 general proposition now laid down, and which it is our object to 
 establish. First, the word Church is frequently employed in 
 Scripture to denote two or more congregations connected together ; 
 and second, the different congregations, so included under the 
 word, were united under one common government. 
 
 With regard to the first part of the proposition, or that two 
 or more congregations are often spoken of under the one general 
 name of a Church, we have the proof of it in the instance of the 
 Church of Jerusalem, the first established, and the model of all the 
 apostolic Churches. The Christians worshipping there are uni- 
 formly spoken of as one Church in the New Testament; and yet that 
 there was a plurality of congregations at Jerusalem, may be demon- 
 strated from a variety of circumstances mentioned in Scripture. 
 
 1. That the Church at Jerusalem was made up of different 
 congregations, meeting for worship in different places, is evinced 
 by the vast multitude of converts very soon gathered there by the 
 labours of the apostles. We are not informed of the number of 
 converts to the faith which existed at the period of our Lord's 
 ascension, and previously to the outpouring of the Spirit on the 
 day of Pentecost. Besides the one hundred and twenty disciples 
 who met in the upper room at Jerusalem, we know that on one 
 particular occasion, Christ, after Ilis resurrection, was seen of 
 ^ [See above, vol. i. p. 12 f.] 
 VOL. II. X 
 
322 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 " above five hundred brethren at once." ^ To these were speedily 
 added on the day of Pentecost three thousand souls, converted by 
 a single sermon, and at one time. After this vast ingathering of 
 converts, it is recorded that " the Lord added daily to the Church 
 such as should be saved." "^ Again, on the occasion of a sermon 
 by Peter, it is said : " Many of them who heard the word believed ; 
 and the number of the men was about five thousand."'^ There is 
 no reason for thinking that in this statement are comprehended 
 the previously mentioned three thousand, converted on the day of 
 Pentecost; the two numbers must therefore be added together 
 in forming an estimate of the membership of the Church of Jeru- 
 salem at this early period in its history. Besides, as men are 
 especially and exclusively mentioned {dpidfxo<; rcov dvZpwv) accord- 
 ing to a very common method of Scripture computation,'* a large 
 addition is further to be made on account of the female converts. 
 Subsequently to this date, we are told that " believers were added 
 to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women." Further still, 
 it is declared, " the Word of God increased, and the number of 
 disciples in Jerusalem multiplied greatly ; and a great company 
 of the priests were obedient to the faith." ^ It is utterly impos- 
 sible, upon any rational theory of interpretation, to maintain that 
 the many thousands of convei'ts thus particularly mentioned in 
 Scripture, as added to the Church at Jerusalem, could have found 
 it practicable to meet together as one worshipping assembly. They 
 constituted, when taken together, a multitude which could not 
 assemble in one congi'egation for ordinary worship, but must of 
 necessity have constituted several congregations ; especially when 
 we consider that the accommodation which they could procure for 
 that purpose was, in all likelihood, nothing better than an upper 
 chamber, with the door shut and barred for fear of the Jews. It 
 may be right to take into account to a certain extent the resort of 
 strangers to Jerusalem at the time of the feast of Pentecost ; and 
 on this ground a slight deduction may be made from the number 
 mentioned as converted and joined to the Church. Another 
 deduction of equally small amount may require to be made for 
 the dispersion of disciples arising from the persecution after 
 Stephen's death, although it seems to be pretty certain that it was 
 
 1 1 Cor. XV. 6. - Acts ii. 41, 47. ^ ^cts iv. 4. 
 
 ^ Compare, for instance, John vi. 10 with Matt. xiv. 21. 
 ^ Acts V. 14, vi. 7. 
 
Cu. V. § II.] PRESBYTERIANISM AND INDEPENDENCY. 323 
 
 against the office-bearers in the Christian society alone that the 
 violence of the persecutors was especially directed on this occa- 
 sion, and that, accordingly, it was not the members of the Church 
 at large, but their office-bearers, that were " all scattered abroad, 
 except the apostles."^ But after making every reasonable deduc- 
 tion from the numbers of converts on any such grounds, those 
 remaining at Jerusalem constituted a multitude which no single 
 place of meeting could have held, and which could not at any 
 time, but especially in the circumstances of the early believers, 
 have statedly met together in one assembly for public worship. 
 And years afterwards, when the Church at Jerusalem must have 
 settled down into its normal condition as to numbers, exhibiting 
 only a gradual increase from day to day, we find the Apostle 
 James speaking of it to Paul as comprehending many myriads 
 of converts. " Thou seest, brother, how many myriads — irocraL 
 fivpiu8e<; — of Jews there are which believe."^ With such num- 
 bers, it is utterly impossible that there could have been no more 
 than a single worshipping assembly at Jerusalem. 
 
 2. The very same conclusion which asserts a plurality of con- 
 gregations at Jerusalem, is established by the fact of the great 
 number of ministers and office-bearers who for a space of many 
 years can be proved to have had the seat of their ministry at 
 Jerusalem. It is believed by most interpreters of Scripture, 
 that the seventy disciples whom Christ Himself commissioned to 
 preach the Gospel, laboured for a period of time at Jerusalem. 
 But apart from this, we know that for several years the twelve 
 apostles were together in that city occupied in the ministry of the 
 Word. At an early period in their ministry, we find them setting 
 apart seven deacons to discharge that department of Church 
 service which their higher duties prevented them from overtaking. 
 In the eleventh chapter of the Acts we have mention made of 
 elders or presbyters, in addition to the apostles, as forming part 
 of the ordinary staff of Church officers at Jerusalem. In the 
 same chapter we learn that, over and above apostles and presby- 
 ters, there were also prophets exercising their peculiar office of 
 revelation and exposition of Divine truth among the beUevers 
 there.'^ And from an examination and comparison of different 
 parts of the narrative in the Acts, it appears that apostles and 
 })resbyters and prophets had their ordinary residence at Jerusalem 
 ' [See above, vol. i. p. 458.] « Acts xxi. 20. ^ Acts xi. 27, 30. 
 
324 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 for a series of years, busily engaged in the work of preacliing the 
 Gospel, and ministering in Word and ordinance. It is utterly 
 impossible to believe that twelve apostles, a plurality of presby- 
 ters, and a number of inspired prophets, besides the seven deacons, 
 could for years restrict themselves to Jerusalem, and all for the 
 purpose of labouring in a single congregation that could statedly 
 assemble in one place for worship. There must have been at 
 Jerusalem such a number of office-bearers of different sorts as 
 entirely to exclude the possibility of there being no more than 
 one congregation under their ministerial care. 
 
 Other arguments, such as the diversity of language among 
 the dwellers at Jerusalem, might easily be adduced to show that 
 it is impossible to believe that there existed in that city but one 
 congregation of converts, worshipping regularly in one place of 
 meeting. And if the first part of our proposition be established, 
 which asserts that, under the name of " the Church at Jerusalem," 
 there was in fact a plurality of congregations, the second part 
 of it, or that which asserts that these different congregations were 
 united under one common government, may be demonstrated 
 very briefly. The single name under which the several distinct 
 and separate congregations at Jerusalem are spoken of as " the 
 Church" there, is of itself sufficient to prove that they had a 
 common bond of union in their subordination to one ecclesiastical 
 government or polity. There is no other explanation that can 
 account for it. This view of the matter is confirmed by the fact 
 that the office-bearers in the Jewish capital are uniformly spoken 
 of, not as the elders or deacons of this or that congregation be- 
 longing to Jerusalem, but as the elders and deacons of the Church 
 there. When Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem with a 
 contribution to the poor saints there, it is said to be sent to the 
 elders by the hands of the messengers from Antioch. In the 
 sixth chapter of Acts we find the apostles associating together as 
 rulers of the Church for the ordination of deacons at Jerusalem. 
 In the fifteenth chapter we again read of the apostles and elders 
 met together in a Church assembly or court for the regulation of 
 certain ecclesiastical affairs. From first to last, in the accounts we 
 have of the Christians at Jerusalem, divided as they undoubtedly 
 were into many congregations, we still read of one Church, of one 
 body of office-bearers, of one set of apostles and presbyters ruling 
 and ordering the common concerns of all. So very clear and 
 
Cii.V. §11.] rRESBYTERIANISM AND INDEPENDENCY. 325 
 
 conclusive is the evidence to prove that the different congrega- 
 tions at Jerusalem were united under one ecclesiastical manage- 
 ment, and subject to one ordinary government.^ 
 
 It would not be difficult to enlarge to almost any extent the 
 argument which demonstrates that in the New Testament the 
 word Church is frequently used to denote a number of different 
 congregations, united and represented by one Presbytery or body of 
 office-bearers. Upon grounds to a great extent similar, it might 
 be argued, as that in the case of Jerusalem, so also this was ex- 
 emplified in the Church of Corinth, of Antioch, and of Ephesus. 
 The multitude of converts which can be proved to have existed in 
 these cities, and the great number of office-bearers which were 
 attached to them, demonstrate that these Churches did not con- 
 sist of single congregations, but of many.^ And this fact is de- 
 cisive of the argument between Presbyterians and Independents. 
 
 III. We have a very conclusive proof of the lawfulness of 
 Presbyterial association among the rulers of the Church, not 
 merely in the case of the elders of closely neighbouring congre- 
 gations, but on a larger scale, in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts. 
 The Synod or Council assembled at Jerusalem for deciding the 
 controversy which troubled the apostolic Church about the obli- 
 gation of the Mosaic law on Gentile converts, is a precedent for 
 the union of the office-bearers of the Church for the purpose of 
 government, which very clearly establishes the lawfulness and 
 authority of Church courts. 
 
 Notwithstanding of the declared opinion of Paul and Barnabas, 
 certain Judaizing teachers at Antioch had insisted that, except 
 the Gentile converts kept the law of Moses, they could not be 
 saved. In consequence of the dissensions and dispeace caused at 
 Antioch by these doctrines, the Church there deputed Paul and 
 Barnabas and certain others to take the decision of the apostles 
 and elders at Jerusalem on the point in dispute. We have reason 
 from the subsequent narrative to believe that, besides Paul and 
 Barnabas and other deputies from Antioch, there were also repre- 
 sentatives from the Churches of Syi'ia and Cilicia, commissioned 
 to go up to Jerusalem on the same errand. Even without the 
 presence of the parties last mentioned, however, any ecclesiastical 
 assembly or synod in which the whole body of the twelve was 
 
 ^ Answer to Reasons of Dissent. Brcth. pp. ll-bCi. 
 2 Ibid. pp. i56-112, 161. 
 
326 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 included might fairly be held, in virtue of their extraordinary and 
 world-wide commission and authority, as representing the uni- 
 versal Church. On the arrival of the deputies in Jerusalem, " the 
 apostles and elders," as we are told, " came together for to consider 
 of this matter." After considerable consultation, and, as it would 
 appear, some difference of opinion on the subject, they gave 
 forth their judgment, and commissioned certain members of the 
 Council to carry the decision to the Churches of'Antioch, Syria, 
 and Cilicia.^ Now, in this narrative we have all the elements 
 necessary to make up the idea of a supreme ecclesiastical court, 
 with authority over not only the members and office-bearers within 
 the local bounds of the congregations represented, but also the 
 Presbyteries or inferior Church courts included in the same limits. 
 First, we have the reference of a question of doctrine and duty by 
 the Presbytery of Antioch to a Council or Synod at Jerusalem ; 
 for that the Church of Antioch consisted of various conm'eiia- 
 tions under one Presbytery, can be sufficiently proved in the same 
 manner as in the instance of Jerusalem. Second, we have deputies 
 sent from the Churches of Antioch, and also, it would seem, from 
 Syria and Cilicia, to take part in the Council. Third, we have 
 these representatives or commissioners meeting with the apostles 
 and elders at Jerusalem, and, after due deliberation and discussion, 
 ministerially declaring the law of Christ on the question in debate, 
 and issuing a decree on the point, not only to the Christians of 
 Jerusalem, but to the brethren in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. 
 The precedent recorded in the fifteenth chapter of Acts, gives 
 warrant for more than the association in a joint government of 
 the office-bearers of neighbouring congregations, — it proves, in ad- 
 dition, the lawfulness of a subordination of courts in the Christian 
 Church. 
 
 Now, there are three different ways in which attempts have 
 been made by Independents to rid themselves of the evidence for 
 Church courts afforded by this example. To these it may be 
 right very briefly to advert. 
 
 \st, It is asserted by some Independents, as, for example, by 
 Dr. Wardlaw,^ that the reference from Antioch was one made to 
 inspired authority at Jerusalem, and not an example of refer- 
 ence to an ordinary and uninspired convention of Church officers ; 
 
 ' Acts XV. 1-33, 41, xvi. 4 f. 
 
 - Wardlaw, Congregational Independency, pp. 262 ff. 
 
Cii. V. §11.] PRESBYTERIANISM AND INDEPENDE^XY. 327 
 
 and in support of this view, they appeal to the language of the 
 letter addressed by the Synod to other Churches : " It seemed good 
 to tlie Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden." 
 
 Now, in answer to this objection, it may be remarked, in the 
 fii'st place, that the language of the letter is the very language 
 appropriate to the case of men who were not decreeing anything 
 by their own authority, but ministerially declaring and interpret- 
 ing the mind of the Holy Ghost as expressed in Scripture, to the 
 effect that no ceremonial observance of the Mosaic law was 
 necessary to salvation. In giving forth their own decision, they 
 were only making the Holy Ghost to speak upon the point, and 
 to decide the controversy. In the second place, that it could not 
 have been an appeal from the Church at Antioch to the inspired 
 authority of the apostles at Jerusalem, is demonstrated by the 
 fact, that the reference was made, not to the apostles alone, but 
 to " the apostles and elder s,^^ on the question. In the third place, 
 the same conclusion is established by the consideration, that if 
 the apostles acted on this occasion by inspiration as apostles, it is 
 impossible to account for the decision of Paul himself, who was 
 " not behind the very chiefest" of them, not having been accepted 
 at Antioch as conclusive of the controversy. In the fourth place, 
 that the apostles in this matter did not act as inspired men, but 
 simply as men endowed with the functions and powers of elders 
 in the Church, is proved by the fact of their joining together 
 with the elders and brethren in the Synod at Jerusalem for con- 
 sultation on the point, and by the "much disputing" which, we 
 are told, preceded the final deliverance of the assembled office- 
 bearers. These considerations sufficiently disprove the idea that 
 the question in dispute at Antioch was referred to the decision of 
 inspiration. 
 
 2d, It is asserted by some Independents, that the Synod at 
 Jerusalem was an example of one Church asking advice of an- 
 other, and not of any authoritative power exercised by a council 
 of office-bearers over the members of the Christian society. 
 
 Now, that the very opposite of this is the case, may be easily 
 evinced. First, the very terms of the decision itself indicate 
 authority, and not merely advice, as implied in it : " It seemed 
 good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater 
 burden than these necessary things." And second, the conduct 
 of Paul and Silas in regard to the decision, and the manner in 
 
328 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 which they enforced it, sufficiently prove the light in which they 
 regarded it : " And as they went through the cities, they delivered 
 them the decrees for to l^eep that ivere ordained of the apostles and 
 elders which were at Jerusalem." 
 
 Sd, It is asserted by another class of Independents, that the 
 members of the Church were present and aiding in the decision 
 which was decreed by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, and 
 that, but for their concurrence in it, it would not have been autho- 
 ritative. This assertion is grounded on the expressions, " the 
 whole Church," and " the brethren," employed by the inspired 
 historian, as well as the words " apostles and elders," in reference 
 to the parties present at or sharing in the proceedings of the 
 Council. 
 
 Now, in regard to this objection, it may be remarked, in the 
 first place, that the appeal or reference from the Church at 
 Antioch was made, not to the members of the Church, but, as is 
 distinctly stated, to " the apostles and elders" at Jerusalem. In 
 the second place, the decision of the Council, when pronounced and 
 transmitted to the other Churches, is expressly called the " decrees 
 that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jeru- 
 salem." In the third place, the use of the phrase " brethren" does 
 not by any means imply that the persons so spoken of were no 
 more than private members of the Church ; on the contrary, there 
 seems reason to believe that it referred to official brotherhood, and 
 to persons who were brethren in the office of ruling the Church. 
 In the fourth place, when it is said, in reference to the arrange- 
 ment of sending messengers with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch 
 with the letter of the Council, that " it pleased the apostles and 
 elders, ivith the whole Church, to send chosen men," even although 
 we should concede — which it is not at all necessary to do — that 
 " the whole Church" refers to the private members, yet this con- 
 cession would not prove the assertion of Independents. That the 
 members of the Church were present as auditors in the Council of 
 Jerusalem during the consideration of the question, and that they 
 unanimously concurred in the decision come to, is a very probable 
 circumstance. And the expression of this concurrence in the 
 language of the inspired narrative, when, it is said, it pleased the 
 whole Church along with the apostles and elders, is not in the 
 least inconsistent with the other fact, so distinctly proved, both 
 by direct statement and by implication, that the decision was " the 
 
Ch. V. § II.] PRESBYTERIANISM AND INDEPENDENCY. 329 
 
 decree of the apostles and elders," enacted by their authority as 
 office-bearers in the Church/ 
 
 Such is the evidence afforded by the history of the Synod 
 at Jerusalem for the lawfulness and right of association among 
 the office-bearers of the Church, for determining controversies of 
 faith and matters of government. There are other passages of 
 Scripture which give warrant for the same thing, although 
 furnishing no example so detailed and particular of Synodical 
 association. We have an example of Presbyterial action in the 
 sixth chapter of the Acts, when we are told that the whole college 
 of the apostles — not one or other acting singly and apart, but all the 
 Twelve as a court of office-bearers associated together — took steps 
 for the ordination of deacons in the Church at Jerusalem.^ We 
 have another example of Presbyterial action in the thirteenth 
 chapter of Acts, when we are told that in the Church at Antioch 
 the office-bearers united together with prayer and fasting, and 
 the imposition of hands, to ordain Paul and Barnabas to the 
 mission among the Gentiles.^ We have another example of 
 Presbyterial action in the twenty-first chapter of Acts, where it 
 is stated that, on his return from his labours among the Gentiles, 
 Paul went up to Jerusalem, and in a meeting of the presbyters 
 of the Church there, rehearsed what God had wrought among 
 the Gentiles through his ministry, and that they, as a Church 
 court, instructed the apostle to comply with certain Jewish 
 purifications, in order to accommodate himself to the feelings 
 and prejudices of the Jewish converts.^ In these and other 
 instances we have distinct Scripture warrant for the lawfulness 
 of Presbyterial association, and sufficient proof that the scheme 
 of Independency is irreconcilable with apostolic practice.^ 
 
 Looking back upon the whole argument, and upon the posi- 
 tions which we have been led to adopt in the course of it, we 
 see at last the Presbyterian platform rising to our view in all 
 its Scriptural simplicity and authority. Step by step has the 
 
 1 Answer to Reasons of Dissent. Breth. Lond. 1648, pp. 57-08, 139 ff., 
 171-178. Cunningham, Woi-ks, vol. ii. pp. 43-64. 
 
 2 Acts vi. 2-6. 3 _^cts xiii. 1-3. * Acts xxi. 18-26. 
 
 ■' Jus Div. Reg. Eccles. Lond. 1646, pp. 205-262. Wood, Little Stone, 
 etc., in reply to Lockyer, Edin. 1654, pp. 283-386. Brown, Vind. of Presbyt. 
 Form of Church Gov. Edin. 1805, pp. 118-127, 222-324, 335-383. Whytock, 
 Vind. of Presbytery, Edin. 1843, pp. 5-21, 63-93. King, Expos, and Def oj 
 the Presbyt. Form of Church Goo. Edin. 1853, pp. 282-326. Cunningham, . 
 Works, vol. iii. pp. 545-556 ; vol. iv. pp. 382-387. 
 
330 PARTIES WHO EXERCISE CHURCH POWER. [Part IV. 
 
 discussion been narrowed, until at length we are sliut up to that 
 scheme of Cliurch pohty, the form and principles of which we see 
 exemplified in the constitution of the Church to which we belong. 
 It is not in the arrogant claims of the Romish Church on behalf 
 of her supreme Pontiff to single and uncontrolled dominion over 
 the whole body of the faitiiful, that we recognise the form of 
 that primitive Church in which Peter was an elder among fellow- 
 elders ; it is not in the pretensions of a third order of diocesan 
 bishops, with exclusive right to ordain and to rule, that we 
 acknowledge the successors of the Presbytery at Jerusalem or 
 Antioch ; it is not in the Church system — or, rather, no Church 
 system — of Congregational Independency, that we see an approach 
 to the model exhibited for our imitation in the apostolic Church, 
 — but in the fashion and principles of a Church which recognises 
 no pontiff and no hierarchy, but a college of elders equal in 
 honour and in place, owning among themselves only the aristo- 
 cracy of genius and of piety, of learning and of zeal, in which 
 they shall have rule and leadership whom God has graced with 
 the birthright of high gifts and the better heritage of His Spirit ; 
 which asserts an authority without a lordship over God's heritage, 
 and makes the office-bearers, not the slaves of the members, nor 
 yet the members the slaves of the office-bearers in the Christian 
 society, — in a Church which unites Scriptural order with the 
 Scriptural freedom, and where Christian liberty is sheltered 
 beneath the shadow of Christ's Crown, do we willingly acknow- 
 ledge the successor of the Church of the New Testament age.^ 
 
 1 [" It is no marvel if that nation stand to the defence of their Reforma- 
 tion. Had the Lord been pleased to bless us (in England) with the like at 
 the time of our Reformation, we would not have been so unwise as to make 
 exchange of it for Prelacy ; we would have forsaken all things rather than 
 have forsaken it. It is more strange that any should have been found amongst 
 them at any time to speak or to do against their own Church. ' Sed quum 
 omnia ratione animoque lustraris, omnium societatum nulla est gravior, nulla 
 carior, quam ea quae cum Republica luiicuique nostrum est. Cari sunt parentes, 
 cari liberi, propinqui, familiares ; sed omnes omnium caritates patria una 
 complexa est ; pro qua quis dubitet mortem opj^etere, si ei sit profuturus ? 
 Quo est detestabilior istorum immanitas qui lacerarunt omni scolere patriam. et 
 in ea funditus delenda occupati sunt et fiierunt' (Cicero, De Offic. lib. i. 57). 
 If a patriot spoke so of liis country, a citizen so of his republic, what should 
 the Christian, born, baptized, and bred in Scotland, think and say, if he have 
 been born there, not only to this mortal, but to that immortal and everlasting 
 life ? No children on earth have better reason to say, We are not ashamed 
 of our mother. It were to be wished that the saying were reciprocally true." 
 — Preface to Alexander Henderson's Government and Order of the Church of 
 Scotland, 1G41.] 
 
Ch.V. §11.] PRESBYTERIANISM AND INDEPENDENCY. 331 
 
 At this point, and witli the form and constitution of the Free 
 Church of Scotland full in view, do we terminate our labours, 
 feeling that we have done something in the course of the studies 
 of the session, if we have traced in any measure to their source 
 in the Word of God those Church principles which are embodied 
 and exhibited in the Christian communion to which we belong. 
 It has been my part to exhibit from Scripture the theory of the 
 apostolic Church. It will be your part very soon, standing as 
 you do on the threshold of professional life, to reduce to practice 
 that theory, and, in accordance with the principles which you 
 have heard expounded from this Chair, to discharge the high and 
 responsible functions of office-bearers in the Christian Church. 
 To your hands will be committed in no small degree the delicate 
 and arduous task of fashioning and forming the Church principles 
 which may hold sway over the thoughts and actings of a coming 
 generation, and that, too, at a time in the history of the world 
 when interests, civil and religious, so deeply momentous, largely 
 depend upon the direction and development which these principles 
 may receive. I shall enjoy more than my reward if I have been 
 instrumental in enabling any of you to understand better than 
 before the Scriptural authority and value of those principles which 
 characterize our own Church, or if I may hope that, through the 
 teaching of this Chair, you have in any small degree been better 
 prepared to enter upon the duties that now await you as its guides 
 and office-bearers. 
 
 " Pray for the peace of Jerusalem ; they shall prosper that 
 love thee. Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy 
 palaces. For my brethren and companions' sake, I will now say. 
 Peace be within thee. Because of the House of the Lord our 
 God, I will seek thy good." 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 APPENDIX A., Vol. I. p. 48. 
 
 EXTRACT FROM SPEECH ON THE UNION QUESTION, Jan. 9, 1867. 
 
 BEARING OF SCEIPTUEE PRINCIPLES ON THE LAWFULNESS AND 
 DUTY OF UNION BETWEEN SEPARATE CHURCHES. 
 
 I SAY that it is high time for the Assembly and the Church 
 to consider what are the general principles which ought to 
 rule the question of Union or Not Union — looking both to the 
 stacre negotiations have reached, and to the course of aro-ument 
 which in some quarters has been adopted in this matter. Both 
 within our Church and outside of it, the cause of Union has in 
 some quarters been too much represented as in some way or other 
 antagonistic to the cause of strict principle, and the one of these 
 pitted against the other, as if the friends of Union w-ere arranged 
 against the friends of sound constitutional views. This has been 
 apparent in various quarters in which discussions have taken place; 
 it is apparent in the spirit and language in which the motion be- 
 fore us has been conceived and expressed. It is Union versus the 
 principles of the Church ; or the principles of the Church versu.t 
 Union. The Assembly are pointedly warned not to sacrifice one 
 jot or tittle of the distinctive testimony of the Church in their zeal 
 for Christian Union. This certainly is not the standpoint from 
 which to look at the question ; it is not the point of view from 
 wdiich the real status quwstionis can be understood. On the con- 
 trary, it is a misstatement at the very outset of the matter in 
 debate. It is not Union vei'sus the distinctive pi'inciples of the 
 Free Church ; it is Union as one of the distinctive principles of 
 the Free Church. The doctrine and the duty of Christian Union 
 are to be found among the fundamental articles and obligations 
 
334 APPENDIX A. 
 
 which the Free Church, and indeed every Christian Church, 
 embodies in its religious profession. Do those who are so fond 
 of setting forth the distinctive principles of the Church, as stand- 
 ing out in opposition to union, remember that there is a chapter 
 in the Confession of Faith, entitled, " Of the Communion of 
 Saints?" I believe that every principle necessary to justify, 
 in point of argument, the present position of the negotiating 
 Churches, may be found embodied in that chapter. The great 
 doctrine of the Union of Christian men, and of Christian societies 
 or Churches, is there set forth as being at the root of all true 
 ideas of the kingdom of Christ, and constituting, not so much the 
 distinctive principle of any one Church, as the fundamental prin- 
 ciple of all Churches. We are too apt to shape our ideas and 
 arguments on this matter according to the narrow views and feel- 
 ings forced upon us by our position as separate and detached 
 Churches. But we must take a wider view of the matter, and 
 endeavour to look at it from a higher position. There are his- 
 torical traditions and practices, there are men and deeds of other 
 days, that are dear to our memories and hearts. But the Church 
 of Christ is older than the Church of Scotland ; and the principles 
 of the Church of Christ rise higher than our traditions. If we 
 would learn the question of Christian Union aright, we must go 
 to the fountain-head, and learn what Scripture says on the point. 
 In the chapter on the Communion of Saints, the Confession 
 itself may be our guide, when it traces up the union of Christian 
 men with each other to their primary union with their common 
 Saviour " by His Spirit and by faith." Because Christians are 
 one with Christ, they are one with each other ; the reality of this 
 inward union they are bound to acknowledge by outward fellow- 
 ship and communion ; " they are united to each other in love, 
 they have communion in each other's gifts and graces, and are 
 obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as 
 do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward 
 man." ^ So much for the doctrine and the duty of union and 
 co-operation between individual Christians. But in the next 
 paragraph, the Confession deals with the union of Christians in a 
 society or a Church communion. " Saints, by profession, are 
 bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the 
 Avorship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services 
 ^ Conf. cliap. xxvi. 1. 
 
UNION BETWEEN SEPARATE CHURCHES. 335 
 
 as tend to their mutual edification." The great and mysterious 
 fact of the union to Christ of every Christian man issues, in the 
 first place, in the doctrine and duty of the communion and co- 
 operation of Christians with Christians ; and then it is still more 
 perfectly realized and developed, in the second place, in their union 
 into a visible society, which we call the Church. This, according 
 to the Westminster Confession, is the fundamental idea of Church 
 Union. Nothing but the want of opportunity in the providence 
 of God is set forth as a valid reason or ground for separation 
 among Christians, — a want of opportunity, such as distance of 
 place, or difference of language, or other hindrances that make 
 union practically impossible or unworkable. For the Confession 
 goes on to say: "ivhich communion, as God giveth opportunity, is 
 to be extended to all those who, in every place, call upon the 
 name of the Lord Jesus." 
 
 "-4s God giveth opportunity" this is the only limitation set to 
 the doctrine of Christian Union — the only qualification put on the 
 performance of the duty. Where God giveth opportunity, there a 
 Christian man should acknowledge another Christian man, and 
 unite with him in all good works. Where God giveth opiportunity, 
 there a Christian society or Church should acknowledge another 
 Church, and unite with it in the worship of God and Christian 
 fellowship. It is a great misapprehension, then, of the whole 
 question at issue, to set Christian principle against Christian union, 
 or to argue as if the one conflicted with the other. The union of 
 all Christian men and Christian Churches, so far as God giveth 
 opportunity, is a doctrine not antagonistic to the distinctive prin- 
 ciples of the Free Church, but one of its fundamental articles, 
 common to it with every true Church of Christ. It is a doctrine 
 to be held, and a duty to be prosecuted at all times, and by all 
 Churches ; and if in any particular instances, separation, and not 
 union, is advocated, most certainly the onus prohandi rests upon 
 those who defend or seek to perpetuate separation. Union, and 
 not division, is a Christian axiom, lying at the very root of all our 
 ideas of a Christian Church ; and neither individual Christians 
 nor Churches can acquit themselves of sin in their separation from 
 other Christians or Churches where Providence offereth oppor- 
 tunity for union, unless upon one or other of those grounds, 
 either — first, that it is impossible to acknowledge them as Chris- 
 tian men or Churches ; or, secondly, that while acknowledging 
 
336 APPENDIX A. 
 
 them as such, it is impossible to work together with them without 
 sin. One or other of these two reasons will alone justify separa- 
 tion, where opportunity of union is given ; less than one or other 
 of these reasons will not exempt from sin the man or the Church 
 that chooses division rather than oneness in Christ Jesus. 
 
 Take the case of individual Christians. What are the 
 Scriptural principles which ought to determine the lawfulness or 
 unlawfulness, the duty or the reverse, of Christian fellowship 
 between them ? The question that meets me at the outset is 
 this : " Am I warranted and bound to own such and such a man 
 as a Christian brother, and so award to him the recognition and 
 rights of brotherhood?" I can judge of this only by having 
 regard to his religious profession and character. If in his pro- 
 fession I recognise the fundamental articles of a Christian's faith, 
 and in his conduct a conformity to the main obligations of a 
 Christian's duty, I -do wrong to him and wrong to Christ's com- 
 mand if I refuse to acknowledge him as a brother, entitled to 
 all the rights and privileges which such acknowledgment of his 
 Christianity implies. Non-fundamental defects — minor short- 
 comings in creed or conduct — will not exempt me from this duty 
 of confessing him before men as a Christian brother. But this 
 is not all. Acknowledgment of him as a Christian man lays 
 upon me the obligation of acting towards him, and acting with 
 him, as a Christian man. If he be a Christian, I am bound to 
 seek to co-operate with him in all those duties and undertakings 
 and aims which, as Christians, we have in common. And now 
 the second question meets me: "Are those methods and principles, 
 according to which alone w^e can meet and work together, lawful 
 and Scriptural ; or does the co-operation necessitate sacrifice of 
 conscience or sin on either side!" If we can act in unison 
 without compromise of principle on either side, if we can work 
 together without anything wrong in the way or manner of work- 
 ing, co-operation becomes not only lawful, but also an impera- 
 tive duty. Where God offereth opportunity, nothing but an 
 alleo-ation that there is somethino; sinful in the mode or neces- 
 sities of the union, is a sufficient absolution from the duty laid 
 upon Christian men to join in the work of Christ. The teaching 
 of reason and Scripture are at one on this point. Even in secular 
 matters, union is strength, when those who work together are 
 agreed as to the way and rules of working. In Christian efforts 
 
UNION BETWEEN SEPARATE CHURCHES. 337 
 
 and objects, union is a duty, in so far as there is nothing unlaw- 
 ful in the manner or principle of co-operation. The command 
 of Scripture is plain : " Whereunto we have already attained, let 
 us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same things." 
 
 Take the case, not of Christian men individually, but of 
 Christian societies or Churches. The very same principles and 
 tests apply to Churches as to individual Christians. First comes 
 the question of acknowledgment ; second comes the question of 
 union and co-operation. As in the instance of the individual 
 Christian, so in the instance of a Church ; the question at the 
 outset is : Are we bound to recognise such and such a body of 
 professing religionists as a Church of Christ, yea or nay ? And 
 this question is solved very much in the same way as it is solved 
 in reference to the Christian man. If in fundamentals the creed 
 and the practice of a religious society are in accordance with the 
 Word of God, we are not only justified, but bound to acknow- 
 ledge that society to be a Church of Christ. The Westminster 
 Confession lays down the simple and catholic doctrine, that " the 
 profession of the true religion" is the one test of a Christian 
 Church. It tells us that " the visible Church of Christ consists 
 of all those throughout the world who profess the true religion, 
 together with their children."^ By the possession of this one 
 feature, a Church of Christ is known ; and however far in 
 matters non-fundamental it may come short of our standard of 
 belief and practice, — however much it may differ from us in non- 
 essential points of creed, or government, or worship, — we are 
 bound to recognise and to deal with it as a Christian Church, and 
 not a synagogue of Satan. The Westminster divines discard 
 the many notes of the Church usually laid down by Eomish con- 
 troversialists, the object of which is simply to enable them to 
 build up the better the exclusive pretensions of the Church of 
 Eome, and to unchurch all other religious denominations. The 
 one note of the true Church, according to the Confession of Faith, 
 is the profession of the true religion. And when we witness 
 that feature in the case of any religious society, we are not only 
 warranted, but bound in duty to confess such society to be one 
 branch of the true Church of the Saviour. 
 
 But we cannot in duty stop here. The acknowledgment of 
 any religious society as a living branch of the living Vine lays 
 ^ Conf. ch. XXV. 2. 
 
 VOL. II. Y 
 
338 APPENDIX A. 
 
 upon us instantly the duty of treating it as a Church of Christ. 
 When God giveth opportunity, the recognition of any rehgious 
 body as a Church of Christ, without doubt, lays upon us a prima 
 facie obligation to go forward to union and co-operation, unless it 
 can be made out that union and co-operation are impossible with- 
 out sin on one side or other. And now comes the second question 
 that meets us in the case of union for common objects between 
 individual Christians, and which equally meets us in the case of 
 union for common objects between Churches : Are the methods 
 of co-operation which such union implies, — are the principles and 
 ways of joint working which are involved in it, lawful or unlawful, 
 scriptural or unscriptural ? Can the Churches, and the members 
 and office-bearers of the Churches, work together in union without 
 the sacrifice of conscience or principle on either side ? This is 
 the only question that remains to be answered, in order to deter- 
 mine the matter of duty as to union in those cases where Provi- 
 dence offereth opportunity, and where Churches equally recognise 
 each other as Churches of Christ. If the way and mode of that 
 joint action which union necessitates be in themselves lawful, the 
 union itself must not only be lawful, but a duty; if there is 
 nothing required by such incorporation in the shape of unscrip- 
 tural sacrifice, either as to belief or practice, then there is nothing 
 to stand in the way of that duty which we owe to the one body 
 of Christ — the duty, namely, of joining ourselves to those who 
 are His members as well as we. If, on the other hand, the 
 necessities of action in common which the union of Churches 
 implies should impose on either party a compromise of creed or 
 duty amounting to what is wrong, then the separation between 
 them, although itself implying sin on one side or other, cannot 
 be lawfully healed by means of a union which would bring along 
 with it other sin. The controversy about union can only be 
 settled by the settlement of this question. Where the first point 
 must be taken for granted, where the Churches, as in the present 
 instance, recognise each other as equally branches of the one 
 Church of the Redeemer, and when this acknowledgment prima 
 facie involves in it the fundamental duty of showing their oneness 
 in Christ by the visible realization of it, nothing can be a lawful 
 or Scriptural bar to union, except the actual proof that the ad- 
 ministration of doctrine, worship, and government by Churches in 
 common would impose upon ministers or members the necessity 
 
UNION BETWEEN SEPARATE CHURCHES. 339 
 
 of doing what was unlawful and unscriptural. Less than this 
 cannot stand in the way of the positive obligation lying upon 
 Churches of Christ to confess, and to act on the confession, that 
 those Avho are one with Christ are also one with each other. 
 Considerations of expediency, of feeling, of advantage on one side 
 or other, cannot be listened to when, first of all, a question of 
 duty must be heard. It is time that we were studying the Word 
 of God and the standards of our Church, in order to ascertain 
 the great principles which must rule and decide this question of 
 duty. 
 
 So far as I have been enabled to understand the question, 
 these are the general principles which, sooner or later, must, in 
 their application to the case in hand, determine the duty of union 
 between the negotiating Churches. We are justified in taking 
 for granted, on all hands, the mutual acknowledgment, cordially 
 made and responded to, that the religious bodies now contem- 
 plating union are true Churches of Christ, living branches of the 
 one living Vine, living members of the one living body of which 
 Christ is the Head. The only question that can be raised is the 
 second of those to wdiich I have adverted, — namely, whether, 
 admitting them to be true Churches of Christ, there is, or is not, 
 in a common action on the part of these Churches, in such a joint 
 administration of doctrine, w-orship, and government, as the con- 
 templated union implies, anything that would lay upon you as a 
 minister, or myself as a member, a necessity of doing wdiat we 
 believed to be unlawful and wrong? If union implies such a 
 necessity, it is a sin ; if union imposes no such necessity, it is a 
 Scriptural duty. This is really the hinge of the controversy about 
 union. I may admit a religious society to be a true Church of 
 Christ. But that religious society may be acting upon principles, 
 and necessitating its office-bearers and members, so long as they 
 are in communion with it, to act on principles which involve what 
 is unscriptural and wrong. Notwithstanding of its grievous defec- 
 tions and shortcomings, I cannot refuse to acknowledge that the 
 Established Church of Scotland is a Church of Christ. But I 
 would not be a minister of that Church, because, by my tenure 
 of office as a minister, I should feel that I gave my consent to its 
 Erastian compact with the State, and was bound, iu consequence, 
 to do and sanction things which to me would appear to be sin. I 
 believe that the Church of England is a Church of Christ ; but I 
 
340 APPENDIX A. 
 
 could not be a minister of that Church, because my position as 
 such would compel me to own a creed that is wide enough to 
 cover both Romanism and Rationalism, and to act under a form 
 of government which I do not find in the Word of God. I be- 
 lieve that the Congregational body is a true Church of Christ, 
 and I honour it as sound in the great truths of the Gospel. But 
 I would not be a minister of that Church, because, as such, I should 
 be forced to act upon principles of Chui'ch government, which 
 to me, as a Presbyterian, cannot be made to consist with those 
 Church principles which I recognise in Scripture. In all these 
 cases, it is not because they are not Churches of Christ that I 
 refuse to unite with them, but because union would put me in a 
 position in which I should be compelled to acknowledge or to 
 do what, with my views, I felt to be unscriptural and wrong. 
 Would any such acknowledgment or action, to which my con- 
 science could not consent, be forced upon me in consequence of 
 union being realized between the negotiating Churches ? Would 
 a common administration of Word and ordinance, of worship and 
 government, upon the grounds and according to the principles 
 contemplated in the union, force me to own doctrines I could not 
 conscientiously own, or to act in a way that I felt to be unlawful ?■ 
 This is really the question on which the matter of duty depends. 
 .... There are no more than two ways in which a Church can 
 meet and refuse the call of duty that summons them to union 
 with another Church, and demands that they shall show publicly 
 their oneness in Christ by actually being one among themselves. 
 If, first, a Christian Church can say that the party to whom they 
 are called upon to join themselves is not itself a Christian Chui'ch, 
 then indeed the summons falls to the ground. This is an answer 
 to the call to union which no one in the present instance will 
 venture to prefer. Or, secondly, if a Christian Church can say, 
 if it can show that union for the joint administration of Word 
 and Sacrament, of government, worship, and discipline, in a 
 Church, lays upon ministers and members the necessity of some 
 compromise of truth, or some surrender of duty, then this too 
 would furnish a sufficient answer, and union, however desirable, 
 would cease to be lawful or Scriptural. And the question substan- 
 tially comes to this : Can such an allegation be truly pleaded '? 
 Is there, in the first place, any compromise of truth, any sacrifice 
 of the doctrines we believe and hold, any denial of one article of 
 
UNION BETWEEN SEPARATE CHURCHES. 341 
 
 our faith, demanded or expected in the event of the union that 
 is contemplated ? Or is there, in the second place, under the re- 
 straint of such union, any obhgation or necessity laid upon us 
 to adopt a line of practical conduct other than we would take 
 without union, or to act in a way un scriptural, and by a rule we 
 would not sanction, if we continued as a separate Church? 
 
 Take the first alternative alleged, that union necessitates or 
 implies a compromise or surrender of some truth or doctrine which 
 we at present hold. Is this the case ? The only article of belief, 
 the only doctrine, so far as I know, on which the Churches differ, 
 is the one point of the lawfulness or duty in certain circumstances 
 of the civil magistrate endowing the Church out of the national 
 resources. In regard to this one point there is a difference, and 
 a conspicuous one, between the negotiating Churches, and one 
 which no protracted efforts at negotiation will ever get over. 
 But I speak not rashly nor unadvisedly when I say that I find no 
 express mention of the doctrine in the Confession of Faith ; and 
 no formal obligation by my subscription to it has laid upon me 
 the duty to receive and profess the doctrine. The formula which 
 I sign at ordination and licence does not bind me to this article 
 of belief ; if by some strange reversal of all my opinions I should 
 come to repudiate the doctrine, I could not be libelled for my dis- 
 belief. My adherence to the Claim of Right and Deed of Demis- 
 sion is expressly guarded and limited to an approval of the general 
 principles contained in these documents as to the spiritual inde- 
 pendence of the Church ; and I might hold, honestly and truly, 
 all the articles of the Confession of Faith, and at the same time 
 hold the unlawfulness of State endowment, and my position would 
 not infer any departure from my allegiance to the Church. I 
 believe it would pass the skill of my friend Dr. Guthrie, even 
 though assisted by Dr. Begg, to frame out of the standards of our 
 Church, to which we have sworn allegiance, a libel that would 
 convict me of heresy in repudiating State endowment. I frankly 
 admit that it is a natural inference from the principles laid down 
 in the Confession as to the duty of the civil magistrate about 
 religion ; but it is no more than an inference, and constructive 
 heresy will not do in a libel for deposition. The strongest proof 
 that the Church of Scotland holds the doctrine of the lawfulness 
 of endowments, as a proper inference from the doctrine of the 
 duty of the civil magistrate, is the fact that she received them. 
 
342 APPENDIX A. 
 
 The reception of the endowment was the practical testimony 
 to her opinion of the soundness of the inference. But the fact 
 that the Free Church has ceased to receive the endowment, is the 
 best of all proofs that the inference is not a necessary or inde- 
 structible, an essential and unchangeable, part of her principles. 
 Much has been said as to the desirableness and undesirableness 
 of open questions in reference to this particular doctrine. My 
 answer to all that sort of reasoning is, that tlie doctrine of the 
 lawfulness or unlawfulness of endowments is already an open 
 question. It is no part of our terms of ministerial communion. 
 It is no condition of admission to office ; no man could be libelled 
 for affirming or denying it. 
 
 Take the other alternative alleged, that union necessitates or 
 implies a course of conduct, a practical line of action, different 
 from what we would, in our separate state, adopt, and in itself 
 unscriptural and unlawful. This idea can only refer to the prac- 
 tical working of the contemplated union in connection with State 
 endowments. Of course, no union could fetter my freedom to 
 believe, as I have always believed, the lawfulness of such endow- 
 ments in certain circumstances. No union such as is proposed 
 could require the surrender or compromise of such a belief, either 
 as held by individual ministers and members, or as an inference 
 drawn by them from the public profession of the Church, accord- 
 ing to their understanding of what may be deduced from it. But 
 I frankly admit that union with a Church which denies the law- 
 fulness of endowments — not making the denial a term of com- 
 munion, but the doctrine being actually held by the great majo- 
 rity of her ministers and people — would, not constitutionally, but 
 practically, go to limit my freedom of action on the point within 
 the united Church. Constitutionally we would be free to accept 
 of endowments, acting upon our belief in their lawfulness, but 
 practically we would have our freedom limited under the obliga- 
 tion of the Christian duty of not laying a stumblingblock in the 
 way of a brother. " I will not eat meat while the world standeth, 
 if it make my brother to offend," said the apostle, even at the 
 very moment that he also said that the eating of meat was lawful 
 according to his conscience, and indifferent to him. And so, if 
 the contemplated union should take place, the acceptance of 
 endowments might still, in certain circumstances, be a matter 
 lawful to my conscience, but, under the law that forbids me to 
 
UNION BETWEEN SEPARATE CHURCHES. 343 
 
 offend the conscience of a brother, I would feel myself practically- 
 forbidden to accept of them. It can never be a duty in all cir- 
 cumstances to avail ourselves of a right, or to exercise a privilege 
 which we believe to be perfectly Scriptural and innocent in itself. 
 On the contrary, it may be a duty for the sake of a Christian 
 brother to forbear. 
 
 But it is useless arguing this point as a question of casuistry, 
 however much, as I believe, the argument would go to show that, 
 in a united Church, it can be no sin, whatever a man's belief in 
 favour of the lawfulness of endowments may be, to refuse to act 
 upon it. No man that looks at the signs of the political heavens 
 but must see, that amid all the changes there, one thing rises 
 unchangeable above them all, and that is, the certainty that, until 
 the coming of those better days when the princes of this world 
 shall be taught from on high to bring their honour and glory to 
 the Church of the Redeemer, State endowment will never come 
 except when offered as the price of Church subjection, — offered 
 upon terms confessed on all hands to be unlawful. Let the morrow 
 take care for tlie things of itself, — let the future, if ever it should 
 bring with it the offer of State endowments on terms that are not 
 sinful, decide the question for itself. The present only is ours ; 
 and present duty cannot be determined by future possibilities. 
 
 And that duty, the duty of Christian union, if it is not nega- 
 tived by the allegation of truth surrendered, or practical action in 
 the cause of Christ prevented by the union, is surely recommended 
 by many considerations of a very urgent kind. The memory of 
 the past, the dangers of the present, the hopes of the future, all 
 point in the same direction. We can never forget that the three 
 bodies now negotiating for union are offshoots from the same 
 Stock, and descended from the same parentage ; and that each 
 more than another still desires proudly to trace back its lineage 
 to that common ancestry when they had no distinctive existence 
 as religious bodies, but when all that separates them now was 
 merged in the higher unity of the one Reformed Churcli of Scot- 
 land. Can we not forget the interval that has since elapsed, and 
 remember only what we once were ? The image of the common 
 parent is too deeply impressed upon the features of the children 
 to permit us to forget that they are kindred, and were cradled in 
 the same home. The Church of the Reformation with its struggles 
 against Popery, the Church of the Covenant with its struggles 
 
344 APPENDIX A. 
 
 against Erastlanism, are reproduced in none but those very 
 Churches that, with the secret instinct of a hidden brotherhood, 
 are now drawing together and awakening to the consciousness 
 that they are children of the same womb. The divisions of the 
 past, as well as its agreements, may serve to bind us closer now. 
 If it was against the unscriptural grievance of patronage that the 
 Seceders and Relief entered their protest when they separated 
 from the Establishment, that is a protest in which we shall cor- 
 dially join with them now. If it was against the toleration of 
 deadly error in the Church of Scotland that they testified when 
 they went out from among us, this is a testimony which we shall 
 gladly display because of the truth. If it was against the laxity 
 of discipline that they contended in vain when they abandoned 
 its pale, this is a contention in which we shall not fail to join 
 them. If it was from the tyranny of Erastianism in the Church 
 that they found no escape except by secession, this, too, is a 
 freedom for which we have paid a great price. The separations, 
 as well as the agreements of the past, have paved a way for union 
 now. Add to this the dangers of the present and the hopes of 
 the future, and they point to the like result. If there is to be 
 safety for the divided bands of the Church of God amid the 
 double assault of Romanism and Rationalism, it can only be 
 when the ranks are closed and joined against the common foe ; 
 for the only rational hope that we can have of a coming day of 
 triumph to the Church, in the face of the many influences opposed, 
 is in the strength that union would confer. There is much in 
 the past, there is quite as much in the aspect of the present and 
 the signs of the future, that may well teach the duty of Christian 
 union. And if across the divisions and separations of more than 
 a hundred years, hearts long alienated shall be brought near, there 
 will be found in them the pulse of kindred blood. If the dis- 
 persed of Israel shall be once more gathered, and the stick of 
 Ephraim shall be joined to the stick of Judah, we may perhaps 
 experience the fulfilment of the promise : " They shall be one in 
 mine hand.'' 
 
THE CONFESSION ON CHURCH AND STATE. 345 
 
 APPENDIX B., Vol. I. p. 136. 
 
 LETTER ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE CONFESSION OF FAITH 
 ANENT RECOGNITION AND ENDOWMENT OF THE CHURCH 
 BY THE STATE. 
 
 7 Clarendon Crescent, Edinburgh, 
 16<7i March 1868. 
 To 
 
 My dear Sir, — I have been unwell, and an invalid off my 
 public work, for some short time ; and this must be my excuse 
 for the delay in answering your letter, and the brief and hurried 
 way in which I answer now. 
 
 I cannot go into detail, and can, without doing so, only advert 
 to the general principles that underlie the difficulties you allude 
 to in your letter. There are two misunderstandings — and hardly 
 anything more than misunderstandings — about -svords, round 
 which the whole controversy (regarding union between the non- 
 Established Churches in Scotland) at present revolves. First, as 
 to the meaning of civil estahlit</imen{s ; and second, as to the 
 meaning of distinctive principles. 
 
 I. The expression " civil establishments " may be used in two 
 senses materially different, as denoting either a Church or pro- 
 fession of religion recognised and set up as the national profession 
 without pecuniary endowment ; or a Church or profession recog- 
 nised and set up as national ivith pecuniary endowment. The 
 distinction is not fanciful, nor fabricated for the occasion of the 
 argument. A Church may be endowed without being established 
 (in the sound or restricted sense of the Avord), as is Irish Presby- 
 terianism with its Regiuyn Donum. A Church may be established 
 (in the same restricted sense) without being endowed, as are some 
 of our colonial bishoprics, supported by voluntary contributions. 
 Admit this distinction, and mark how the history of the contro- 
 
346 APPENDIX B. 
 
 versy has never brought it out, — although it was always a real 
 distinction, — to any practical effect until the present day, and you 
 will see both the nature of the misunderstanding and its origin. 
 Voluntaries use, and have been accustomed to use, the word 
 "civil or national establishment" in its wider sense, as including 
 civil or national endowment. We, although accustomed before 
 to do the same, according to the use and wont of our Church as 
 at all times in the past endowed, have now been taught, as a lesson 
 of Disruption times, to use the word in its narrower sense, although 
 claiming in neither sense to be established. Now, which is the 
 proper or strict theological meaning? Take the Confession as 
 the test. There is no such expression as civil or national estab- 
 lishment in it. But there is in it the general doctrine, in very 
 express terms, that the civil magistrate ought to know, recognise, 
 and obey the Word of God in all matters connected with religion 
 and the Church, wherever it is in his power, or expedient for 
 religion and the Church, to do so.^ We know that it is not in 
 his power, and that it would not be expedient, in many cases, to 
 exercise his right or duty to endow. Is there nothing intentional 
 in the omission of the doctrine of endoioment, while the doctrine 
 of recognition is so pointedly brought in ? We have the general 
 principle of the duty of the nation and magistrate to recognise 
 religion and the Church. And why ? Because it is, as I believe, 
 at all times and in all circumstances incumbent on him to do so. 
 We have not the special application of the principle in reference 
 to pecuniary support. And why 1 Because in many cases it is 
 not his duty, and in others not in his power, to endow. Does not 
 this show the sense in which the compilers of the Confession 
 understood the expression " civil establishment," as something 
 different from the national recognition of a Church, if the ex- 
 pression even came into their heads ? And although during two 
 hundred years the two things have been conjoined in the actual 
 history of this Church, and the words have been identified in our 
 experience, yet ought we not now to unlearn the past, and even 
 to confess that endowment is not necessary to establishment, 
 taken in its stricter and proper meaning, and that the controversy 
 about the word ought not to put us wrong as to the true meaning 
 of the Confession. 
 
 ' CoDf. ch. xxiii. 2, 3. 
 
THE CONFESSION ON CHURCH AND STATE. 347 
 
 Take analogous cases in tlie Confession, — such as the Sab- 
 bath. The general principle is laid clown, but not the application.^ 
 The duty of the Sabbath being imposed by lawful authority, is 
 enforced in all cases. But lohat lawful authority ? The Con- 
 fession does not make the application of the doctrine to the State. 
 The lawful authority imposing it may be the Church, or the 
 master, or the parent. Our Articles of Agreement go beyond 
 the Confession there. (By the way, is not the Sabbath a strict 
 case of an institution of a religious kind being established, but 
 not endowed, — an example of the difference we plead for ? It 
 has been estahlished by the State as a national religious day ; but 
 not endoiced, as it might have been, in addition, by the appoint- 
 ment of paid guardians or teachers of the duty of Sabbath 
 observance.) 
 
 Take the case of an oatli.^ The lawfulness of oaths is 
 affirmed. The lawfulness of imposing oaths by competent autho- 
 rity is laid down. The duty of observing oaths is asserted ; but 
 no mention of the State being competent to impose them. This 
 is an inference left to be drawn. Here, again, our Articles go 
 beyond the Confession. 
 
 Take the case of marriage."' Its competency and obligations 
 are set forth in general principles, requiring it to be contracted 
 and observed in conformity with the Word of God; but no 
 mention of the duty of the State or its right in the question. 
 Here also our Articles go beyond the Confession. 
 
 In all these cases one course is followed, — the Confession 
 lays down the general principle or doctrine, and wisely leaves the 
 application to be made out according to times and circumstances, 
 making the one binding, the other not. Does not all this prove 
 that the doctrine of the Confession on the duty of magistrates 
 and States to religion involves, and intentionally involves, nothing 
 more than the general principle of a duty to own and favour it, 
 and leaves open the many and varied applications of the doctrine, 
 which must differ in different cases, and be open to different 
 opinions by different men ? To my mind it clearly proves that 
 the meaning of " civil establishments," in the stricter sense, and 
 not in the looser, favoured by our practice of many years, is the 
 
 ' Conf. ch. xxi. 5-8 ; xx. 4. " Conf. ch. xxii. 1-5. 
 
 ^ Conf. ch. xxiv. 
 
^^8 APPENDIX B. 
 
 meaning of the doctrine of the Confession, where, Avithout mention 
 of the word, tlie obhgation of rulers to reUgion and the Churcli is 
 laid down. Because a man condemns "civil establishments" in 
 the wide sense as including endowments, have we a right to say- 
 he runs counter to the Confession ? I am willing to admit that 
 the difference in the use and understanding of the expression 
 " civil establishments " still remains between us and some Volun- 
 taries, and gives rise to an apparent ambiguity of expression, but 
 not to the effect of a real difference of meaning. It crops out in 
 one case when the phrase is used in their Distinctive Articles, 
 But a proper exegesis of the passage can explain it, and no wise 
 man would found a charge of difference of things upon a dif- 
 ference of words. Ask one of the old Westminster divines in 
 what sense the phrase " civil establishment " expresses the doc- 
 trine laid down in the Confession, and neither falls short of nor 
 goes beyond it, and he would at once answer : In tlie restricted 
 sense of recognition without endowment. 
 
 11. But there is another misunderstanding in connection with 
 the expression " distinctive principles," as if Unionists were will- 
 ing to surrender something essential to a Church, or at least to 
 our Church. "A distinctive principle" may mean either what 
 is distinctive of the Church, in the sense of being a principle 
 essential to office or membership within it, or, without being 
 necessary to office or membership, what distinguishes it from 
 other Churches. It is in the former sense alone that it can be 
 truly or properly surnamed distinctive, or, in other words, funda- 
 mental. The lawfulness of endowment is no term of office, and 
 hence not, properly speaking, distinctive. Nothing, indeed, but 
 what is laid upon me by oath of office can be such, or, in other 
 words, nothing but what I have engaged to believe as doctrine, 
 and to observe as practice, by the conditions of entrance. The 
 doctrine is limited by the bounds of the Confession ; the practice 
 restricted by the obligations of the Formula, — embracing, over 
 and above the doctrine of the Confession, the Directory for Pres- 
 byterian government and uniformity of worship. There is much 
 beyond this that, in a loose and popular sense of the word, may 
 be called distinctive of our Church. An Act of Assembly, or 
 a series of Acts, may be called distinctive, but they are not 
 binding on the conscience of one who differs from them ; they 
 
ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT. 349 
 
 arc the testimony, for the time being, of the majority, and may 
 be reversed. The history of the Church is distinctive of it in 
 a certain way; but with what exceptions do we receive it, and 
 how few could say Amen to every tittle! Antimillenarianism is 
 
 distinctive; but we don't libel Dr. . The parochial system 
 
 for hundreds of years was distinctive, and many an Act of As- 
 sembly made it imperative as to its provisions; and Dr. Chalmers 
 used to lecture on it as, along with endowment, the distinguishing 
 superiority of the Church of Scotland over Dissent ; but we have 
 abandoned both, and no man can rightfully assert that w^e have 
 abandoned anything essential to our Church. The Confession 
 and the Formula, — these are the tests. Open questions, from 
 the very necessity of the case, must be in every Christian society 
 or Church. Whatever is outside the Confession and Formula 
 must be open. Where no libel would be possible or relevant, 
 tliere is an open question. The declamation we hear as to the 
 abandonment of distinctive principles is a mere misunderstanding 
 as to the meaning of words. Dr. Duncan used to say that the 
 question of Supralapsarianism or Sublapsarianism being the 
 doctrine of the Confession, depended on the position of a comma 
 in one of its sections ; and as the points are not binding upon 
 the parties who subscribe, I suppose this remains, as it was I 
 believe intended to be, an open question. 
 
 I have written three times as much as I intended in answer 
 to your request. I think you ought to find most, if not all, your 
 difficulties implicitly, if not expressly, touched upon in what I 
 have said. — Yours, etc., 
 
 James Bannerman. 
 
 [Articles of Agreement and Distinctive Articles 
 OF the Negotiating Churches, referred to above, as 
 respects the Civil Magistrate. 
 
 I. articles of agreement. 
 
 I. That civil government is an ordinance of God for His own 
 glory and the public good ; that to the Lord Jesus Christ is 
 given all power in heaven and on earth, and that all men in their 
 
350 APPENDIX B. 
 
 several places and relations, and therefore civil magistrates in 
 theirs, are under obligations to submit themselves to Christ, and 
 to regulate their conduct by His Word. 
 
 II. That the civil magistrate ought himself to embrace and 
 profess the religion of Christ ; and though his office is civil and 
 not spiritual, yet, like other Christians in their places and rela- 
 tions, he ought, acting in his public capacity as a magistrate, to 
 further the interests of the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ 
 among his subjects, in every yvaj consistent with its spirit and 
 enactments ; and that he ought to be ruled by it in the making of 
 laws, the administration of justice, the swearing of oaths, and 
 other matters of civil jurisdiction. 
 
 III. That while the civil magistrate, in legislating as to 
 matters within his own province, may and ought, for his own 
 guidance, to judge what is agreeable to the Word of God, yet, 
 inasmuch as he has no authority in spiritual things, and as in 
 these the employment of force is opposed to the spirit and pre- 
 cepts of Christianity, which disclaim and prohibit all persecution, 
 it is not within his province authoritatively to prescribe to his 
 subjects, or to impose upon them, a creed or form of worship, or 
 to interfere with that government which the Lord Jesus Christ 
 has appointed in His Church in the hands of Church officers, or 
 to invade any of the rights and liberties which Christ has con- 
 ferred on His Churcli, and which all powers on earth ought to 
 hold sacred, — it being the exclusive prerogative of the Lord Jesus 
 to rule in matters of faith and worship. 
 
 IV. That marriage, the Sabbath, and the appointment of days 
 of national humiliation and thanksgiving, are practical instances 
 to which these principles apply. (1.) In regard to marriage, 
 the civil magistrate may and ought to frame his marriage laws 
 according to the rule of the Divine Word. (2.) In regard to the 
 Sabbath, the civil magistrate, recognising its perpetual obligation 
 according to the rule of the Divine Word, especially as contained 
 in the original institution of the Sabbath, in the Fourth Com- 
 mandment, and in the teaching and example of our Lord and 
 His apostles, and its inestimable value in many ways to human 
 society, may and ought, in his administration, to respect its sacred 
 character, to legislate in the matter of its outward observance, 
 and to protect the peoj^le in the enjoyment of the privilege of 
 
ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT. 351 
 
 resting from their week-day occupations, and devoting the day to 
 the public and private exercises of Divine worship. (3.) The 
 civil magistrate may, and on suitable occasions ought to, appoint 
 days on which his subjects shall be invited to engage in acts of 
 humiliation or of thanksgiving, but without authoritatively pre- 
 scribing or enforcing any special form of religious service, or 
 otherwise interposing his authority beyond securing to them the 
 opportunity of exercising their free discretion for these purposes. 
 
 V. That the Church and the State, being ordinances of God, 
 distinct from each other, are capable of existing without either 
 of them intruding into the proper province of the other, and 
 ought not so to intrude. Erastian supremacy of the State over 
 the Church, and Antichristian domination of the Church over 
 the State, ought to be condemned ; and all schemes of connec- 
 tion involving or tending to either, are therefore to be avoided. 
 The Church has a spiritual authority over such of the subjects 
 and rulers of earthly kingdoms as are in her communion ; and 
 the civil powers have the same secular authority over the mem- 
 bers and office-bearers of the Church as over the rest of their 
 subjects. The Church has no power over earthly kingdoms 
 in their collective capacity, nor have they any power over her 
 as a Church. But, although thus distinct, the Church and the 
 State owe mutual duties to each other, and, acting within their 
 respective spheres, may be signally subservient to each other's 
 welfare. 
 
 VI. That the Church cannot lawfully surrender or compro- 
 mise her spiritual independence for any worldly consideration or 
 advantage whatsoever. And further, the Church must ever 
 maintain the essential and perpetual obligation which Christ has 
 laid on all His people to support and extend His Church by free- 
 will offerings. 
 
352 
 
 APPENDIX B. 
 
 II. DISTINCTIVE AETICLES. 
 
 Free Church and 
 English Presby- 
 terian Church 
 Committees. 
 
 "As an act of 
 national homage 
 to Clrrist, the 
 civil magistrate 
 ought, when ne- 
 cessary and ex- 
 pedient, to afford 
 aid from the na- 
 tional resources 
 to the cause of 
 Christ, provided 
 always, that in 
 doingso,whilere- 
 serving full con- 
 trol over his own 
 gift, he abstain 
 from all autho- 
 ritative interfer- 
 ence in the inter- 
 nal government 
 of the Church. 
 But it must al- 
 ways be a ques- 
 tion to be judged 
 of according to 
 times and cir- 
 cumstances, whe- 
 ther or not such 
 aid ought to be 
 given by the civil 
 magistrate, as 
 well as whether 
 or not it ought 
 to be accepted ; 
 and the question 
 must, in every 
 instance, be de- 
 cided by each of 
 the two parties 
 judging for itself 
 on its own re- 
 sponsibility." 
 
 United Presbyterian 
 Church Committee. 
 
 " That it is not 
 competent to the 
 civil magistrate to 
 give legislative sanc- 
 tion to any creed in 
 the way of setting 
 up a civil establish- 
 ment of religion, nor 
 is it within his pro- 
 vince to provide for 
 the expense of the 
 ministrations of re- 
 ligion out of the 
 national resoiu"ces ; 
 that Jesus Christ, as 
 the sole Kuig and 
 Head of His Church, 
 has enjoined upon 
 His people to pro- 
 vide for maintaining 
 and extending it by 
 freewill offerings ; 
 that this being the 
 ordinance of Christ, 
 it excludes State aid 
 for these purposes, 
 and that adherence 
 to it is the true safe- 
 guard of theChurch's 
 independence. More- 
 over, though unifor- 
 mity of opinion with 
 respect to civil 
 establishments of re- 
 ligion is not a term 
 of communion in the 
 United Presbyterian 
 Chm-ch, yet the 
 views on this sub- 
 ject held and uni- 
 versally acted upon, 
 are opposed to these 
 institutions." 
 
 Reformed Presbyterian Church 
 Committee. 
 
 " 1. That while friendly alliance 
 ought always to be kept in view as 
 the normal relation of the Church and 
 the State, the question whether, or to 
 what extent, the reahzation of it, in 
 any given case, ought to be attempted, 
 cannot lawfully or safely be deter- 
 mined without taking into account the 
 circumstances, character, and attain- 
 ments of both, particularly the degree 
 of unity which the Church has attained, 
 and the extent to which the State has 
 become Christian. 
 
 "• 2. That while the Church is bound 
 to uphold civil government, founded 
 on right principles, and directed to its 
 appropriate ends, nevertheless, as a 
 public witness for the truth aud claims 
 of Christ, it ought to testify against 
 whatever is immoral in the civil con- 
 stitution, or iniquitous in pubhc policy. 
 
 " 3. That when the civil magistrate 
 sets himself in habitual opposition to, 
 and abuses his power for the overturn- 
 ing of religion and the national liber- 
 ties, he thereby forfeits his right to 
 conscientious allegiance, especially in 
 countries where religion and liberty 
 have been placed under the protection 
 of a righteous constitution. 
 
 " 4. That while it is not lawful for 
 the magistrate to grant aid to the 
 Church from national resources merely 
 from motives of political expediency, 
 it is competent to the Church to accept 
 aid from these resources, provided that 
 the terms on which it is given do not 
 involve the Church in approbation of 
 what may be evil in the constitution 
 of the State ; but the national resources 
 cannot lawfully be employed for the 
 support of truth and error indiscrimi- 
 nately." 
 
STATEiMENTS OF THE SEVERAL CHURCHES. 
 
 353 
 
 III. STATEMENTS AS TO THE RELATION OF THE SEVEEAL NEGO- 
 TIATING CnUKCIIES TO THE EXISTING CHURCH ESTAB- 
 LISHMENT IN SCOTLAND. 
 
 Bif the Free Church and 
 Eufjli^h Presbyterian 
 Church Committees. 
 
 " It follows, from 
 the preceding arti- 
 cles, that any branch 
 of the Christian 
 Church consenting 
 to be in alliance with 
 the State, and to ac- 
 cept its aid, upon the 
 condition of being 
 subject to the autho- 
 ritative control of 
 the State or its courts 
 in spiritual matters, 
 or continuing in such 
 connection with the 
 State as involves such 
 subjection, must be 
 held to be so far un- 
 faithful to the Lord 
 Jesus Christ as King 
 and Head of His 
 Church. And upon 
 this groimd, in ac- 
 cordance with the 
 history and the con- 
 stitutional principles 
 of the Church of 
 Scotland, a protest 
 is to be maintained 
 against the present 
 Establislunent in 
 Scotland." 
 
 By the United Presbyterian 
 Church Committee. 
 
 "That the United Pres- 
 byterian Church, ^nthout 
 requiring from her mem- 
 bers any approval of the 
 stej^s of jirocedure adopted 
 by their fathers, or inter- 
 fering with the rights of 
 private judgment in refer- 
 ence to them, are united 
 in regarding as still valid 
 the reasons on which they 
 have hitherto maintained 
 their state of secession and 
 separation from the judi- 
 catories of the Established 
 Church of Scotland, — as 
 expressed in the authorized 
 docimients of the respective 
 botUes of which the United 
 Presbyterian Church is 
 formed, — and in maintain- 
 ing the lawfulness and obli- 
 gation of separation from ec- 
 clesiastical bodies in which 
 dangerous error is tole- 
 rated, or the discipline of 
 the Church, or tlie rights 
 of her ministry or mem- 
 bei-s are disregarded." 
 
 By the Reformed Presbyterian 
 Church Committee. 
 
 " That the Reformed Pres- 
 byterian Church, while not 
 requiring of her members an 
 approval of every step taken 
 by their fathers, yet holds 
 that they had valid reasons 
 for declining to acquiesce in 
 the Revolution Settlement. 
 Accordingly, not merely from 
 the character of the Govern- 
 ment as illustrated in its as- 
 sumption of supremacy over 
 the Church, and its patronage 
 of other ecclesiastical sys- 
 tems, by which dangerous 
 errors are tauglit and pro- 
 pagated, but from the ex- 
 press terms of the Settlement 
 by which the Scottish Church 
 was established, involving, 
 as they did, a departure in 
 several important particulars 
 from the covenanted Refor- 
 mation, and a consequent 
 breach of covenant, the Re- 
 formed Presbyterian Church 
 is united in regarding as still 
 valid the grounds on which 
 it has hitlierto continued in 
 a state of separation from 
 the present Church Estab- 
 lishment in Scotland." 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
354 APPENDIX C. 
 
 APPENDIX C, Vol. I. p. 148. 
 
 NOTE ON THE HISTORY OF VOLUNTAEYISM. 
 
 The theory now commonly known as Voluntaryism — though 
 the name is by no means a very happily chosen or appropriate 
 one — did not make its appearance in any definite shape before 
 the period of the Reformation, although views of a kindred sort 
 were propounded by some of the Donatists in the fifth century. 
 In Protestant Christendom, doctrines which would now be de- 
 scribed as Voluntary were first broached by the Anabaptists in 
 Germany in the sixteenth century. They were taken up largely 
 by the Socinians, the party known as the Libertines in England 
 and Holland, and by many of the sectaries during the Common- 
 wealth. These views were of course contradicted by the posi- 
 tions maintained by all the Reformed Churches with respect to 
 the duty of the civil magistrate to further in all lawful ways the 
 intei-ests of true religion and of the Church of Christ.^ In 
 England, Voluntaryism was strongly opposed not only by Pres- 
 byterians and Episcopalians, but also by Dr. Owen and other 
 eminent Independent writers, as being the opposite exti'eme from 
 the Erastianism and persecuting tendencies with which they were 
 then called to contend.^ The former theory, however,' gained 
 ground among the Independents after the Restoration, and still 
 
 1 [Cunningham, Works, vol. iii. pp. 558-569.] 
 
 - [Thus Owon -winds up his discussion on " Toleration and the Duty of the 
 Magistrate about Kcligion " with two corollaries. "1. That magistrates have 
 nothing to do hi matters of religion, as some imadvisedly affirm, is exceedingly 
 wide from the truth of the thing itself. 2. Corporeal punishments for simple 
 error were found out to help to build the tower of Babel." — Works, Goold's 
 ed. vol. viii. p. 206 ; cf. pp. ;}81-394, vol. xiii. pp. 609-516. Compare the 
 noble opening of Milton's second Book, Of lleformation in Eiir/land : " It is 
 a work good and jirudcnt to be able to guide one man ; of larger extended 
 virtue to order well one house ; but to govern a nation piously and justly, 
 which only is to say happily, is for a spirit of the greatest size and divinest 
 mettle. . . . Alas, sii', a commonwealth ought to be but as one huge Chris- 
 tian personage, — one mighty growth and stature of an honest wiow," etc.] 
 
NOTE ON THE HISTORY OF VOLUNTARYISM. 355 
 
 prevails very generally in that body, as in most other denomina- 
 tions of English Nonconformists. In Scotland, in the eighteenth 
 century, Glass and others propounded Voluntary doctrines. They 
 liad not, however, much success among Presbyterians until, in 
 the beginning of the present century, they were taken up by the 
 Seceders. The Voluntary theory has never been embodied in 
 the public standards of any Christian Church. 
 
 The history of Voluntaryism in our own country is a some- 
 what remarkable one. In 1733 the Secessionists came out on the 
 very highest Establishment principles, believing that tliey carried 
 these principles with them in a higher and purer form than that 
 in which they were held in the Established Church of Scotland, 
 and seceding on the ground of the abandonment of these prin- 
 ciples, along with other acts of defection by that Church. The 
 immediate occasion of the first Secession, as the younger Dr. 
 M'Crie remarks in his Life of his father, was the tyrannical and 
 unjustifiable conduct of the ISIoderate party which had now risen 
 to power in the Church Courts, and more especially their enforcing 
 of the obnoxious and unconstitutional law of patronage ; but the 
 real object of Ebenezer Erskine and his associates was to assert 
 and vindicate the ancient constitutional principles of the Scottish 
 Church. "The Original Seceders identified themselves with the 
 Church of Scotland as she existed in her purer days, particularly 
 during the period of the second Reformation, between 1638 and 
 1650. On this era, distinguished as that of the Solemn League 
 and Covenant, they took up their ground, and planted the banner 
 of their testimony. They not only espoused the principles of the 
 Covenanters during that period, and of the great body of them 
 during the bloody persecution which followed, but were them- 
 selves Covenanters, being the only religious body in the country 
 who renewed the national Covenants in a bond suited to their 
 circumstances, and thus practically recognised their obligation as 
 national deeds on posterity. In short, they appeared as a part 
 of the Church of Scotland, adhering to her reformed constitution, 
 testifying against the injuries it had received, seeking the redress 
 of these, and pleading for the revival of a Keformation attained 
 according to the Word of God in a former period, approved by 
 every authority in the land, and ratified by solemn vows to the 
 Most High."^ 
 
 1 M'Crie, Unit>f of the Church, Edin. 1821, p. 118. 
 
35 G APPENDIX C. 
 
 From this account it will be seen that the characteristic feature 
 of the profession made by Seceders, — that, indeed, which distin- 
 guished it from the profession of the Eelief, and similar bodies, — 
 was its nationality. To say that they were friendly to the prin- 
 ciple of national religion, is to say nothing ; this was, in fact, the 
 discriminating principle of their association. The whole scheme 
 of reformation for which they contended was in its form national. 
 The moment this principle was abandoned, the main design of the 
 Secession, as an ecclesiastical movement, was lost sight of ; when 
 the opposite principle was embraced, that design was reversed.^ 
 
 The first symptoms of hostility to Church Establishments as 
 such began to show themselves among the descendants of the 
 Original Seceders towards the end of the eighteenth century, at a 
 time w'hen the influences of the French Revolution were telling 
 powerfully in many quarters, and wild views of liberty were afloat 
 in the country. Voluntary sentiments took shape gradually in 
 the Secession Church. They came to a head in the early years 
 of the present century. In 1804 the Associate Synod erected 
 into a term of communion a new " Narrative and Testimony," in 
 which their old position as regards national religion and the 
 lawfulness of Church Establishments was abandoned, and those 
 who dissented from it were forbidden, " either from the pulpit or 
 the press, to impugn or oppose the principles stated by the Synod." 
 In 1806, because of their opposition to this change. Dr. M'Crie, 
 Professor Bruce of Whitburn, and Mr. Aitken of Kirriemuir, 
 were deposed from the office of the ministry in the Secession 
 Church. This called forth Dr. M'Crie's Statement of the Dif- 
 ference betioeen the Profession of the Reformed Church of Scotland 
 as adopted hy Seceders, and the Profession contained in the neio 
 Testimony and other Acts lately adopted by the General Associate 
 Synod, particidarly on the Power of Civil Magisto^ates respecting 
 Religion, National Reformation, National Churches, and National 
 Covenants, — a work wdiich may be regarded as, on the whole, the 
 most masterly discussion of the question of civil establishments in 
 existence.^ 
 
 The expulsion of Dr. M'Crie, and those who along with him 
 
 1 Life of Dr. M'Crie, Ediu. 1840, pp. 42 f. M'Crie, Statement, Edin. 
 1807, pp. 77-108. [Morren, Annals of the General Assemhhj, Edin. 1838, pp. 
 1-10. Gib, The Present Truth : a Display of the Secession Testimony, Edin. 
 1774.] 
 
 2 Life of Dr. M'Crie, pp. 41-146, 438-447. 
 
NOTE ON THE HISTORY OF VOLUNTARYISM. 357 
 
 formed the Constitutional Presbytery, or "Old Light" body, re- 
 moved all check on the spread of the principles, against which 
 they had protested in the Secession Church. Voluntaryism grew 
 apace among Scottish Nonconformists, until at length Wardlaw, 
 ^Marshall, and others took up the position, that " persecution was 
 involved in the very principle of an establishment," and that "the 
 State, as such, had nothing to do with religion." A notable point 
 in the controversy, excited by these doctrines, is marked by the 
 lectures on Church Establishments, delivered by Dr. Chalmers 
 in the Hanover Square Rooms, London, in the spring of 1838. 
 They were replied to, on the Voluntary side, by Dr. Wardlaw, 
 who read a series of counter lectures on the same subject in Lon- 
 don next year, at the request of the "Three Denominations of 
 Protestant Dissenters in London." 
 
 A very general recoil has taken place of late among the ad- 
 lierents of the Voluntary theory, from the extreme views put 
 forth by some of its most eminent defenders respecting the civil 
 magistrate's relation to religion and the Church. Dr. Lindsay 
 Alexander, for example, in his biography of Wardlaw, dissents 
 from his position on this question in a very marked way. " What 
 Dr. Wardlaw has written on the subject of the civil magistrate's 
 office in relation to religion," he says, referring to his lectures in 
 reply to Dr. Chalmers, " is by no means equal to the other parts 
 of this volume. The conclusion at which he arrives is the extreme 
 one of Voluntaryism — viz. that ' the true and legitimate province 
 of the magistrate in regard to religion is to have no province at 
 all,^ — a conclusion so startling and unwelcome that it had need 
 to be founded on very cogent reasons to command our assent. 
 On what grounds, then, has Dr. Wardlaw rested this conclusion ? 
 In the jfirst instance, on the assertion that Scripture has confined 
 the magistrate's functions within the sphere of civil matters. But 
 has not the lecturer stumbled here at the very threshold ? If the 
 magistrate have no province in regard to religion at all, with what 
 consistency can he be appealed to the Bible, the standard of re- 
 ligious truth and duty, to determine what his proper province is ? 
 Or, if he may be summoned legitimately, as a magistrate, to learn 
 his functions from the Bible, how can it be justly said that he has 
 nothing whatever, as a magistrate, to do with religion? 
 
 " But, waiving this, let us come to the question, AVhat saith the 
 Bible in regard to the functions of the civil magistrate? On this 
 
358 APPENDIX C. 
 
 point Dr. Wardlaw is far from being explicit. He asserts the 
 incompetency of the civil magistrate to decide for his subjects 
 what is religious truth, and constantly affirms that all that is 
 properly religious lies between God and the conscience. I pre- 
 sume that no modern advocate of civil establishments of rehgion 
 will deny or question either of these positions. All he will plead 
 for is, that the magistrate may lawfully, for the great ends of 
 civil government, provide the means of religiously educating the 
 people — a claim which neither interferes between the conscience 
 of the people and God, nor assumes to determine for the people 
 what is truth in religion. It would not be fair to represent men 
 of Dr. Chalmers's way of thinking on this subject, as if they con- 
 tended for the right of magistrates to compel men to believe, or 
 pretend to believe, a given set of dogmas, when all they assert 
 is the right of the magistrate to make provision for the religious 
 instruction of the community, leaving it free to all to accept that 
 instruction or not, as they please. On this point, I frankly con- 
 fess I cannot see how the negative can be maintained, as an ab- 
 stract general proposition, without reducing the functions of the 
 civil magistrate to those of a mere policeman, set up to enforce 
 the will of the majority. If governments are to proceed on the 
 recognition of moral distinctions, if they are bound to enact only 
 what is consistent with moral truth, if, above all, they are to 
 receive and obey the Bible, and recognise its declarations in their 
 enactments, then they not only have a province in regard to 
 religion, but it very greatly concerns them that their subjects 
 should be instructed in those principles which can alone enable 
 them to appreciate aright such legislation. Moreover, if govern- 
 ment is to be regarded in the light of a trust reposed in the hands 
 of the magistrate for the welfare of the community — not merely 
 their protection from robbery and wrong, but their welfare in the 
 healthy development of all their faculties of social improvement — 
 it is surely most unreasonable absolutely to forbid the magistrate 
 to use the only means by which such a result can be certainly 
 attained. Of all tyranny, the most exorbitant is that which ties 
 a man to an end, but refuses to him the means by which alone 
 that can be reached — not only commanding him to make bricks 
 without supplying him with straw, but forbidding him to use the 
 straw even when he has managed to procure it. Of this worse 
 than Egyptian tyranny are those, theoretically, guilty, who would 
 
NOTE ON THE HISTORY OF VOLUNTARYISM. 359 
 
 bind tlie magistrate to secure the order and well-being of the 
 community, and yet forbid him, under any circumstances, to pro- 
 vide that education by which alone this end can be effectually 
 secured. 
 
 " It is usual with those who take the extreme views adopted by 
 Dr. "NVardlaw, to lay stress on the question, .Who is to determine 
 what is to be taught for religious ti'uth to the community ? 
 There i.s, no doubt, a difficulty here ; but it is one which surely 
 has been immensely exaggerated, both theoretically and practi- 
 cally. In this country the omniscience of Parliament is as much 
 a principle of government as its omnipotence, — in the modified 
 sense, of course, in which alone such language can be used of 
 any human institution. We proceed continually on the assump- 
 tion that there is nothing on which Parliament may not arrive 
 at full and accurate knowledge. On all questions of science, 
 of art, of business, of diplomacy, of warfare, — on questions of 
 medicine and metallurgy, of engineering and education, of manu- 
 facture and painting, — on every subject, in short, that concerns 
 the welfare of the community. Parliament is continually called 
 to pronounce decisions involving the assumption of all but in- 
 fallible capacity for determining the truth. It will not be easy 
 to show why a body, in whose powers of ascertaining truth in all 
 other departments of knowledge the community implicitly con- 
 fides, should be pronounced helplessly incompetent in the depart- 
 ment of theological truth. It is no doubt possible that Parliament 
 may err in the opinions it may authorize to be taught to the 
 people ; but the probability of this is not so great as to render it 
 incompetent for Parliament to make the attempt ; and if liberty 
 be left to all who choose to dissent from the opinions taught 
 by the Government teachers, every freedom seems to be secured 
 to the community, which, on grounds of general policy, can be 
 required. 
 
 "The only secure and consistent line of argument on this subject 
 seems to be that of those who admit that the magistrate, as such, 
 has to do with religion ; who, on the ground of this, summon him 
 to the Bible, that he may learn there what true religion is, and 
 what he may legitimately do in regard to its interests ; who admit 
 his obligations to provide for the moral and religious education of 
 the community ; but who stipulate that, as in this the Bible is 
 his authority, so he shall scrupulously refrain from infringing 
 
360 APPENDIX C. 
 
 upon any of its prescriptions, or on any of tlie rights conferred 
 by it on the people of Christ, in the scheme and apparatus of 
 religious education he sets to work." ^ 
 
 It is evident that there is a very marked and important differ- 
 ence between these views as to the province of the civil magistrate 
 regarding religion, and those which deny him any province at 
 all in that respect, even although Dr. Wardlaw's distinguished 
 biographer still objects to Church Establishments on various 
 grounds. The majority of modern Voluntaries seem in substance 
 to hold Dr. Alexander s position, — a position very much sounder, 
 and in many respects more tenable, than that of Dr. Wardlaw, 
 but one which can hardly be said to be logically compatible with 
 Voluntaryism at all. 
 
 1 Alexander, Memoirs of Dr. Wardlaw, Edin. 1856, pp. 383-386. 
 
CHURCH AND STATE. 3G1 
 
 171. 
 EXTRACTS FROM ARTICLE ON CHURCH AND STATE. 
 
 ' Counection between Civil and Religious Liberty — Things Civil and 
 Spiritual known to English Law — Civil Interests affected by Spiritual 
 Proceedings — Remedy in Cases of Civil Wrong — Independence of the 
 •Church not founded on Contract.' — North British Review, No. Ixiv. 6. 
 
 [After referring to the three great types, to one or other of 
 which all existing or past examples of the connection between 
 Church and State may be ultimately reduced, — the Ultramon- 
 tane, the Erastian, and that which exhibits " a co-ordination of 
 powers with a mutual subordination of persons," — the author 
 proceeds : — ] 
 
 The notion of the identity of the spiritual and temporal 
 powers, or at least the practical denial of their separate and 
 essential independence, has been exemplified in various Avays. 
 In times before the introduction of Christianity, and in our own 
 day among nations where Christianity is unknown, we very com- 
 monly see the king and the priest to be one and the same person ; 
 and because usually he is much more of the king than the priest, 
 and because the civil element throughout the nation is more largely 
 developed than the religious, the temporal power lords it over the 
 spiritual. But a similar result may be brought about in a Chris- 
 tian nation by a process somewhat different. Among a pro- 
 fessedly Christian people, where the subjects of the commonwealth 
 are, to a large extent, numerically identical with the members of 
 the Church, and where the laws of the State are more or less bor- 
 rowed from Christianity, there is a danger that the real difference 
 between Church and State may be overlooked, from the idea that 
 they are merged into each other, and that tlie two are become 
 virtually one. 
 
 [The theories of Hooker, Arnold, and ^Yarburton are then 
 referred to as exemplifying this, and alike proceeding on the 
 
362 APPENDIX D. 
 
 fundamental assumption, " that it is possible, without destroying 
 the proper idea of the Church on the one hand, or of the State on 
 the other, more or less to identify them in their nature, functions, 
 authority, or objects ; as if it were competent for the State to do 
 the work of the Church, or the Church to do the work of the 
 State." — See above, vol. i. pp. 107-111.] 
 
 Nor is the fundamental idea different when the opposite 
 extreme is asserted, and the State is subordinated to the Church. 
 The Komanist theory of the supremacy of the spiritual over the 
 temporal, whether advocated in the shape of a direct authority or 
 an indirect, ultimately rests upon the same doctrine, that they are 
 one and not distinct powers, at least in respect of the sphere that 
 they occupy, and the jurisdiction they possess. The superiority 
 claimed by the Church over the State is a superiority in authority 
 employed about the same matters, and dealing with the same 
 persons or things ; it is the assertion of a right on the part of the 
 spiritual body to control the civil magistrate in civil functions in the 
 same way, or to the same effect, that he himself exercises control 
 over his inferior agents in the State ; and it can be logically de- 
 fended on no other supposition than tlie pretence that the Church 
 originally possesses, or subsequently acquires, an office and juris- 
 diction the same in kind as those which the State exercises in 
 temporal concerns. To the extent, then, that such supremacy is 
 assei'ted by the Church, it is a claim to the possession of the same 
 sort of power that belongs to the State, but in higher degree than 
 the State enjoys it, — the spiritual society thus taking to itself the 
 office of the political, and borrowing its character when convert- 
 ing spiritual sentences into civil penalties, or giving to excommu- 
 nication the force and effect of a temporal punishment. It is not 
 necessary, on this theory, that the Church, as supreme over all 
 persons and causes, should employ the same agency for doing its 
 temporal behests as for doing its religious duties ; it may com- 
 mission civil officers for the one description of work, and eccle- 
 siastical officers for the other ; it may have its orders of secular 
 agents distinct from its orders of religious servants. But they 
 are servants equally of the same master. The duties they per- 
 form are done in the name of the one authority that holds in its 
 hand both the spiritual and the temporal supremacy ; and the 
 departments in which they labour, whether in sacred or secular 
 offices, are not essentially separate or distinct, but are merged 
 
CHURCH AND STATE. 303 
 
 together under the unity of one common and ultimate jurisdiction. 
 The doctrine of tlio subordination of the State to the Church, 
 and the opposite extreme of the subordination of the Church to 
 the State, alike proceed on the idea that their peculiar powers 
 and functions may be accounted of the same kind, or in reality 
 identified. 
 
 But, can this theory of the essential identity or sameness of 
 Church and State, in their nature and functions, find countenance 
 or support in Scripture principle, or reason, or experience ? or 
 is it not expressly and conclusively disowned by them all? Is it 
 possible, on the one hand, without the sacrifice to that extent of 
 the true idea of a Church, to conceive of it borrowing or usurping 
 the compulsory powers that belong to the State, and employing 
 them for the purpose of establishing a particular religious creed, 
 or enforcing the order of Divine worship, or giving to its spiritual 
 decisions command over the conscience and heart ? or is it pos- 
 sible, on the other hand, without the sacrifice to that extent of 
 the true idea of a civil government, to imagine it clothing itself 
 with the character of a Church, and using the spiritual machinery 
 of persuasion and instruction and admonition, in order to punish 
 crime and protect property, or to enforce the national arrange- 
 ments for internal taxation, or for defence against foreign attack? 
 Do the objects contemplated by a Christian Church admit of 
 their being accomplished and secured by any power or authority 
 similar to that which is proper to the State? or do ends which 
 the State has in view suggest or allow the use of authority iden- 
 tical with that which the Church employs, to tell with effect on 
 the understandings and consciences of men in their relation to 
 spiritual things ? 
 
 "We are advocating no narrow theory of civil government, as 
 if it had nothing to do with anything beyond the secular relations 
 of life, and had no interest or office in what concerns man in a 
 higher capacity. We believe that there can be no sound view of 
 political government which restricts it to the care of man's body 
 and bodily wants, and does not assign to it a wider sphere, as 
 charged in a certain sense Avith the advancement of human well- 
 being, in its moral as well as its material interests. But still there 
 can be no doubt that the State was instituted, in the first instance, 
 for other purposes than that of promoting the Christian and spiri- 
 tual good of its subjects ; and that however much the acts of 
 
364 APPENDIX D. 
 
 government, if wisely shaped, may be fitted, and even intended, 
 indirectly to advance that object, yet, in its first and essential 
 character, it is an ordinance for civil, and not for religious objects. 
 As little would we assert that it is necessary to regard the spiri- 
 tual society as strictly limited to the one object of seeking the 
 Christian well-being of its members, and as sublimely indifferent 
 to all that affects their temporal or social condition. There are 
 blessings even belonging to this life which the Church can scatter 
 in its way, even while we hold that the first and distinctive object 
 for which it was established is to declare to men the promise of the 
 life that is to come. In the case of the State, it may indirectly, 
 and by the use of its proper power as a State, promote to no in- 
 considerable extent those moral and religious ends which it is the 
 Church's distinctive duty to work out ; but still political govern- 
 ment is a civil institute, and not a spiritual. In the case of the 
 Church, it may, by the indirect influence which it puts forth upon 
 society, become the right hand of the civil magistrate in repress- 
 ing wrong, and the best instrument for advancing the temporal 
 prosperity of the State; but still it is a spiritual ordinance, and not 
 a civil. It is impossible for the State to do the work of the Church; 
 nor is this its primary object. It is equally impossible for the 
 Church to do the work of the State ; nor can this be alleged to be 
 its design, except in a very secondary and subordinate sense. 
 
 In arguing for the original and essential distinction between 
 Church and State in their primary character and functions, we 
 do not feel at all embarrassed in our argument by the position, 
 which we believe to be defensible on grounds both of reason and 
 Scripture, that there can, and ought to be, a friendly connection 
 between the two. It were beside our present purpose to enter 
 upon the question of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of civil estab- 
 lishments of religion. But this much we may say, that no intelli- 
 gent advocate of the lawfulness of such connection will ever seek 
 to rest his argument on the denial of the orifjinal and essential 
 independence of Church and State, or the possibility of a partial 
 surrender of it on either side. On the contrary, the Scriptural 
 alliance of the spiritual and civil powers is possible, only because 
 they are originally and unalterably different. If the Church and 
 State could properly be identified or merged into each other, there 
 could be no such thing as an alliance, rightly so called. It is 
 because they are different in their primary characters, in the pro- 
 
CHURCH AND STATE. 365 
 
 vinces that tliey occupy, in the powers wliich they administer, in 
 the membership that belongs to them, tliat they can unite without 
 confusion, and be allied without danger to each other. To use 
 a form of words, better known in the controversies of other days 
 than of our own, there is much which the civil magistrate may do 
 " circa sacra," without involving him in the charge of interfering 
 " in sacris," — much that he may do, when in friendly alliance with 
 the ecclesiastical society, to promote its spiritual objects, while he 
 is in no way departing from his own sphere as the minister of the 
 State, or assuming the character or powers that belong to the 
 Church. But to whatever extent the State may go in thus aiding 
 the objects and furthering the views of the Church, any alliance 
 between them, when contracted on Scriptural terms, presupposes 
 that the parties to it are, in the first instance, independent and 
 distinct. It is founded on the idea that the two societies that 
 enter into connection are alike possessed previously of powers of 
 separate existence and action, — each complete within itself for its 
 own purposes and objects, and sovereign in the ordering of its 
 affairs ; and each capable of acting apart as well as in concert, 
 and only consenting to be allied on terms that do not compromise, 
 but rather acknowledge, their independence. The advocates of 
 civil establishments of religion, so far from being called upon by 
 the necessity of their argument to admit the essential identity 
 of Church and State, can never truly or rightly state it without 
 laying down the proposition that the two are fundamentally and 
 unchangeably unlike. It is only two societies self-acting and self- 
 governed between whom it is possible that an alliance should be 
 entered into at all ; and it is only two societies having powers 
 unlike, occupying departments unlike, and dealing with matters 
 unlike, between whom it is possible that an alliance should be 
 entered into safely. 
 
 The doctrine, then, that the State is bound to promote the 
 general well-being of man, moral as well as material, and that the 
 Church cannot be indifferent, amid the higher interests committed 
 to it, of his civil and social rights, does by no means involve the 
 conclusion of the sameness in nature and function of the civil and 
 spiritual powers. Neither does the further doctrine of the law- 
 fulness of some kind of alliance between the two imply, that in 
 entering into connection, any one of them abandons its own per- 
 sonal or corporate identity, and becomes lost in the other. 
 
3GG APPENDIX D. 
 
 But what is the hght that Scripture casts on this sameness or 
 diversity of Church and State ? Does it afford any justification 
 of the theory, that the Church is nothing other than the State 
 acting in the matter of rehgion, or the State nothing other than 
 the instrument of the Church, ruhng in civil as well as spiritual 
 affairs ? Is there any warrant from such a quarter for saying that 
 the Church is no more than one department or organ of the State, 
 limited to a special class of State duties and objects, or that the 
 State is but one amid the orders of ecclesiastical servants, to do the 
 bidding of the Church with a view to Church ends ? On the 
 contrary, we have Scriptural authority for asserting that the Church 
 and the State differ in all that can make them two societies, and 
 not one, being fundamentally and unalterably distinct even in a 
 Christian community, and in the case of a friendly alliance. They 
 differ in their origin, in their membership, in their powers, and in 
 tlie matters with which they have to deal. 
 
 They differ in their origin, — a truth illustrated historically, in 
 the fact that civil government, in one form or other, has always 
 existed, whether the Christian Church was known or unknown, and 
 has been acknowledged to be valid and lawful among all nations, 
 whether Cliristian or not ; and a truth founded on the general 
 principle, that the one is an ordinance of nature, and the other 
 an ordination of grace, — the one the appointment of God as the 
 universal Sovereign, the other the appointment of God as Medi- 
 ator, or the special Ruler and Head of His own people. Whether 
 the community be Christianized or not, civil government is a 
 natural ordinance, not dependent for its power or validity on the 
 religion of ruler or subject, and not more binding in a nation of 
 Christians than in one ignorant of Christianity ; and hence it is 
 that " difference of religion does not make void the magistrate's 
 office," — presenting in this respect a contrast to the ruling power 
 in the Christian Church, which is only binding within the circle 
 of those who have voluntarily submitted themselves as professing 
 Christians to its jurisdiction. 
 
 They differ in respect of their members, — a fact exemplified 
 most palpably in the case of a State ignorant of Christianity, or 
 liostile to it ; where the Christian Church consists of a society of 
 individuals, perhaps small in number in comparison with the rest 
 of the nation, — persecuted by the magistrate, or, at best, only 
 tolerated as a necessary evil, detached from the general com- 
 
CHURCH AND STATE. 367 
 
 numity, and acting apart ; but not less really true in the instance 
 of a Christianized State, within whose borders all, or nearly all, 
 conform to a profession of the national faith. Even in those 
 cases in which the Church becomes co-extensive wdth the common- 
 wealth — and the two may be regarded as almost numerically one 
 — the distinction between the citizen and the Christian, the member 
 of the Church and the subject of the State, is never lost, and 
 cannot be disregarded. The conditions of membership in the 
 two societies are fundamentally unlike. A man may be an outlaw 
 from civil society, or suffer for treason to the State, who is yet 
 welcomed to the privileges of the Church, and reverenced not 
 only as a member, but as a martyr here ; and a man excommuni- 
 cated by the spiritual powers may suffer no loss in his rights as a 
 citizen. It is not in his character as a subject of the common 
 wealth, but in his capacity as a professing Christian, that a man 
 becomes a member of the spiritual association ; and his rights 
 then give him no title to political privileges, and no protection 
 from the consequences of the legal forfeiture of the status and 
 immunities of civil life. Two societies constituted upon conditions 
 of membership so dissimilar, cannot themselves be alike, but must 
 remain essentially distinct, even when approaching most nearly to 
 numerical identity. 
 
 They differ in respect of the poioers they possess and employ 
 to effect their objects. Here, too, there is a contrast between 
 them that admits of no reconciliation. To the civil government 
 belongs the power of the sword, or the prerogative of capital 
 punishment, involving in it a right to employ all those lesser 
 penalties affecting the person or property or temporal rights of 
 men which are included under the greater, and which in their 
 varied measure and severity are all necessary, and not more than 
 sufficient, to secure the order and peace and well-being of civil 
 life. To the religious society belong, on the contrary, the weapons 
 of a warfare, not carnal but spiritual, — the armoury supplied by 
 truth and right, the obligations of conscience, and the fear of God, 
 — the power that is found in a sense of duty to be done, and wrong 
 to be avoided, — the influence that springs from spiritual instruction 
 and persuasion and censure, — the force that there is in the doctrine 
 of a world to come, — the command over the understanding and 
 hearts of men that is given by speaking to them in the name of 
 Heaven, even under the limitation of speaking nothing but what 
 
368 APPENDIX D. 
 
 Heaven has revealed, — the mighty authority to bhid and loose the 
 springs of life and action in the human heart, by appealing to its 
 feelings in the word of an ambassador for Christ, even while 
 rendering to all the liberty which the Bereans claimed of asking 
 at His own Word, whether these things be so or not. Powers 
 so different and so strongly contrasted cannot reside in the same 
 governing body, without neutralizing each other. The one ends 
 where the other begins ; the same hand at the same moment 
 cannot grasp the twofold prerogative ; the Church, without the 
 sacrifice of its character and influence as a Church, cannot arrogate 
 the powers of the State, and the State, without foregoing to that 
 extent its position and action as a State, cannot enter upon the 
 functions of the Church. 
 
 They differ in regard to the matters with which they have 
 to deal. Here, likewise, there is a separation between the body 
 spiritual and the body political, which forbids approximation. 
 The objects immediately and directly contemplated by the State, 
 in the proper exercise of its coercive authority, terminate in the 
 present life, and are bounded by that earthly range which fences 
 the territory of the civil ruler when he deals with the administra- 
 tion of justice between man and man, the preservation of peace 
 and social order, the advancement of public morals, the security 
 of person and property and temporal right. Whatever indirectly 
 a Christian government may feel to be within the sphere of its 
 duty or power when looking upward to higher interests, it is plain 
 that its first and distinctive ofiice is to make men good subjects, 
 and not saints ; and with that view, to employ all the civil aids 
 and instruments that secure such an end. On the other hand, 
 the direct and immediate object of the Church is the salvation of 
 souls, — the making of men not so much good citizens as true 
 Christians ; and with this aim, it has to deal, not with the lives 
 and properties, but with the understanding and consciences of its 
 members, to minister to the inward rather than to the out- 
 ward man, to regulate the motions and springs of human actions 
 within, and to turn and sway the heart out of which are the issues 
 of obedience and life. The truth of God, and the conscience of 
 man, the claims of Divine law, and the responsibilities of human 
 guilt, the ruin by sin, and the salvation of the soul by grace, — 
 these are the things with which the Christian Church is primarily 
 conversant ; and not any of those (][uestions of civil or pecuniary 
 
CHURCH AND STATE. 3G9 
 
 right, in the determination of which the magistrate of the State 
 is competent to sit as a judge or a divider. The subject-matter 
 in the one case is spiritual, involved in man's relation to God ; in 
 the other case it is temporal, belonging to his relation as a citizen 
 or member of the commonwealth. 
 
 Such, without doubt, are the grounds in Scripture principles 
 for the necessity of drawing a line of distinction, broad and deep, 
 between Church and State, and for refusing to regard them as 
 either originally one, or as capable of being subsequently iden- 
 tified. The admission of such a total distinctness, when intelli- 
 gently made and consistently carried out to its logical consequences, 
 reaches much farther than to a condemnation of the extreme 
 views on either side, that would assert that the Church is no more 
 than the religious department of the State, or the State nothing 
 other than the civil servant holding office from the Church. 
 There may be a very general acknowledgment of the Scripture 
 principles, which forbid us to regard the spiritual and temporal 
 societies as the same in themselves, or in the duties to be dis- 
 charged by them ; while, at the same time, the independent power 
 in each, to regulate its own proceedings, to apply its own rules, 
 and to govern its own members, exempt from all foreign control, 
 may not be held as involved in the acknowledgment. And yet 
 the separation between Church and State so strongly asserted in 
 Scripture can be nothing more than nominal and illusory, if it 
 admits of the one party to any extent, however inconsiderable, 
 occupying the province of the other, and stretching forth its hand 
 to control its neighbour's affairs within its neighbour's borders. 
 The distinction between them as to powers and functions must be 
 very much a distinction without a difference, if the authority of 
 the Church is to any visible effect a valid authority with the ser- 
 vants and in the proceedings of the State, or if the commands of 
 the State can carry lawful force and obligations, in however small 
 a degree, with the members of the Church, in the arrangement 
 of spiritual concerns. A line of demarcation between the terri- 
 tory of the spiritual and the temporal is no line at all, if it can be 
 crossed at any point by either party, for the purpose of taking 
 possession of ground fenced off by such boundary, for the exclu- 
 sive occupation of the other. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the principle so plainly laid down 
 in Scripture, of the entire separation between the religious and 
 
 VOL. II. 2 A 
 
370 APPENDIX D. 
 
 political societies as to the nature of their powers, and as to the 
 subject-matter of their administrations, legitimately and inevitably 
 carries with it the conclusion, not only that each is complete 
 within itself for its own work and its own objects, but also that 
 each is independent of any control not lodged within itself, and 
 brought to bear from any foreign quarter upon its internal 
 arrangements. To assert that the spiritual rulers can competently 
 exercise power in the department of the State, in the way of de- 
 priving kings of their civil estate, and absolving subjects from 
 their civil allegiance, of visiting men, by means of its sentences, 
 with civil pains or the forfeiture of civil rights, is nothing else 
 than to allege that the authority of the Church is of the same 
 kind as that which belongs to the State, and that it rightly deals, 
 not with different, but with identical matters. To assert, on the 
 other hand, that the civil magistrate must have the right of effec- 
 tive interference in the affairs of the Church, in the way of keep- 
 ing ecclesiastical courts and officers within the line of their duty, 
 and reversing and controlling their proceedings, is, in like manner, 
 nothing else than to affirm that the power of the State is of the 
 same nature with that which the Church administers, and that it 
 belongs to it to judge in the same subject-m.atter in Avhich the 
 Church is appointed to judge. An exemption on the part of the 
 State from spiritual control in the management of its own affairs, 
 is necessarily implied in the very proposition that the authority 
 which would interfere is spiritual, and that the matter interfered 
 with is not. An exemption, in like manner, on the part of the 
 Church from civil control in managing its own affairs and govern- 
 ing its own members, is necessarily involved in the veiy idea that 
 the authority pretending to regulate the Church's duties is civil, 
 and that these duties are not. 
 
 But the argument may be slightly varied. We have said that, 
 admitting the primary and indelible distinction between them, it 
 is impossible for the Church to assume authority over any depart- 
 ment of the State, and, vice versa, impossible for the State to 
 assume authority over any department of the Church ; because 
 this, in either case, would amount to an assertion that in so far 
 their powers were not different, but are one and the same. But 
 with no less truth it may be argued, that if it were possible to do 
 so, if it were possible for the civil power to surrender more or 
 less of its proper responsibilities, and for the Church to assume 
 
CHURCH AXD STATE. 371 
 
 them, or for the Church to abandon certain classes of its obliga- 
 tions, and for the civil magistrate to take them up, the result 
 would only be, that to that extent they would deny their own 
 character, and divest themselves of the peculiar functions which 
 make them what they are, — as the one the public ordinance of 
 God for tempoi'al, and the other His public ordinance for spiri- 
 tual good. By the sacrifice of its proper functions, and the con- 
 signment of them into the hands of the spiritual rulers, the State 
 would to that extent forfeit its character as a State, and assume 
 the mongrel form of a politico-ecclesiastical corporation. And no 
 less, by divesting itself of its distinctive responsibilities and duties, 
 and by abandoning them to the civil magistrate, the Church 
 would in so far renounce its claim to be accounted a Church, and 
 be contented to take up the equivocal place and character of a 
 semi-religious and semi-political society. It may be a question of 
 casuistry, not easily answered, at what time in the process by 
 which its essential features are lost or obliterated through the 
 sacrifice, one after another, of its powers of life and action, the 
 Church and the State must cease to be regarded as such. The 
 living man may suffer the amputation of limb after limb, and the 
 paralysis of member after member, from the hand of the surgeon, 
 or by disease, and live on still ; but however long the process 
 may be protracted, and the result delayed, in the end it is fatal. 
 And so it is with the body politic or spiritual. The " States of 
 the Church," in their unhappy position of incorporation with the 
 Romish See, would hardly come up to any true definition of the 
 ordinance of civil government. And there are Churches secu- 
 larized under the control of an Erastian supremacy which can 
 hardly be called the body of Christ. 
 
 "We have dealt with the question as on the footing of the 
 Scriptural distinction drawn between Church and State. But 
 this distinction rests on no positive appointment of Scripture, 
 but on a deeper foundation, apart from Scripture altogether, and 
 forces itself upon our notice and convictions independently of any 
 arbitrary definition to be found in the Word of God, — of the ordi- 
 nance of the Christian Church on the one hand, or of civil govern- 
 ment on the other. The argument, then, for the essential difference 
 and mutual independence of the spiritual and temporal powers may 
 be placed on a wider basis, and bring out in a manner more 
 unequivocal still the freedom from foreign coutrol, which neces- 
 
372 APPENDIX D. 
 
 sarlly belongs to each- when dealing with its own matters, and 
 ministering within its proper walk of duty. The lines traced 
 deeply and indelibly between the spiritual and the civil element in 
 human life, and which divide into two classes, not to be confounded, 
 what belongs to God and what belongs to Cassar, appertain to the 
 very constitution of things. They have been drawn as they are 
 drawn by the hand of nature ; and Christianity does no more 
 than adopt, as it found, them, — adding the sanction of revealed 
 authority to the light of nature, and giving clearer expression and 
 fuller effect to a distinction known before. The independence of 
 Church and State is no pet theory of divines, drawn from an 
 artificial system of theology. The difference between the kingdom 
 of God and the kingdom of the world — between the sacred and 
 secular element in human affairs — is not due to Christianity at all, 
 although it stands in bolder relief, and carries with it a more un- 
 mistakeable obligation in the teachings of Christianity. But the 
 difference itself is founded in nature ; and the universal and un- 
 dying belief in the distinction, is the instruction of natural religion, 
 even to the most untutored heart. There are but two elements 
 necessary to develop this thought in every mind — namely, a God 
 and a conscience ; a belief in a supreme moral Governor over us, 
 and in our responsibility to Him. The man who knows these 
 two truths, even though he should know little more, knows that 
 his relations to that mysterious Being are distinct from his rela- 
 tions to his fellow-men ; that his obligations to God belong to a 
 different order, and involve a different authority from any implied 
 in what is due to his superiors on earth, and that the civil 
 allegiance owing to the ruler of the people is not the spiritual 
 service to be offered to the Ruler of all. Such a man may know 
 nothing of the theory of a visible Church, and of its relations with 
 the State ; he may know nothing even of Christianity, or of any 
 teaching beyond that of nature ; he may know nothing of what 
 I'evelation has declared as to the ordinances or manner of Church 
 worship ; but he knows that he cannot render to God what it is 
 sufficient to render to Caesar, and that things spiritual are not the 
 same as things civil. What is this truth, except the very truth 
 which Christianity has developed into the doctrine of a visible 
 Church, in its faith and worship and government, distinct from 
 the kingdoms of men, and independent of their control? The 
 essential elements of the distinction are recognised by every human 
 
CHURCH AND STATE. 373 
 
 conscience, even thougli unenlightened by revelation ; the dis- 
 regard of the distinction, and in consequence the subordination 
 to man of man's relations to God, is felt to be a violation of its 
 riglits ; and with nothing short of the emancipation of the spiritual 
 element from the fetters of human control can these rights be 
 vindicated. We must go much deeper down than Christianity 
 before we can understand the foundation and warrant of the dis- 
 tinction so universally, in one shape or other, acknowledged even 
 by nations ignorant of the Bible. There are truths that have 
 their root and the source of their authority in the eternal relations 
 between the creature and the Creator. And this is one of them. 
 Christianity teaches it ; but it is older than Christianity. It is 
 the truth that grows up unbidden and irresistible in every human 
 lieart that knows that there is a God, and knows that man's 
 relations to Him are more than man's relations to his king.^ 
 
 It is not needful, then, to turn over the pages of polemical 
 theology of other days, in order that we may see the meaning 
 and be able to defend the doctrine of " the two kings and the two 
 kingdoms," which the Bible Avould set up within every Christian 
 commonwealth, — each having subjects and jurisdiction, and each 
 sovereign and free. The elements of such a theology are found 
 wherever natural religion teaches that there is a God who claims 
 to be the ruler of the human conscience, and to be the only ruler 
 there, even although the man taught darkly and imperfectly in 
 this school should know religion only as a personal thing between 
 his soul and his ]\[aker, and should never have felt its influence 
 or understood its commands, calling him to unite himself to others 
 in a society gathered out of the community at large, and uniting 
 together apart for the purpose of joint or Church worship. There 
 is a mighty interval between the complete doctrine of a visible 
 Church under Christ its Head, as taught in Scripture, and the 
 rudimentary doctrine of natural religion, which, out of the funda- 
 mental relationship of man to his Creator, educes the necessity 
 and duty of worship : but yet there underlies both the same essen- 
 tial idea of the difference between what is due to the Divine Being 
 
 1 " Neque enim cum bominibus, sed cum imo Deo negotium est conscieutiis 
 uostris. Quo peitiiiet illucl vulgare discrimen inter terrenum et couscientiaj 
 forum. Quum totus orbis deusissima ignorantiaj caligiue obvolutus esset, 
 haec tamen exigua lucis scintilla residua mansit, ut buiuauis omuibus judiciis 
 superiorem esse bomiuis couscientiam aguoscereut.'' — Calvin, Inslii. lib. iv. 
 cap. X. 5. 
 
374 APPENDIX D. 
 
 and what is clue to the civil superior. In vindicating, then, that 
 distinction, and the consequences involved in it, we can afford to 
 dispense with all those articles of theology, controversial or con- 
 troverted, by which divines, drawing from Scripture their weapons 
 of defence, have sought to explain and vindicate it. We can 
 dispense with much, if not all, that Scripture has taught as to a 
 rightly organized and fully constituted Church, standing in well- 
 defined relationship to Christ as Head, and contrasted in bold 
 relief with the kingdoms of the world. It is not necessary to 
 summon to our aid the doctrine of the Headship of Christ — the 
 keystone of any right Scripture theory of a Christian Church. 
 It is not necessary to recall the distinction betw^een the Church 
 and the civil power, as the one is founded in grace and the other 
 in nature. It is not necessary to call to our help the difference 
 between the two societies in respect of the conditions of member- 
 ship in each. All these are Scripture doctrines that directly and 
 conclusively bear on the question of the essential distinction be- 
 tween Church and State, and the inalienable independence that 
 is the prerogative of each. But, passing these, let us seize upon 
 the one idea that underlies them all — the relation of nature as 
 well as of Scripture — the dogma that all Churches take for granted, 
 and which all, whether belonging to Churches or not, believe to 
 be true — the dogma that " God alone is Lord of the conscience," 
 and that into that domain the king cannot enter ; and we have in 
 this single truth all that is necessary to enable us to draw the line 
 between what belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar, and to 
 justify the claim for Churches and for individuals of exemption 
 in spiritual things from civil control. That doctrine can stand 
 firm upon the foundation of natural religion and the universal 
 beliefs of mankind, apart altogether from the authority which it 
 justly claims as a truth of Scripture, and from any confirmation 
 it may receive from the Scripture definition of a Christian Church. 
 And that doctrine, rightly understood and appHed, is sufficient to 
 vindicate for Christian societies, not less certainly or less largely 
 than for Christian men, freedom in all that pertains to God from 
 the commandments and authority of the State. 
 
 For, after all, is not the doctrine of the independence of the 
 Church in matters spiritual but another form of the ancient 
 doctrine of liberty of conscience and the right of private judg- 
 ment ? And is not the claim on behalf of the Christian society 
 
CHURCH AND STATE. 375 
 
 to be free as regards its creed, its worship, and its order, nothing 
 more than a demand for toleration ? Upon what grounds and 
 within what limits do we claim liberty of conscience at the hands 
 of the civil magistrate in the case of individuals ? We claim it 
 because there is one department of human duty and obligation in 
 which man is primarily responsible to God, and cannot therefore, 
 in the same sense, and at the same moment, be responsible to 
 human authority. We claim it because in these matters his obe- 
 dience is forestalled, and himself the servant by prior right of 
 another Master ; and seeing that he cannot serve two masters in 
 the same walk of duty, and that he must be at liberty to obey 
 God, he ou^ht to be made free from foreio;n interference or con- 
 trol. Beneath the shelter of his previous responsibility to his 
 Maker, liberty of conscience is secured to the meanest citizen of 
 the commonwealth, not because it is a civil right due to him as a 
 citizen, but because it is a more sacred right due to him as the 
 moral and accountable creature of God. Within the sanctuary 
 set apart for worship and for duty to his Creator he can stand 
 erect before the face of earthly rulers, because the representative 
 of earthly rule may not there intrude; another has taken the 
 seat of authority, and a higher obligation decides the question of 
 obedience ; and because he is acknowledged to be, in the fii'st 
 instance, the servant of God, the ministers of the State cannot 
 bind him to their service, but rather must loose him and let him 
 go. This is the ground on which we ai'gue for liberty and right 
 to every man to inquire and believe and act in spiritual matters 
 as his own conscience, and not another's, shall dictate, — a claim 
 acknowledo;ed on all hands to be p-ood and effectual in the case of 
 individuals against civil authority, which by coercive power can- 
 not, and likewise against ecclesiastical authority, when by instruc- 
 tion and persuasion it may not, succeed in changing his conscien- 
 tious convictions. And is there one word in the plea which does 
 not apply with equal relevancy and undiminished force to the 
 case of Churches as well as individuals ? Can the argument be 
 regarded as good for each man, taken apart and by himself, in 
 his claims to liberty of conscience, and as not equally good in the 
 case of men joined together in a Christian society, and acting not 
 in their private capacity as individuals, but in their public and 
 official character as members or officers of a Church'? In this 
 latter capacity no less than in the former, as Church members 
 
376 APPENDIX D. 
 
 no less than private men, they have to deal with God ; in their 
 conjunct or public proceedings the element of conscience is equally 
 brought in ; the Church, in all departments of its duty and actings, 
 has especially, or rather exclusively, to do with those spiritual 
 matters in which its rulers and members are primarily respon- 
 sible to God, and not to man. And if conscience is a plea which 
 not only ennobles the exercise of private judgment in the humblest 
 individual, but casts over it the shield of right and law to protect 
 it against the encroachments of human power, is it not also an 
 argument sufficient to vindicate the claims of a Christian society 
 to be allowed to frame its own creed, and administer its own wor- 
 ship, and regulate its own spiritual order, without in these articles 
 being subject to State control 1 
 
 Were the Christian society dealing with questions of mere 
 expediency, in which an unlimited discretion were allowed, and 
 in which conscience, strictly speaking, had no share, it might be 
 otherwise. Were there no law to which ecclesiastical courts and 
 officers were amenable beyond their own will, — were their rules 
 and decisions to be considered right and wrong in no higher sense 
 than the resolutions of a farmer's club, or the regulations of a 
 society for mutual improvement in sacred music, or the prospec- 
 tus and by-laws of a copartnery for the manufacture of lucifer 
 matches, — were their judgments not matters of conscience, and 
 their acts not done in the name of God, it might comparatively 
 be a small matter of complaint that some authority foreign to the 
 Christian society claimed right to review and reverse them. But 
 in no aspect of them can the Church and the Church's acts be 
 regarded as set loose from the authoi'ity of conscience, and not 
 under law to Him who is its Lord. On the contrary, if we take 
 the Scripture account of the matter, we shall be constrained to 
 confess that, in its three great departments of doctrine, worship, 
 and discipline, the Church is brought into a nearer relationship 
 of responsibility to God than any other society can be ; and that 
 its organs for spiritual action and duty are, in a higher sense of 
 the words, God's ministers^ than can possibly be affirmed of the 
 agent or officers of any civil corporation in civil affairs, or of 
 private individuals in the duties of private life. In doctrine, the 
 Church can teach nothing but what God has taught, and as He 
 has taught it ; in worship, it can administer no ordinances but 
 those He has appointed, and as He has appointed them ; in dis- 
 
CHURCH AND STATE. 377 
 
 ciplinc, It can bind and loose only in Ilis name, and by His 
 authority. There is no room left, then, for the interference of 
 its own or that of others in any of its matters. Its office is 
 simply ministerial, and nothing more, charged as it is with the 
 duty, first of ascertaining, and then of carrying into effect, the 
 will of another. In nothing that the Christian society does in 
 the way of teaching truth, or administering the ordinances of 
 worship, or exercising discipline, is there any place allowed for a 
 capricious power ; it is tied up straitly, in all the conduct of its 
 affairs, to the necessity of following out its own conscientious 
 belief of what is the commandment given to it to walk by in tlie 
 particular matter w^ith which it is appointed to deal. In every 
 case, the Church is bound to carry into effect the law of its 
 Head, and not its own ; and the demand for liberty to do so, 
 without interference or constraint from without, is simply a de- 
 mand to be allowed to perform its duty to God as His law has 
 declared, and conscience has interpreted it, and nothing more. 
 
 But we may take a lower position than the Scriptural one, in 
 reference to the Church's duty, and yet the argument remain 
 substantially the same. It is not necessary for us to enter upon 
 the debateable ground of the extent to which Scripture may be 
 regarded as furnishing a law for the proceedings of the Church 
 in all its departments of duty, — in questions, for example, of 
 government and worship and discipline, as well as in questions 
 of doctrine. We can afford to dispense with the help derived 
 from what we may regard as the complete and accurate Bible 
 view of a Church of Christ. We believe that there is no prin- 
 ciple that is consistent with itself, or justified by the Word of 
 God, except the Puritan principle, that nothing is lawful within 
 the Christian society but what, directly or indirectly, is contained 
 in Scripture ; and that Scripture, in its precepts or principles or 
 precedents, furnishes a full and authoritative directory for all 
 that the Church, in its distinctive character as a Church, is called 
 upon or commanded to do in any one department of duty. It 
 is easy to see how such a doctrine exhibits the courts and office- 
 bearers of the Church, in the very peculiar light of the ministers 
 of God, commissioned and required to carry into effect His written 
 Word, in all that they do in spiritual things; and that therefore, 
 in claiming immunity from civil control in such matters, they are 
 only claiming freedom, in their official character, to administer 
 
378 APPENDIX D. 
 
 His law. But it is not necessary for the argument, to press this 
 view. We can agree to waive it. We can dispense with all 
 positions in regard to which Christian Churches, or even Chris- 
 tian men, may be found to differ. It is enough for our purpose 
 that we are allowed to stand on that common ground occupied 
 by all — namely, that the territory of the Church is a spiritual 
 territory, and its duties spiritual duties ; that the administrators 
 of the Christian society have to deal with those things of God in 
 which pre-eminently the element of conscience prevails, and that 
 in these matters their responsibility is, in the first instance, to 
 God, and only in a secondary and inferior sense to man. The 
 plea of conscience is a plea competent to every Church, in the 
 same way as to every individual, when the question is one be- 
 tween the soul and God ; and the argument is effectual against 
 the claims of authority of all, except of Him. It is not necessary 
 for us to ask, in the case of such a Church, whether, according 
 to our standard, its doctrine is orthodox, or its worship uncor- 
 rupted, or its discipline pure, before we concede to it the benefit 
 which the plea of conscience carries with it, any more than we 
 require to ask whether an individual holds Scriptural views, 
 before we accord to him the right of private judgment and the 
 advantage of toleration. Conscience may err in the case of the 
 society as well as in the case of the individual ; and yet an 
 erring conscience is to be dealt with reverently, because it has 
 rights as against a fellow-creature, although it may have no rights 
 as against God. Whatever may be their standing as to Scriptural 
 purity and attainment, Churches, unless they have renounced 
 their spiritual character, and become mere secular copartneries, 
 are entitled to plead that they deal in their proceedings with 
 matters of conscience ; and their demand to be let alone by the 
 civil magistrate, in their ecclesiastical duties, is like the claim of 
 the individual for his religious life, — a demand for nothing more 
 than spiritual freedom. 
 
 The plea of spiritual independence as regards the Church, 
 and the plea of liberty of conscience as regards the individual, 
 must stand or fall together. They are but two forms of one and 
 the same principle, and they ultimately rest on the same founda- 
 tion. Grant the right of private judgment to the individual ; 
 throw around his exercises of conscience, in regard to religious 
 truth and worship and service, the fence of toleration ; and we 
 
CHURCH AND STATE. 379 
 
 cannot conjecture even a plausible reason for denying to him the 
 same privilege when, as a Church member, he forms one of a 
 religious society, constituted for the performance of the same 
 spiritual duties. The difference between his private and official 
 character can make no difference, in the eye of right reason, for 
 a difference in the treatment of him by the State. The, in one 
 sense accidental, circumstance of his acting in concert with others 
 in a religious association, can give the civil magistrate no right of 
 interference or control which he did not possess before. Nay, is 
 not union into society of a spiritual kind similar to a Church, — a 
 necessity arising out of the fact of the toleration by the State of 
 individuals holding the same religious faith, observing the same 
 religious worship, and performing the same religious duties, — 
 more especially when one of the articles of the faith in which 
 they are tolerated is just the belief of the duty of joining together 
 as a society, for the social and public worship of God ? It is im- 
 possible not to see that the right of toleration for the one involves 
 in it the equal right of toleration for the other ; and if a society 
 for the worship and service of God is to exist at all, it must of 
 necessity have all those powers and rights which are found to 
 be necessary for the existence of every other society. It must 
 have some principles of order for the regulation of its affairs ; it 
 must have some kind of organs to express its views and to con- 
 duct its proceedings ; it must have the power of admitting and 
 excluding members. Laws, officers, and authority over its own 
 members are essential to the existence of the Christian Church, 
 even as they are essential to the existence of any organized 
 society ; and without them, no orderly community could be con- 
 stituted, or at least continue to act.^ It is not necessary to fall 
 back on the Scripture command, which makes the joint or public 
 confession of God a duty, and not a matter of option, to Chris- 
 tians. It is not necessary to have recourse to the Bible for the 
 appointment of government and rulers and discipline in the Chris- 
 tian society. All these things arise out of the very notion of 
 a number of men holding the same views of religious doctrine, 
 worship, and duty, and knit together among themselves, and 
 separated from the rest of the nation by their common profession. 
 And the toleration of all these things by the State is involved in 
 the fact of toleration of religious men at all ; the right to the 
 1 Whately's Kingdom of Christ, 4th ed. p. 92. 
 
380 APPENDIX D. 
 
 free possession and use of them by a Churcli, apart from civil 
 interference, as well as the existence of a Church itself, rests on 
 the same footing as does the liberty of conscience for the indi- 
 vidual ; and the denial of the one would lead to the denial of the 
 other also. 
 
 The intimate and indeed inseparable connection between liberty 
 of conscience in the case of the individual, and the spiritual inde- 
 pendence of Churches, can be more than established by reason- 
 ing ; it can be illustrated historically. There may be a differ- 
 ence of opinion as to whether the idea of religious liberty, as 
 applied to the individual in all the walks of spiritual life and 
 activity, has preceded, in point of time, and practically wrought 
 out, the idea of the same liberty, as applicable to Churches and 
 societies ; or whether the reverse of the process is true, and the 
 spiritual independence claimed by the Church has been the har- 
 binger and origin of individual freedom. If we take counsel of 
 theory alone, we may be ready to conclude, that the urgent craving 
 for personal rights in religious matters dictated by conscience, 
 may have given rise to the desire of the same privileges in eccle- 
 siastical societies, and have, step by step, developed itself in all 
 the relations in which man is found, and made itself to be felt in 
 his public and official, no less than in his private and individual 
 capacity. But if we examine the history of human progress and 
 civilisation, we shall find that the opposite view perhaps approxi- 
 mates more nearly to the truth, and that the separation of the 
 spiritual from the temporal society, and the doctrine of the entire 
 freedom and independence of each within its own sphere, have 
 been the bulwark of the right of private judgment, and the great 
 instrument for developing the principle and practically extending 
 the blessings of liberty of conscience. So at least the philosophic 
 statesman, who has written the history of European civilisation, 
 has interpreted its lessons. Unlike to many in the present day, 
 who can see nothing in the principle of the spiritual freedom of 
 the Church but an approach to the Popish tenet of the subordina- 
 tion of the civil to the ecclesiastical powers, Guizot can recognise 
 in it one of the prime agents in the introduction and progress of 
 liberty and right in modern Europe. Speaking of the violence 
 to which the Church, as well as society at large, was exposed 
 from the barbarians after the fall of the Koman empire, he 
 continues : " For her defence she proclaimed a principle formerly 
 
CHURCH AND STATE. 381 
 
 laid down under the empire, although more vaguely : this was 
 the separation of the spiritual from the temporal power, and their 
 reciprocal independence. It was by the aid of this principle that 
 the Church lived freely in connection with the barbarians. She 
 maintained that force could not act upon the system of creeds, 
 hopes, and religious promises — that the spiritual and the tem- 
 poral world were entirely distinct. You may at once see the 
 salutary consequence resulting from this principle. Independ- 
 ently of its temporal utility to the Church, it had this inesti- 
 mable effect of bringing about, on the foundation of right, the 
 separation of powers, and of controlling them by means of each 
 other. Moreover, in maintaining the independence of the intel- 
 lectual world, as a general thing, in its whole extent, the Church 
 prepared the way for the independence of the individual intel- 
 lectual world — the independence of thought. The Church said 
 that the system of religious creeds could not fall under the yoke 
 of force ; and each individual was led to apply to his own case 
 the language of the Church. The principle of free inquiry, of 
 liberty of individual thought, is exactly the same as that of the 
 independence of general spiritual authority with regard to tem- 
 poral power." ^ 
 
 And so has it ever been found to be in practice. The two 
 ideas have advanced or declined together. Liberty of personal 
 thought and action claimed by the member of the commonwealth 
 in opposition to arbitrary power in the State, and liberty of 
 spiritual thought and life claimed by the Church as against the 
 same, may be separated in theory, but can never be far apart in 
 the world, not of speculation, but of fact. The right of private 
 judgment belonging to the citizen can only be seen in its true 
 value and sacredness, when seen to rest on the same foundation 
 of conscience, which gives force and holiness to the Church's 
 demand for freedom in all that belongs to the relations between 
 itself and God. The plea of liberty of conscience, on the part of 
 the subject of the State, can never be asserted as it ought to be, 
 unless it be demanded as that same liberty to serve God, in virtue 
 of man's prior responsibility to Him, which the Church, in its 
 claims of spiritual independence, does nothing more than seek to 
 vindicate for itself. Both pleas rest beneath the same shield ; 
 and the security of both is found in the primary and inalienable 
 1 Guizot, History of Civilisation, Hazlitt's Trans'. Lond. 1846, vol. i. p. 99. 
 
382 APPENDIX D. 
 
 right of individuals and societies, of private men and public 
 Churches alike, to be exempted from the authority of the State, 
 in order that they may be free to obey God. And hence the 
 love of civil liberty in the breasts of a people has never burned so 
 ardently as when it has been kindled at the altar. Nations and 
 individuals have been free from the yoke of arbitrary power, and 
 have prized their freedom, very much in proportion as religious 
 liberty has flourished along with it ; and where the sacredness of 
 the latter has not been felt, and its claims have been practically 
 disregarded, there the former has never extensively, or for any 
 length of time, prevailed. The history of the long contendings 
 for freedom to the Church, both in England and Scotland, point- 
 edly illustrates this truth. Though no friend, to the Puritans, 
 and pretending no sympathy with their religious tenets, Hallam, 
 in his Constitutional History, has felt constrained to acknowledge 
 that their struggles and sacrifices in behalf of spiritual inde- 
 pendence kept alive the flame of political freedom, at a time when 
 the cause was almost lost in England, and that the Puritan con- 
 troversy has left its permanent mai'k on our national polity, in 
 the principles of right and liberty which it impressed. And the 
 same thing may be said with equal, if not greater truth, of the 
 fiercer struggle through which religious freedom was won in 
 Scotland. The actors in that struggle were unable to separate 
 between the two ideas of religious and civil independence ; their 
 controversy with the House of Stuart, begun and carried on in the 
 name of spiritual liberty, in reality embraced not less the cause 
 of political freedom ; their love to each, springing from the same 
 root of reverence for conscience, became one passion in their 
 hearts ; and while they were ready to give all for a free Church, 
 they were prepared to sacrifice only a little less for a free State. 
 " Take away the liberties of assemblies," said Knox, " and take 
 away the liberty of the evangel." But with a kindred and 
 equal ardour, Knox was the foremost to stand up in behalf of 
 the nation's freedom, and not to fear the face of man. And so 
 it was with his successors in the contest. Their banner that they 
 bore in their hands, while there was inscribed upon it, "For 
 Christ's Crown and Covenant," Avas equally an expression of 
 their hatred of civil misrule. While others conspired or mourned 
 for national liberty in secret, they publicly displayed the symbol 
 which declared that " all that is past is not forgotten, and all 
 
CHURCH AND STATE. 383 
 
 tliat is in peril is not lost." And that sign, seen upon the moun- 
 tains of Scotland, from across the sea, told to William that the 
 hour for the Revolution had come. 
 
 Nor, in advocating the doctrine of the virtually fundamental 
 sameness of the right of private judgment in individuals, and of 
 the right of spiritual independence in Churches, and of their equal 
 claim to civil recognition, are we giving a broader meaning or 
 more extensive application to the principle than the common law 
 of this country warrants. That law takes under its protection 
 the principle of conscience, as a principle available in matters of 
 worship and duty due to God, equally and in common to religious 
 bodies and to religious men. It acknowledges the distinction be- 
 tween things secular and things sacred, and the right of complete 
 independence in the latter, both in the case of societies and in that 
 of individuals, and in the same measure in both. Mr. Hallam has 
 referred to the famous case of the Corporation of London against 
 Evans, decided by Lord Mansfield in 1767, as the case which has 
 finally settled the law of toleration for this country, and fixed its 
 limits and application ; and to the opinion delivered on the occa- 
 sion by that eminent lawyer, as giving articulate and lasting ex- 
 pression to the principles of the British constitution on the point. 
 In the course of his speech. Lord Mansfield lays down the position, 
 in which all constitutional lawyers will concur, that " it cannot be 
 shown from the principles of natural and revealed religion, that, 
 independent of positive law, temporal punishments ought to be 
 inflicted for mere opinions with respect to particular modes of 
 worship ;" and that, whatever may have been the number or 
 severity of the statutes previously directed against religious views 
 or practices differing from those of the Established Church, "the 
 case is quite altered since the Act of Toleration," so that, " by that 
 Act the Dissenters are freed, not only from the pains and penalties 
 of the laws therein particularly specified, but from all ecclesiastical 
 censures, and from all penalty and punishment whatsoever, on 
 accoiint of their nonconformity, which is allowed and protected by 
 this Act, and is therefore, in the eye of the law, no longer a crime." 
 And not only does the Act of Toleration refuse to construe as a 
 crime, and to interfere with as such " mere opinions " or " modes 
 of worship," but it lends to them positive sanction, as known to 
 the constitution, and known to be as lawful in the eye of the con- 
 stitution as the opinions or modes of worship of the Established 
 
384 APPENDIX D. 
 
 Church. " The Toleration Act renders that which was illegal 
 before, now legal ; the Dissenters' way of worship is permitted and 
 allowed by this Act ; it is not only exempted from punishment, but 
 rendered innocent and lawful ; it is established, it is put under the 
 protection, and not merely the connivance of the law. In case 
 those who are appointed by law to register Dissenting places of 
 worship refuse on any pretence to do it, we must, upon applica- 
 tion, send a mandamus to compel them."^ 
 
 Two things are plain from this judicial opinion of Lord Mans- 
 field. First, it is plain that religious bodies, or Churches, stand 
 upon precisely the same footing as individuals with respect to 
 toleration by the State, the law knowing no difference between the 
 two cases. The frequent use of the expression, " modes of toor- 
 sJiiiy," "2ylcices of loorsMp^^ and so on, applicable only to societies, 
 in addition to the expression " ojnnions,'" applicable to individuals 
 as well, sufficiently establishes this. And second, it is no less plain 
 that toleration, in the view of Lord Mansfield, extends, not only to 
 that one department of the Church's affairs which comprehends 
 doctrine, or, as his expression is, " opinions," but also to the de- 
 partments of worship and order, or, as he words it, the " Dissenters' 
 way of worship." This latter point indeed is manifest from the 
 consideration that, in Lord Mansfield's day, three- fourths of the 
 Dissenters neither asked nor needed toleration for their doctrines, 
 which were identical with those of the Established Church, but 
 only for their worship, government, and discipline, in which they 
 differed. Here, then, we have a judicial recognition by this great 
 constitutional lawyer of the justice of the claim put forth by 
 Churches of all classes and denominations, that they may be tole- 
 rated in the same way as individuals in all that belongs to faith, 
 worship, and ecclesiastical order ; and that what they shall, in 
 obedience to conscience, do in this department of duty, shall not 
 be considered as unlawful, or interfered with in any way, or 
 declared null and void, because alleged to be so by the civil 
 tribunals. 
 
 But the principle on which he founds his interpretation of the 
 Toleration Act is fully as instructive as the interpretation itself. 
 All positive statutes imposing penalties in respect of religious 
 opinions or modes of worship being removed out of the way by 
 
 ^ Parliamentary History of Encjkind — Speech of Lord Mansfield iu the case 
 between the City of London and the Dissenters, 1767. 
 
CHURCH AND STATE. 385 
 
 tliG Act of Toleration, it is necessary, in order to interpret the 
 right and limits of free opinion, to fall back on those original prin- 
 ciples of right and wrong anterior to positive statute, and every- 
 where the same, — the universal practice and common jurispru- 
 dence of nations known as common law. " The eternal principles 
 of natural religion," says Lord Mansfield, " are part of the com- 
 mon law ; the essential principles of revealed religion are part of 
 the common law." So far from it being true, as is sometimes 
 alleged by the warm assertors of the prerogative of the State, 
 that it knows no difference between things temporal and things 
 sacred, between religious societies and civil corporations, between 
 Churches and trading copartneries, between the province that 
 belongs to God and that which belongs to Cffisar, that, according 
 to this eminent authority, the distinction is itself embodied in the 
 common law of England, inasmuch as the principles of natural 
 religion, of which the distinction forms a part, are so embodied ; 
 nay, if we are disposed to go beyond what natural religion may 
 teach of the distinction, and take the fundamental principles of 
 the Bible as our key to the understanding of it, we should not 
 travel beyond the limits of the British constitution, or place our 
 plea beyond its ken, for the essential principles of revealed as well 
 as of natui'al religion, according to the dictum of Lord Mansfield, 
 are part of the common law. It is impossible, then, to argue that 
 the distinction for which we contend cannot be respected in the 
 proceedings of the civil magistrate, because, however it may be 
 known to theologians, it is not known to him. It is impossible to 
 allege that, in the eye of the law. Churches have no other character 
 than have civil societies, and that the spiritual duties about which 
 the former are conversant have no other privilege than belongs 
 to the matters of temporal interest or right with which the latter 
 have to deal. The magistrate of this country knows all that 
 natural religion teaches, for its principles form part and parcel of 
 his own law. He knows much even that revelation teaches, for 
 its essential principles are no less embodied in the constitution of 
 the State. And when we speak of God and man's relation to 
 God, of conscience and the things of conscience, and say that, in 
 regard to these, individuals and societies are not under law to the 
 State, because previously under law to the Creator, we are using 
 no language strange to the constitution, and which is not strictly 
 and expressly sanctioned by the common law of the land, as a 
 
 VOL. II. 2B 
 
386 APPENDIX D. 
 
 plea applicable for the purposes of toleration to all religious deno- 
 minations and parties. A toleration founded on such principles 
 of natural religion as the constitution makes part of itself, embraces 
 all bodies of men associated together for the worship of God, 
 whether Christian or not Christian, — not being confined to those 
 societies who claim an authority flowing from Christ as Head, and 
 who are constituted on the model of that Church delineated in His 
 Word. And without repudiating the principles of the constitu- 
 tion, and running counter to common law, such societies must have 
 freedom in all tbat concerns their faith, their worship, and their 
 discipline, to act as their own conscience dictates, apart from civil 
 interference, unless one or other of two things can be made out, 
 — either, first, that the act done by the society is not bond fide a 
 spiritual act ; or, second, that the society itself avows principles 
 and favours practices so hostile to the order and well-being of the 
 State, that it cannot be tolerated at all. 
 
 Either case may possibly occur. A Church favoured by its 
 spiritual character may indulge in proceedings not spiritual. 
 Under pretence of declaring for its own purposes what is Scrip- 
 tural and unscriptural in doctrine, it may gratify private feeling 
 by branding a man as a heretic. Concealed by the cloak of a 
 zealous discharge of the duty of Divine worship, it may hold 
 secret meetings for civil, if not treasonable purposes. Under 
 colour of discipline, it may maliciously and wrongfully stain a 
 man's character, and injure both his reputation and his interests 
 in society. In such cases, the Church can no longer plead its 
 character as a spiritual body, or its right to toleration, as a bar 
 against the interference of the civil magistrate in the way of 
 reviewing its proceedings and granting redress ; for this simple 
 reason, that its proceedings have changed their character, and 
 have ceased to be spiritual. 
 
 Or a body of religionists, without, in a certain sense of the 
 words, losing their spiritual character, may hold opinions and in- 
 culcate practices hostile to public morals or the well-being of the 
 community : their creed, like that of the Jesuits, may embody 
 articles subversive of the distinctions of rifrht and wrong : or their 
 religious observances, like those of the Mormons, may be fatal to 
 the order and happiness of social life ; and conscience, familiar- 
 ized to the evil, may teach its members that they are doing God 
 service. In such extreme cases it must become a question with 
 
CHURCH AND STATE. 387 
 
 tlie rulers of the State, whether it is possible to extend to them 
 the benefits of toleration at all, or whether it is not rather neces- 
 sary to fall back on the last resort of nations as of Churches, to 
 expel from among them the offending members. The limits of 
 toleration is a question for rulers, which it is as difficult to solve as 
 the parallel question for the people, of the limits of obedience. 
 But if the right of resistance is one which the people should 
 seldom remember, and which princes should never forget, the 
 right of refusing toleration is also one which Churches cannot 
 question, even although tlie State ought to be slow in seeking an 
 occasion to exercise it. But short of those extreme cases of so- 
 called religious societies, which by their teaching or by their 
 practice compel the State, in self-defence, to deny to them the 
 right of toleration altogether, there can be no justification for 
 the interference of the civil power with spiritual societies when 
 dealing with spiritual affairs. If the freedom of any Church in 
 Divine worship and discipline ought not to be permitted apart 
 from civil control, the only consistent alternative to assert is, that 
 such a Church ought not to be tolerated at all. The State may 
 consistently put it beyond the pale of the Act of Toleration, if its 
 character or practice so demand ; but the State cannot consistently 
 tolerate a Church, and at the same time repudiate it in the exer- 
 cise of its essential and distinctive functions. 
 
 Taking the law as it has been authoritatively interpreted and 
 settled by the decision of Lord Mansfield, there are two points to 
 be inquired into before the civil ruler is at liberty to interfere 
 w^ith alleged wrongs done by a religious body in name of a 
 Church. 
 
 lie may properly ask : 7s this a Church coming within the 
 meaning and intention of the State, when, after full considera- 
 tion of what was safe for itself, or right for its people, it framed 
 the Act which defined what bodies ought and what ought not to 
 be so accounted, and therefore to be recognised and tolerated, or 
 the reverse ? It were absurd to allege that any number of men 
 calling themselves a Church, and claiming its privileges, are 
 entitled, without inquiry, to be held to be such. In the provi- 
 sions of the Act of AVilliam and Mary, the State reserves to itself 
 the means and the power of deciding this question as to each 
 individual case, by enacting that every religious body or place of 
 worship that may seek to avail itself of the benefits of toleration 
 
388 APPENDIX D. 
 
 shall be duly registered by parties appointed by law for the pur- 
 pose, and that the doors of such place of worship shall be open 
 to the State or its servants. Such provisions w^ere obviously 
 designed to furnish to the State those means of information with 
 respect to the character and proceedings of the body tolerated, 
 as might enable it to decide for its own purposes whether the 
 privilege should be continued or withdrawn. Independently, 
 indeed, of positive statute, it seems to be implied in the very 
 nature of the State, as the ordinance of God for the security and 
 advancement of the temporal well-being of its subjects, that it 
 has a right to make itself acquainted with the character of any 
 society of whatever kind within its borders ; and for that end is 
 entitled to be present at its meetings, aijd to be cognisant of its 
 transactions. Secret societies are, in their very nature, dangerous 
 and unconstitutional ; and upon this ground, were there no other, 
 a public declaration of the faith taught, and the order observed, 
 and the rights claimed by every religious body, such as creeds and 
 confessions of faith furnish in the case of Churches, might be 
 defended as in fact necessary and indispensable, in one shape or 
 other, for the information of the State and the protection of the 
 community. But in whatever way or form the information may 
 be obtained, the civil magistrate has a right to know and be 
 satisfied that the Church which claims toleration at his hands is 
 in truth what it imports to be, — a^ spiritual society in reality, and 
 not in pretence. 
 
 But there is a second question which he may ask, and it is 
 this : Are the proceedings of the Church brought under his notice 
 properly to be referred to the class of spiritual things, and is the 
 subject-matter of them such as to place them beyond the cog- 
 nisance of a civil tribunal ? To answer this further question, it 
 may be necessary for him to inquire, not only into the character 
 of the body whose proceedings they are, but also into the occasion, 
 the circumstances, and the nature of the proceedings themselves, 
 lest, through haste, or passion, or deliberate wrong intention, they 
 should cover what is in reality, not a spiritual, but a civil wrong. 
 We put aside as simply childish the argument, that because the 
 Church or its officers may unintentionally commit a wrong in 
 proceedings which are yet truJij spiritual, therefore the wrong 
 ought to be redressed by the civil courts — as if the fact that the 
 former are not infallible were any reason for asking redress from 
 
CHURCH AND STATE. 389 
 
 other parties as little infallible as themselves. In all cases of 
 courts or judges of last resort there must be the probability of 
 occasional wrong, and the certainty of no attainable human redress. 
 But when, under the colourable pretence of religious duty, the 
 Church or its officers are actuated by malice in what they do in 
 their spiritual proceedings, or when, without any malice or wrong 
 intention, the act done is, in its proper nature and effects, a civil 
 injury, then the civil tribunal may be called upon and warranted 
 to interfei'e, upon the plain ground, that the malice in the one 
 case, and the nature of the act in the other, properly bring it 
 within the range of its jurisdiction. To ascertain whether it is so 
 or not, the magistrate is entitled to demand, and the Church is 
 bound to give, all such information as to the history and circum- 
 stances of its proceedings as may be necessary to enable him to 
 construe them aright ; and the demand, and the obedience to it, 
 cannot be regarded as implying supremacy in the one party, or 
 subordination in the other, as respects spiyitual jurisdiction. 
 
 These two cases, in which the State may warrantably deny to 
 professedly religious bodies freedom in their proceedings, do not 
 form properly any exception to the doctrine of the full toleration 
 that is to be granted in spiritual matters to societies as much as 
 to individuals, inasmuch as in both cases the subject-matter with 
 which the State has to deal has ceased to be spiritual, — either 
 the society, by its doctrines and practices, having forfeited its 
 character as a Church, and become a conspiracy against the 
 safety and good of the nation, or the action done, from its motives 
 or its nature, being truly civil. And they are cases that must be 
 of very infrequent occurrence. It must be in very rare cases 
 that the State shall be called upou to judge whether a profes- 
 sedly religious society is a Church, constituted for the worship of 
 God, and not rather a conspiracy against law and order. And 
 the instances can hardly be more frequent in which a spiritual 
 society — under the check both of public opinion from without, 
 and a sense of duty within to at least as great an extent, if not 
 to a greater, than in the case of a civil court, and in which a 
 member continues under its jurisdiction only by his own volun- 
 tary act — can be betrayed into the wilful perpetration of a civil 
 injury. Looking at the restraints under which they act, such 
 trespasses into a province not their own must be still more rare 
 than the parallel and opposite error, of the encroachment by 
 
390 APPENDIX D. 
 
 civil courts upon matters spiritual. But however this may be, it 
 can be no denial of spiritual freedom, that a professedly religious 
 society that has become a mere copartnery for treason or im- 
 morality, should be dealt with as Jesuit colleges and Mormon 
 churches have been dealt with, or that the incongruous offence 
 of a civil injury done by spiritual authorities, should, like the 
 excommunication by the Pope, deposing princes and absolving 
 subjects from allegiance, be placed under the ban of the law. 
 
 Beyond these two exceptional cases, the right to toleration for 
 religious opinion, recognised in common law, covers the whole 
 territory that the independence of Churches requires. No plea 
 that the religious opinions of an individual are in themselves false 
 and unfounded, will set aside his legal right to adopt and hold 
 them, if his conscience so teaches him ; and, in like manner, no 
 plea that the proceedings or deliverance of a Church are in sub- 
 stance and upon the merits wrong, will warrant the interference 
 of civil authority, if the Church is acting within its own province, 
 and in re ecclesiasticd. 
 
 As little can the right of the civil courts to review or reverse such 
 proceedings be argued on the ground that the Church, although 
 acting within its own sphere of spiritual duty, has acted infor- 
 mally by departing from or violating its own rules of procedure. 
 Of course it cannot be imagined, and is not to be assumed, that a 
 Church will be brought to confess to having acted in any case 
 contrary to its own laws ; so that the fact on which the argument 
 is founded must always be a disputed one, and would ultimately 
 come to be a question as to whether the civil court or the Church 
 knows its own laws best. But, independently of this, the plea 
 of informality of procedure, and of a departure from right rule, 
 as a reason for calling in the interference of the civil courts in 
 spiritual matters, plainly amounts to a denial of toleration alto- 
 gether. Take the case of the individual, and what would be said 
 of the consistency or the justice of the State if it professed to 
 accord to him full freedom in regard to religious opinions, con- 
 scientiously arrived at, and yet this freedom was actually granted 
 onI>/ when his inquiries were conducted according to rules and 
 methods approved by the civil court, and his liberty of conscience 
 Avas to be denied when any departure from such rules could be 
 established against him 1 Would the argument be listened to for 
 a moment, which should assert that a man had violated the right 
 
CHURCH AND STATE. 391 
 
 forms of reasoning by reasoning wrong, or had violated the com- 
 pact with the State on which the privilege of free inquiry was 
 granted to him, by conducting his inquiries after his own errone- 
 ous fashion, and that therefore the privilege must be withdrawn ? 
 Is it not, on the contrary, essential to the very idea of toleration, 
 that, arrive at his conclusions by what road or method he may — 
 though it should be in defiance of all logic, and by a system of 
 fallacies disowned by every logician from Aristotle to Archbishop 
 Whately — he is free to adopt and hold them still ? And so it is 
 with religious societies. To concede to them independence in 
 spiritual matters, only on the condition of their deliverances being 
 reached in accordance with their own rules, as those rules are 
 interpreted by others, — to grant them freedom in regulating their 
 proceedings and pronouncing their sentences, only in the event of 
 the forms by which they walk approving themselves to the minds 
 of other parties as regular and appropriate, — is practically the 
 same thing as refusing them the privilege altogether. 
 
 Forms, no doubt, are in many instances the safeguards of 
 justice, and in all kinds of judicial procedure have been found 
 more or less necessary to secure its equal and convenient adminis- 
 tration. But in order to gain that end, they must be varied and 
 adapted to the nature and the case of the subjects and tribunals, 
 spiritual or civil, in connection with which they are used and 
 applied. The same forms of process will not be equally adapted 
 to both ; but, on the contrary, what may be found admirably fitted 
 to promote the ends of practical order and justice and truth in 
 the one, may be wholly unsuited to the other, and, in fact, pro- 
 ductive of results very much the reverse. If the ends of justice, 
 then, are to be easily and effectually attained, or indeed attained 
 at all, it must be within the power and duty of each court of in- 
 dependent authority and action to frame, interpret, and apply the 
 rules that are to regulate its own procedure, as, in fact, the only 
 party competent to vary and adapt them to the purposes contem- 
 plated ; and any interference from without would only tend to 
 defeat the object in view. But more than this. It is plain that 
 a power to set aside or cancel spiritual decisions on the ground 
 of irregularity in form, amounts, in so far as regards the practical 
 results, to a power to set them aside on the merits. It gives to 
 the party in whom such power may be vested the command of 
 the result. 
 
392 APPENDIX D. 
 
 Forms of procedure, and rules for ordering the course of deal- 
 ing with questions brought before judges for judgment, are so 
 intimately and extensively intermingled with the grounds and 
 elements of the judgment, that it is impossible to separate between 
 them ; and while this consideration is enough to show that it must, 
 from the very nature of the case, be the right of the tribunal who 
 has to decide upon the merits to decide also upon the forms of the 
 cause, it no less demonstrates the impossibility of giving to any 
 party jurisdiction over the latter, without surrendering at the same 
 time a practical power over the former. Perhaps it were too much 
 to assert that forms of process and rules for the order of business 
 even in a spiritual court are to be held in their proper character 
 to be spiritual ; but it is not too much to assert, that in so far as 
 they are necessary and conducive to the attainments of justice, 
 they are essential means towards spiritual ends ; and as a right 
 to accomplish the end must always imply a right to employ the 
 means by which it is to be accomplished, the Church's title to 
 judge in spiritual matters without civil control, must involve a 
 title to freely regulate and interpret and apply its own forms for 
 that object. 
 
 The Church whose misfortune it is to have the law of its 
 courts or officers, to a large extent, identical with the law of civil 
 tribunals, and to be amenable to their decision in applying it to 
 spiritual things, must be fettered and helpless in the discharge 
 of its proper functions, and liable to be checkmated at every step. 
 In the exercise of its power to declare for its own purposes and 
 members what is Scriptural and unscriptural in doctrine, it may 
 pronounce a man to be a heretic, and, acting on the apostolic 
 rule, may, after a first and second admonition, reject him from 
 its communion, and then be liable to the injury and humiliation 
 of having him restored to office, because of some alleged technical 
 informality in its proceedings, which was no informality at all 
 in its own judgment, or as affecting either the evidence or the 
 amount of guilt, but was only fancied to be so by a civil tri- 
 bunal, judging by a standard applicable to civil affairs. Or, in 
 the exercise of the powers of discipline, it may cut off some wicked 
 person for public and gross immorality ; and because the notice 
 of citation to the offender to answer for his offence was, in the 
 judgment of a civil judge, tw^cnty-four hours shorter than it ought 
 to have been, the Church may be compelled, under the coercion 
 
CHURCH AND STATE. 39d 
 
 of civil penalties, to receive hitn back again. The doctrine, that 
 informality of procedure in the conduct of spiritual matters by 
 a spiritual body may make void its authority, when a civil court 
 shall differ fi'om it in opinion as to what is regular or not, is fun- 
 damentally subvei'sive of its independence. If it be right and 
 necessary for the State to acknowledge the freedom of religious 
 bodies in judging of the merits of spiritual causes, it must be no 
 less right and necessary for the State to acknowledge the same 
 freedom in judging of the forms, just because the greater in- 
 cludes the less. 
 
 Nor, in asserting the incompetency of the civil courts, con- 
 sistently with the principles of toleration, to declare to be illegal, 
 and to set aside spiritual decisions, on the ground either of the 
 merits or alleged irregularity of procedure, are we forgetful of 
 the close connection that such decisions may have, or rather 
 perhaps must have, with civil interests. The spiritual and the 
 civil element are so nearly and strangely linked together in every 
 department of human affairs, that perhaps it were not possible to 
 name a single proceeding of any man that might not, in some of 
 its aspects or consequences, be regarded as civil, and in others 
 of them as spiritual. The very same fact may thus properly 
 come under the cognisance of both the spiritual and civil courts, 
 according to the view in which it is dealt with. But shall we, 
 because of this close and constant connection between spiritual 
 and civil interests, say that there is no real distinction to be 
 recognised between them, and that both may be regulated and 
 disposed of by one common governing authority residing in 
 the civil ruler or his servants ? Not so. The great fact made 
 public to the universe, of the twofold ordinance of God in His 
 Church and in the State — the one to rule the spiritual, and the 
 other to rule the temporal world of human life — is His answer 
 to the question, and His standing assertion of the distinction 
 between the things that belong to Himself, and the things that 
 belong to Ccesar. The universal belief of mankind, whether 
 Christian or heathen, that the duties within the domain of con- 
 science, and that pertain to the relations of the creature with the 
 Creator, are more than the obligations of civil life, is the testi- 
 mony of humanity to the same effect. And the law of toleration 
 embodying the distinction is a decision of the same import, pro- 
 nounced by the common jurisprudence of nations. Civil interests 
 
394 APPENDIX D. 
 
 may oftentimes be affected by spiritual acts, and, reversing the 
 proposition, spiritual interests may often be affected by acts, in 
 themselves civil ; but even when most closely connected, there is 
 a fundamental and indelible distinction between the two. It 
 cannot be said, therefore, that in the performance of spiritual 
 duties, which may in their consequences very nearly affect the 
 temporal interests of men. Churches are to be held as dealing with 
 those interests, and judging of patrimonial rights ; or as thereby 
 trespassing beyond their own province, and making their decisions 
 justly amenable to civil review. There can hardly be any pro- 
 ceeding of a religious society, however purely spiritual the act may 
 be, that may not in this way affect the civil interests of parties 
 concerned. But it must not be alleged, on that account, that the 
 proceeding is not spiritual, but civil, and subject to the cognis- 
 ance of civil tribunals. When the ecclesiastical authorities are 
 pronouncing a man to be guilty of heresy according to the stan- 
 dard which they and he have both consented to abide by, they 
 are not pronouncing any sentence as to his pecuniary interests, 
 although these, as a consequence of the proceeding, may be 
 nearly and greatly affected by it. When the same authorities 
 remove a man from an office in the ministry for public immo- 
 rahty, they are dealing with a question in re ecclesiasticd, and not 
 pretending to judge of his civil right to the emoluments that 
 happen to be connected with the office, although these may be 
 forfeited in consequence. Such indirect and consequential con- 
 nection between the spiritual act and the civil interests affected 
 by it, does not change the nature or true meaning of the 
 Church's proceedings, nor subject them to civil supervision or 
 control. Could the opposite be truly alleged, it would really 
 amount to the assertion, that no Church can exist in freedom and 
 exercise discipline at all. 
 
 Still there are civil results which follow from spiritual pro- 
 ceedings. These proceedings themselves may properly be within 
 the competency of the parties Avho are responsible for them ; they 
 may not, consistently with the principles of toleration, be liable to 
 the review of the civil courts, so as to be declared by them to be 
 illegal ; they may be beyond the reach of any authority, not 
 lodged within the Church, to cancel or set aside. But the con- 
 sequences of these may affect the pecuniary interests or the 
 character and worldly reputation of the parties concerned. Is 
 
CHURCH AND STATE. 395 
 
 tliere no redress, if from any cause these proceedings arc wrong? 
 if, from haste or misapprehension, or the involuntary infirmity 
 that marks all human transactions, the ecclesiastical decision is 
 erroneous, and leads by consequence, more or less near, to civil 
 injury ? In so far as regards the civil consequences, the party 
 affected by them may obtain redress in one or other of two 
 ways, corresponding to the character of the injuiy that he has 
 sustained. 
 
 First, There may be, and in the case of office-bearers there 
 commonly are, certain pecuniary interests or civil advantages 
 connected with the possession of office or membership in a religious 
 society, and made dependent upon such possession ; and as civil 
 courts are the proper guardians of property and other temporal 
 interests, and spiritual courts are not, it must belong to the former, 
 and not to the latter, to consider and judge of the conditions on 
 which such civil privileges are held, and to award them to the 
 party who can make good his legal claim to the possession of 
 them. The same methods competent to any other of the subjects 
 of the State to vindicate his right to patrimonial advantages, are 
 also competent to the members of the Church in respect of pecu- 
 niary interests affected by spiritual decisions. In exercising, in 
 these cases, their undoubted powers of jurisdiction, civil courts 
 may be called upon to judge of spiritual acts and sentences in so 
 far as these are conditions on which pecuniary interests depend, 
 and to determine whether in this light they do or do not carry 
 with them civil effects. They may be called upon to say whether 
 the proceedings of Church courts are good, not as spiritual sen- 
 tences, but good as legal conditions of temporal rights. To deny 
 them such a prerogative, would be to deny them their full and 
 proper jurisdiction. But it is not necessary, in order to explicate 
 that jurisdiction, that they should have a title to judge of spiritual 
 acts for any other purpose or to any other effect : the power to 
 do so — to declare them to be illegal, and to set them aside as null 
 and void — does not belong to courts of the State, and is not re- 
 quired in order to give effect to their proper decisions ; the reduc- 
 tion or cancelling of the spiritual sentence is no part of the process, 
 as means to an end, by which redress, in cases of injury to patri- 
 monial interests, is to be afforded ; and without taking upon them 
 the incongruous and incompetent task of judging what is Scriptural 
 or unscriptural in doctrine, and what is right or wrong in dis- 
 
396 APPENDIX D. 
 
 cipline, the civil courts can do all that is necessary to judge and 
 determine in regard to the civil interests that may be affected by 
 ecclesiastical proceedings. 
 
 Or, second^ apart from pecuniary interests, a man may be 
 affected in his public character, and injury done both to his feel- 
 ings and his worldly standing, in consequence of the erroneous 
 proceedings of spiritual judges. And as the courts of the State 
 are the guardians of a man's character as well as of any other 
 of his civil rights, they must have the power, no less than in the 
 former case, of granting redress when character is maliciously 
 injured. The same powers in a civil court that would secure for 
 a man compensation for a malignant and unfounded slander per- 
 petrated by a private party, will no less avail for that purpose, 
 although the Avrong should be inflicted by a spiritual court in the 
 course of spiritual proceedings. The element of malice, if proved 
 to be present in the doings of a religious body, will take the case 
 out of the protection of the ordinary privilege granted to tolerated 
 Churches in their proper discipline ; for it, strictly speaking, 
 changes the character of the transaction, and makes it to be a 
 civil offence, instead of an act of ecclesiastical discipline. But 
 even in this case, when granting to the party injured civil repara- 
 tion, it is not necessary or competent for the civil court to deal 
 with the ecclesiastical proceedings in their spiritual character, or 
 to judge of their merit or demerit in that respect. 
 
 Still more, it is ultra vires for the courts of the State to deal 
 with these proceedings when no malice is alleged, and when all 
 that is asserted amounts to this, that by the proper discipline of a 
 Church, acting within its line of duty, the feelings or character 
 of the party interested have suffered. If the power of discipline 
 is to remain with religious bodies at all, — if the simple privilege 
 not denied to any voluntary or private society, however humble, is 
 to be conceded to religious societies, of saying who shall and who 
 shall not be their members and office-bearers, — it is plain that this 
 power cannot be exercised, without in many cases bearing with 
 painful effect upon the feelings and reputation and public standing 
 of those subjected to it. But such indirect and incidental conse- 
 quences cannot properly be made a ground of action in a civil 
 court, without subjecting the whole spiritual territory of the 
 Church to civil control. In exercising the right of admitting and 
 excluding members and enforcing the terms of membership and 
 
CHURCH AND STATE. 397 
 
 office, the Church is acting strictly within the province of its re- 
 ligious duty ; and although private individuals can plead no privi- 
 lege of being exempted from responsibility in what they do if it 
 affect the character of another, yet this is a privilege which must 
 of necessity belong to Churches, if they are to be tolerated in the 
 exercise of discipline at all. In the case of private and voluntary 
 societies, indeed, the right of fixing and enforcing at their will 
 their terms of membership is exercised to an almost unlimited 
 extent, free from any legal responsibility for the consequences 
 which admission or exclusion may infer. A fashionable club, 
 admission to which is a passport to the highest society, may black- 
 ball at its pleasure any man without the risk of an action of 
 damages. A scientific society, whose membership confers fame, 
 does not hold itself legally responsible for the injury to feeling 
 and reputation inflicted by the rejection of a candidate for its 
 honours. A banking copartnery may refuse to discount a mer- 
 chant's bills, and ruin his credit in the market-place, without being 
 held accountable at law. A man may be expelled from the Stock 
 Exchange, and in (Consequence become a bankrupt in means as 
 well as reputation, and yet may have no redress in a civil court. 
 And if freedom almost unlimited is exercised in this way every 
 day by private societies not privileged by law, much more must a 
 similar freedom be granted to Christian Churches, which, if tole- 
 rated at all, r 
 as Churches. 
 
 The law, then, is open ; and competent methods of redress 
 are at hand for all who can plead that their civil rights or patri- 
 monial interests have been affected by spiritual proceedings in 
 the way of unjust loss of income or malicious injury to character. 
 But beyond these two classes of cases, raising, as they undoubtedly 
 do, questions civil, and rightly liable to civil review by the courts 
 of the State, this control can properly reach no further ; and 
 even in these cases, the spiritual proceedings of the Church cannot 
 be set aside or interfered with, even at the moment that redress 
 for civil wrong arising out of them may be liberally and justly 
 awarded. 
 
 The question of the spiritual independence of civil control 
 claimed by religious societies has sometimes been represented as a 
 case of contract between the Church on the one hand, and its 
 office-bearers and members on the other, and as if the terms of 
 
398 APPENDIX D. 
 
 the contract necessarily expressed and defined the extent and 
 Hmits of the Church's freedom. Upon this view, the hberty con- 
 ceded to spiritual societies is no more than a liberty for the mem- 
 bers to unite together under engagement to each other, and to lay 
 down their own rules for the regulation of their affairs, while 
 the power reserved to the civil courts is a power to judge of the 
 precise nature and conditions of the contract thus entered into in 
 the same way as of any other, and to allow freedom to the Church 
 in its spiritual proceedings, so long as these are in accordance 
 with the terms of the contract, and no further and no longer than 
 they are so. We believe that this is a defective and erroneous 
 view of the question. It would allow of any office-bearer or 
 member, cut off by the discipline of the Church, calling in the 
 intervention of the civil courts in every case in which a breach of 
 contract could be alleged ; and it would justify the civil courts, 
 upon the grounds of such an allegation, in at once proceeding to 
 review or reverse the spiritual sentences complained of. It is 
 carefully to be noted, that it is not the form of the obligation, 
 whether arising out of contract or otherwise, but the nature of it 
 as spiritual, which prohibits the office-bearers or members of the 
 Church from appealing against its authority to that of the tribunals 
 of the State. And it is no less carefully to be noted, that it is not 
 because the liberty of the Church may or may not be embodied 
 in the shape of a contract between itself and its own office-bearers 
 and members, but because of the subject-matter in which that 
 liberty is claimed, that the civil courts are forbidden to interfere. 
 It is the nature of the matters as spiritual, and not civil — as re- 
 quiring to be dealt with by spiritual and not civil authority — 
 that protects the Church in the exclusive jurisdiction claimed in 
 regard to them, and bars the servants of the State from interven- 
 tion. The accident that in some cases there may be a written, or 
 at least formal, obligation that may be construed as a contract 
 come under by its office-bearers, on their admission to office, to 
 submit to the spiritual authority of the Church in all Church 
 matters, is not the proper ground on which exemption from civil 
 control for these matters may be asserted. Without such contract, 
 the authority of the Church in these things would be equally 
 valid, and the exclusion of the State would be equally absolute. 
 It is the spiritual nature of the proceedings, and not the contract 
 expressed or implied, that gives the authority; it is the same reason 
 
CHUIiCH AND STATE. 399 
 
 that necessitates the exchision. Whether the proceedings of the 
 Church within its own pecuHar province are protected by express 
 and formal contract between itself and its members or not, they 
 are equally removed from the rightful cognisance of the civil 
 tribunals. The deep and everlasting distinction between the things 
 of conscience and the things of the commonwealth is what gives 
 lawful authority to the Church to deal with the former, and not 
 with the latter, and to the servants of the State to deal with the 
 latter, and not with the former; and there is no contract needed 
 either to warrant or protect the freedom of each party from the 
 encroachments of the other. If a contract do exist in any shape 
 that makes it to be a formal or substantial engagement between 
 contracting parties, it must depend upon the nature of it, as spiri- 
 tual or civil, whether the tribunals of the State are at liberty to 
 judge of its conditions and enforce its terms or not. If it is exclu- 
 sively spiritual, and having nothing to do with civil matters, the 
 civil courts can have no power to deal with it, or to redress alleged 
 breaches of its conditions. If it be a civil contract, or one of 
 mixed nature, partly civil and partly spiritual, and embracing 
 matters belonging in some measure to the one class, and in some 
 measure to the other, the courts of the State may, to the extent 
 of its properly civil character, be called upon to judge of it. 
 
 The obligations under which the Church comes to its own office- 
 bearers and members, and they equally to the Church, which have 
 been called, perhaps improperly, a contract, may embrace matters 
 exclusively spiritual, or embrace matters partly spiritual and partly 
 civil. The authority of the civil tribunals will be different in its 
 bearing on these two cases. The engagement between the Church 
 and the ordinary and private members of the Church is in common 
 cases wholly spiritual, embracing no pecuniary or civil right at 
 all, — implying as it does the duty of the Church to minister to 
 them in doctrine and sacrament, and their duty to be obedient to 
 the Church in word and discipline. Than this nothing can be 
 conceived as a more purely spiritual engagement, or, if it is to be 
 so called, contract; and with obedience to the terms of it, or dis- 
 obedience to them, the courts of the State can have nothing to do. 
 The engagement between the Church on the one hand, and the 
 office-bearers of the Church on the other, may be spiritual like- 
 wise. It may amount to nothing more than an obligation on the 
 part of the Church to give them its commission and authority to 
 
400 APPENDIX D. 
 
 preach the Gospel and dispense the ordinances of Christ in some 
 particular congregation, leaving it to the State or to the congre- 
 gation to give the pecuniary support, and an obligation on the 
 part of the ministers so commissioned to subject themselves to the 
 government, discipline, and authority of the Church. In such a 
 case, the " contract" is wholly a spiritual one, of the nature and 
 conditions and fulfilment of which the Church courts, and not the 
 civil, must be the judges. Whatever relates to the pecuniary 
 rights of the party ordained to the office of the ministry, and dis- 
 charging its duties, is a question between him and the State in 
 the case of a Church endowed by the State, or between him and 
 the congregation, in the case of many non-Established Churches 
 whose ministers derive their support from their flocks. 
 
 There may indeed be an engagement between the Church 
 and its office-bearers embracing more than spiritual matters, and 
 of a mixed nature. There may be an engagement in which the 
 Church, in return for the spiritual services of its ministers, comes 
 under an obligation to pay them a certain pecuniary remunera- 
 tion, drawn out of a common fund under its charge, and con- 
 tributed for that purpose, in addition to granting them the benefits 
 of its spiritual authority and commission for their work. In this 
 case, exemplified in some non-Established Churches, the contract 
 is partly spiritual and partly civil, comprehending matters that 
 plainly belong to each category. In so far as regards the spiritual 
 matters of the contract — the spiritual commission granted by the 
 Church on the one side, and the spiritual services to be rendered 
 by the minister in return — these are the things which, from their 
 very nature, the civil courts have no jurisdiction in, and no power 
 to enforce, and the Church alone has. In so far as regards the 
 pecuniary arrangements of the contract, and the breach or ful- 
 filment of its terms in respect of them, the civil courts alone are 
 competent to enforce the conditions in tlie case of a violation of 
 them by either party. But althougli the contract in this instance 
 may in a certain sense be regarded as a mixed one, giving to 
 the contracting parties certain temporal rights, as well as laying 
 upon them spiritual duties, yet the line of demarcation between 
 the two is plain, and not to be overpassed from either side ; the 
 Church, as trustee of certain funds committed to its charge, for 
 the payment of its ministers, may in that character be a civil 
 party, subject to civil control, in the discharge of its pecuniary 
 
CHURCH AND STATE. 401 
 
 engagements, ^A'l^ile the same Church, as a spiritual body, requir- 
 ing certain spiritual duties from its ministers, and giving to them 
 its ordination, is altogether free ; and the State has no more the 
 right or the ability, in such a case, to attempt to enforce the 
 purely religious engagements between the parties, or to punish 
 the violation of them, than the Church has the right or power 
 to dispose of the temporal rights. 
 
 A sort of mixed obligation of this kind, securing certain pecu- 
 niary rights or advantages, on condition of a certain spiritual 
 act being done, or a certain spiritual profession being maintained, 
 is not unknown in our legislation, and serves to make plain the 
 distinction between the two. Under the Test and Corporation 
 Acts, now happily repealed, it was unlawful for any man to hold 
 any municipal office who had not, within a year preceding the time 
 of his election, taken the Sacrament, according to the rites of the 
 Church of England. Intolerant as the spirit of the Act was, and 
 unscrupulous as were the courts at the time, it was not in the 
 contemplation of the one or the other, that in the event of some 
 municipal magistrate failing to comply with this condition, it was 
 possible for the civil tribunals to enforce equally the one branch 
 of the alternative as the other, and to compel a man to take the 
 bread and wine of the Communion Table as easily or competently 
 as they could compel him to demit his civil office. Although the 
 holding of office according to the statute implied that a spiritual 
 act was to be performed, yet the illegal disregard of this obliga- 
 tion did not give to the civil courts the power to compel the per- 
 formance of the spiritual act, but only left them the power of 
 enforcing the civil penalty. In like mjmner, the holding of the 
 office of Lord Chancellor of England, according to the Emanci- 
 pation Act, is, in our own day, fettered with the condition that 
 the holder of it make profession of the Protestant faith. If the 
 present eminent lawyer who fills the position were to go over to 
 the Roman Catholic Church, the law, notwithstanding the statu- 
 tory connection between the office and the spiritual character, 
 would never contemplate the possibility of enforcing, by means of 
 civil authority, his return to a purer religious profession, although 
 it might contemplate the application of its power and authority 
 to the depriving him of his official position. Or, to take a case 
 still more similar in its character to the one under review : A 
 domestic chaplain, hired on the condition of ministering to a 
 
 VOL. II. 2 C 
 
402 APPENDIX D. 
 
 family according to the faith and rites of the Established Church, 
 might abjure its doctrine, and yet insist on retaining his salary. 
 In such a case, the aggrieved employer would find it hard to per- 
 suade the civil courts to send the offender to prison to unlearn 
 his heterodoxy, although quite easy to induce them to lend their 
 proper authority to deprive him of his salary. The argument is 
 not different with respect to the contract Avhich may be alleged to 
 exist between some non-Established Churches and their ministers, 
 in which the Church gives ordination and pecuniary support as 
 the condition, on its part, of certain spiritual services being ren- 
 dered on theirs. The civil courts have power to enforce the civil 
 element in the obligation, but not the spiritual : they might, on 
 the one hand, protect the Church in withholding the pecuniary 
 payment, if, in their estimation, the religious duties had not been 
 performed, but they could not compel the performance of these 
 duties ; or, on the other hand, they might authorize the minister, 
 when deposed, to exact the payment, if they believed the duties 
 to have been performed, but could not compel the Church to 
 renew or continue the ordination. 
 
 It is the line drawn by the finger of God between things 
 spiritual and things civil that must ever lim.it the power of the 
 Church on the one side, and that of the State on the other. The 
 landmarks between were not set up and adjusted by contract, but 
 of old had their foundations laid deep in the nature of things. 
 Make light of the distinction, and practically disregard it, and 
 there is no length to which this may not lead in the way of spiri- 
 tual domination on the part of the Church in the concerns of civil 
 life, or Erastian encroachment on the part of the State in the pro- 
 vince of religious right and duty. If a power of any kind, direct 
 or indirect, is conceded to the Church of disposing to the smallest 
 extent of temporal matters, there can be no limit set to its en- 
 croachments : it may pervade every department of the State with 
 its tyranny, and subject all in turn to its control, creeping like a 
 palsy over a nation's heart, and extinguishing all that is valuable 
 in the civil liberty, the individual independence, and the manly 
 energies of a people. Or if a power, however small, of rightful 
 authority in spiritual things is acknowledged to belong to the 
 State, it will soon come to make itself to be felt as the weightiest 
 and least tolerable part of its sovereignty. If the liberties of reli 
 gious bodies in the way of discipline or government are denied to 
 
CHURCH AND STATE. 403 
 
 them, and handed over to the civil magistrate, it is a concession 
 which can plead for itself no argument not equally available for 
 dealing in the same way with their doctrine : their conscience, 
 when once fettered in its religious actings, can show no cause 
 why it should be free in religious opinions ; and with the inde- 
 pendence of its courts and officers, the sound faith and the living 
 piety, and the active power for spiritual good of the Church, must 
 die out also. These are not the deductions of reason only, but 
 the lessons of history as well, and lessons which the nations that 
 have not been tauglit them from the past are learning at the 
 present day. Between the extreme which makes the State to be 
 the slave of the Church, and that other extreme which makes the 
 Church to be the slave of the State, there is no position that is 
 safe or consistent with sound principle, except that which asserts 
 their mutual and equal independence. 
 
404 APPENDIX E. 
 
 APPENDIX E., Vol. I. p. 215. 
 
 RELATIVE OBLIGATION OF SCPJPTURE PRECEPT, EXAMPLE, 
 AND PRINCIPLE. 
 
 Are Scripture examples as binding as Scripture precepts ? Do 
 instances of apostolic practice carry with them the same authority 
 as express apostolic enactments? Do general principles fairly 
 established from Scripture lay the same obligation on the con- 
 science of Christian men, in every case to which they legitimately 
 apply, as an explicit command with respect to the same case 
 would have done ? The point brought before us is an important 
 one. If these questions are to be answered in the negative, it is 
 obvious that the strength of the argument in favour of the ob- 
 servance of the Lord's day, in behalf of the Presbyterian form of 
 Church government, in support of the lawfulness and duty of 
 infant baptism, of female communion, etc., will, to say the least 
 of it, be greatly shaken. 
 
 By many writers in the present day it is denied that a distinct 
 Scripture proof of the practice of inspired men can in any case be 
 an absolutely binding precedent for our imitation. " Let it be 
 supposed," says Mr. Litton, " that it had been distinctly recorded 
 in Scripture that Episcopacy, like the presbyterate and diaconate, 
 proceeded from the apostles : could we, even then, at once infer 
 that it is of Divine institution, and a matter of perpetual obliga- 
 tion?" Mr. Litton holds, that while the latter two offices are 
 proved to be of apostolic appointment by Scripture evidence, the 
 former, or the office of bishop as distinct from presbyter, cannot 
 be established from Scripture, but only by the testimony of eccle- 
 siastical antiquity. But he does not on that account consider the 
 presbyterate and diaconate, although not rashly or capriciously 
 to be done away with, to be of Divine right : " He would be a 
 bold man who should maintain that it is a matter of indifference 
 whether or not we adhere in regulations of polity to Scriptural 
 
SCEIPTURE PRECEPT, EXAMPLE, AND PRINCIPLE. 405 
 
 precedent. Nevertheless, the remarkable circumstance is to be 
 borne in mind, that not one of the appointments of the apostles in 
 matters of polity have been transmitted to us in Scripture in the 
 form of legislative enactments, but simply as recorded facts. For 
 example, the inspired history informs us, that, as a matter of 
 fact, the apostles ordained elders for every Church ; but no law 
 upon the subject, purporting to emanate from the apostles, can be 
 found in Scripture. To their appointments the apostles append 
 no imperative declarations, making them immutably binding upon 
 the Church. Let their mode of proceeding in this respect be 
 compared with the mode in which the law of Moses was de- 
 livered, and the difference between the two cases will be appnrent. 
 The ^losaic appointments were not only recorded, but commanded; 
 the apostolic regulations are recorded, but not made matter of 
 law; the apostles do not absolutely bind the Church of every 
 age to follow the precedents which they set."^ Mr. Litton then 
 goes on to take a distinction between revealed doctrines and 
 revealed or recorded facts and regidations. The former, or the 
 doctrines, carry with them their own sanction, and are of lasting 
 obligation on the conscience. The latter, or the regulations, are 
 not perpetually binding, unless there be some express statement 
 to that effect in Scripture. The apostolic appointments were no 
 doubt the best for the existing circumstances. But these mi£fht 
 change; and a power of discretion was left with the Church to 
 suit its arrangements to the conditions of the emergency in which 
 it found itself placed. 
 
 Now, in reply to these statements by Mr Litton — and his 
 position is one very commonly taken, especially in the Church of 
 England — it is to be observed, that Scripture commands, Scrip- 
 ture examples, and Scripture principles, all rest as regards their 
 authority on precisely the same basis, and are subject to precisely 
 the same limitations as respects the demand they make on our 
 obedience. All Scripture commands are not binding on us now, 
 any more than all Scripture examples are binding. It is not the 
 legislative form or the want of it ; it is not the use of the Impera- 
 tive mood in the one case and of the Indicative in the other that 
 makes the difference. A principle of eternal obligation may be 
 conveyed to us w^ith equal clearness and force in a passage which 
 says, " Thus you are to act," and in a passage which simply tells 
 1 Litton, Church of Christ, Lond. 1851, pp. 439, 441. 
 
406 APPENDIX E. 
 
 us, " Thus inspired and apostolic men acted." The latter mode 
 of revealing truth and duty may be said to be characteristic of 
 the New Testament — the former of the old ; but we are equally 
 bound to recognise and reverence and obey the mind of God, in 
 whichever way He may choose to make it known to us. What 
 we learn in both cases alike is just this : Thus and thus the Spirit 
 of God commanded certain men to act in certain circumstances. 
 We learn no more in the case of the precept than in the case of 
 the example. The one is as binding upon us as the other, pro- 
 vided ice be in like circumstances. The real point of importance 
 in both instances is the expression of the mind and will of God 
 conveyed to us ; and the true test of its permanent obligation 
 upon us is simply this : Was this command — whether it reaches 
 us in the form in which it was perhaps first given, or whether it 
 is embodied in the obedience which followed — founded on moral 
 grounds, common to all men at all times, in all circumstances, or 
 on local and temporary grounds, peculiar to certain men in certain 
 circumstances, at some given time? If the grounds or reasons 
 on which it rests be of the former sort, it is as binding on us now 
 as on those who first obeyed it ; if of the latter, it is not binding 
 on us at all, except in so far as our circumstances may be akin to 
 those in which it was originally uttered. 
 
 The Ten Commandments stand surrounded by the civil and 
 ceremonial precepts of the Jewish law. The latter are abolished, 
 " save in so far as the general equity thereof may require ;"^ the 
 former remain binding for ever, not because of the euactive form 
 in which they are couched, but because of the nature of the duty 
 enjoined. The passover and the other sacred feasts, so solemnly 
 pressed upon the obedience of Israel of old, are not obligatory on 
 the nation in the present day, just because the grounds on which 
 these institutions rested were of a local and temporary kind, and 
 the circumstances of the Jews then are not the circumstances of 
 the Jews now. 
 
 Take the case of the decree passed by the Council of Jeru- 
 salem, that the Gentile converts to Christianity should abstain 
 from meats offered to idols, from things strangled, and from blood. 
 The apostles and presbyters met in synod gave commandment, 
 and the Holy Ghost gave commandment to this effect ;" but the 
 command is not binding upon us now, simply because it rested on 
 1 Conf. ch. xix. 4. 2 ^g^g ^y. 23, 28 ; xv. 4. 
 
SCRIPTURE PRECEPT, EXAMPLE, AND PRINCIPLE. 407 
 
 grounds peculiar to the age and country in wliicli it was given, 
 and our circumstances are in this respect essentially different from 
 those of the early Church. But the general principle of which 
 this decree was a particular and local application is still of uni- 
 versal obligation, — namely, that no man has a right so to use his 
 Christian liberty as needlessly to offend the consciences of his 
 brethren: "Let all things be done unto edification," and "Let 
 all your things be done with charity." 
 
 Take the case of the Lord's Supper. There we have both 
 example and precept combined. We have the record of what our 
 Lord did, and the record of His command to do as He had done, 
 in remembrance of Him and of His death. The ordinance itself 
 is of perpetual and universal obligation in the Christian Church ; 
 but some of the features of its first celebration are not so. The 
 partakers in the Sacrament at its original institution were men 
 only. But females are not to be excluded from the communion 
 table on that account. The ordinance was celebrated in the 
 evening, and in a private house ; but neither the time nor the 
 place can be regarded as furnishing a binding precedent for us. 
 The elements of the Supper were the unleavened bread and the 
 paschal cup of thanksgiving employed by the Jews ; and for the 
 use of these might be pleaded both the example of Christ and 
 His express command : " This do." But neither do these peculiar 
 observances rest on moral grounds common to all times, and there- 
 fore they are not universally binding. 
 
 Many other instances might be given. The Apostle Paul's 
 instructions with respect to marriage given to the Corinthians are 
 a case in point. It was good, he told them, in his judgment, for 
 a man not to marry ; but his reason was founded on " the present 
 distress" {hca ry]v evearwaav avdyKTjv), and his wish that they 
 should be " without fretting anxiety" (afiepL/u.vov;)} So of the 
 community of goods in the early Church at Jerusalem, etc. 
 
 Revealed doctrines, to recur to the distinction which ^Ir. Litton 
 seeks to establish, generally commend themselves at once to our 
 minds and consciences as founded on moral grounds of universal 
 application, and therefore permanently binding. But this is by 
 no means always the case. The Council of Jerusalem laid down 
 the doctrine, as " a necessary thing," that it was the duty of 
 Gentile Christians to abstain from blood, etc., just as decidedly 
 1 1 Cor. vii. 26, 32. 
 
408 APPENDIX E. 
 
 as they enunciated tlieir command upon the subject. But neither 
 the doctrine nor the precept rested on grounds common to all 
 men at all times, and therefore neither are universally obligatory. 
 Scripture precepts, then, whether doctrinal or practical, Scrip- 
 ture examples, and Scripture principles, all rest on the same foun- 
 dation of authority, and are to be interpreted and obeyed according 
 to the same rule. As regards all of them alike, the same exception 
 is to be made with respect to points which can be already shown 
 to depend on the peculiar circumstances of a given age or country. 
 But with this single necessary deduction or limitation, the practice 
 of apostles, as recorded in Scripture, is just as obligatory as any of 
 their precepts handed down to us in the Acts or the Epistles, and 
 for precisely the same reason, that both alike embody the will of 
 Christ to His Church. It does not in the slightest degree take 
 from the binding force of any information regarding the consti- 
 tution, government, worship, and discipline of the Christian society 
 given us in the New Testament, that part of it may reach us in 
 the shape of apostolic commands, and part of it in the shape of 
 apostolic actions. In fact, there is much about what may be said 
 to be the characteristics of the Gospel dispensation which makes 
 it likely, prima facie, that under it. Christians, as in the manhood 
 of the Church, should be called to guide themselves quite as 
 much by what the apostles did in executing their Master's com- 
 mission, as by what they said, and that general principles should 
 be given us, from which we were trusted and intended to draw 
 the right inferences. The evidence relevant and sufficient to 
 establish the general form of government and administration, 
 which our Lord designed His Church on earth to adopt, will cer- 
 tainly not meet us in Sci'ipture in scientific shape and system, 
 any more than the evidence of Christian doctrine does. But 
 whatever indications of the mind and will of Christ in any depart- 
 ment of the Church's work and duty we do find in the Word of 
 God, whether in the form of direct statement, or positive com- 
 mand, or general principle, or ordinary apostolic practice, we are 
 alike bound reverently and thankfully to accept and to act upon 
 them.^ 
 
 ^ Jus Div. Reg. Eccles. Lond. 1646, pp. 11-35. Brown, Apologetical 
 Relatmi, 1665, pp. 213-248. Cunningham, Works, vol. ii. pp. 64-73. 
 
SCniPTURE CONSEQUENCES. 409 
 
 APPENDIX F., Vol. L p. 312. 
 SCRIPTURE CONSEQUENCES. 
 
 " The whole counsel of God," says the Confession of Faith, 
 " concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salva- 
 tion, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scriptnre, or, 
 hy good and necessary consequence, may he deduced from Scripture; 
 unto which nothing at any time is to be added, — whether by new 
 revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." ^ 
 
 A right understanding of the truths contained in this weighty 
 sentence may be said to form the basis of all sound and Scrip- 
 tural Theology, and of all lawful and orthodox Confessions of 
 Faith. The challenge has been thrown down again and again by 
 heretics in all ages : " Give us an express text of Scripture con- 
 tradicting our views, and asserting yours. We refuse to submit 
 to mere human inferences in place of Scripture statement." 
 
 It was on this ground that the Arians of the fourth century 
 built their favourite and most plausible arguments against the 
 Nicene definition of the ofxoovaLov. It was on this ground that 
 the ^Macedonians denied the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, and the 
 Apollinarians and Monophysites the true and distinct humanity 
 of Christ. In like manner, after the Reformation, the Socinian 
 party opposed all the leading doctrines held by the Protestant 
 Churches, on the score of their being based on Scripture conse- 
 quences, and not on Scripture texts. In fact, in almost every 
 case in which any show of reverence for the Word of God has 
 been preserved at all, the errors of false teachers — from Uni- 
 tarianism to transubstantiation — have been covered by an appeal 
 to the letter of Scripture, while the real sense and meaning of it 
 have been evaded or denied.^ 
 
 The importance of the question may be illustrated by an 
 
 1 Conf. ch. i. 6. 
 
 2 Cumniing, Gi-ouuds of the Present Differences avwnrj the London Ministers, 
 Lond. 1720, pp. 4-9. 
 
410 APPENDIX F. 
 
 example. Take the first verse of the first chapter of Genesis : 
 " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." 
 What conclusions may be drawn " by good and necessary conse- 
 quence " from these words ? In the first place, this, that God 
 and nature are essentially distinct and different, as against the 
 various forms of Pantheism. In the second place, — although the 
 passage does not fix the antiquity of the present order of things 
 upon the earth, and does not hinder us from believing, if the fact 
 should be established by other evidence, that an indefinite series 
 of ages may have elapsed between the events recorded in the first 
 verse of this chapter and those recorded in the second, — yet these 
 words prove that, at some far-off date in the past eternity, matter 
 had its beginning, that God only is from everlasting to everlast- 
 ing, and that the eternity of matter is a fiction of the Materialists. 
 In the third place, these words teach us that matter was at the 
 first created out of nothing by God, as against the various theories 
 of Emanation. " By faith we understand that the worlds were 
 framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were 
 not made of things which do appear." 
 
 Again, take such verses as, "The Word was made flesh," 
 " The man Christ Jesus." ^ From these words of Scripture we 
 learn, " by good and necessary consequence," first, that our Lord 
 Jesus Christ had a true body, as against the speculations of the 
 early Gnostics ; second, that He had a reasonable soul and a 
 human will, as against the Monothelites ; and tliird, that He 
 united in Plis person a Divine and a human nature, as against 
 the Socinians. 
 
 The chief grounds on which the authority of Scripture con- 
 sequences depend are the following : — 
 
 I. These consequences are really contained in Scripture, and 
 therefore they are " good." They are contained, not in the xcords 
 of the inspired writers, but in the relations of these words to each 
 other, and in the meaning conveyed by the statement as a whole; 
 and therefore they are equally of Divine origin with the letter of 
 Scripture, and equally binding upon us as an expression of the 
 mind of God. He is not bound to one way only of conveying His 
 will to us. Many important purposes may be served in the case 
 of His moral and intelligent creatures by the discipline involved 
 in an indirect as well as a direct communication of His messages 
 1 John i. 1-i : 1 Tim. ii. 5. 
 
SCRIPTURE CONSEQUENCES. 411 
 
 to them. And we are equally bound to give heed to and obey 
 the will and the truth of God, in whatever shape and way they 
 reach us in His Word. 
 
 It is no valid objection to this, that an act or process of fallible 
 human reason is employed in drawing consequences from the 
 Scripture words, and that therefore the conclusion arrived at 
 must be a merely human and fallible one. For, 1st, The conse- 
 quences referred to are not only " good," but " necessary conse- 
 quences."' They might be the former without being the latter. 
 But in order that a Scripture consequence shall come up to the 
 definition of our Confession, it must not only be "good," — that 
 is to say, really contained in Scripture, really a part of Divine 
 truth revealed there, — but " necessary " as Avell ; that is to say, 
 one which forces itself upon any reasonable and unprejudiced 
 mind as inevitable, plainly contained in the statements of the 
 Word of God, not needing to be established by any remote pro- 
 cess of refined argument. 2d, The very same act or process of 
 the fallible human understanding is involved in any interpreta- 
 tion or intelligent reading of Scripture whatsoever. The objec- 
 tion, therefore, if admitted, would equally avail to disprove the 
 Divine authority and obligation of every recorded communica 
 tion of truth from the mind of God to the mind of man.^ M, 
 Scripture and merely human writings differ in this very essential 
 respect, that the consequences to be lawfully drawn from God's 
 words were all foreseen and intended by Him ; the consequences 
 which might be fairly enough drawn from the words of men are 
 very often not foreseen and not intended by them. In the 
 former case, therefore, " good and necessary consequences " are 
 as fully expressive of the mind of the Author of Scripture, and 
 as binding upon us, as any direct statements of His could be. In 
 the latter case, it may neither be safe nor warrantable to argue 
 as to the personal intention of the writer from inferences really 
 contained in his words, and fairly deduced from them." 
 
 II. Scripture evidence respecting the procedure of our Lord 
 
 1 Cumming, Grounds of Pres. Diff. pp. 81-85, 90-98. 
 
 ^ ["If we say that necessary consequences from Scripture prove not a jus 
 Divinum, we say that which is inconsistent with the iuhnite wisdom of God. 
 For although necessary consequences may be drawn from a man's word which 
 do not agree with his mind and intention, and so men an' oftentimes ensnared by 
 theii- words, yet (as Caniero wl'11 notuth, JJc Wrbo J hi, caj). 17, 18), God being 
 infinitely wise, it were a blasphemous opinion to hold that anything can be drawn 
 
412 APPENDIX F. 
 
 and His Inspired followers very distinctly warrants the principle 
 and practice of drawing consequences from the Word of God, as 
 of equal authority with express Scripture statements. " Do ye not 
 err," said our Lord to the Sadducees, " not knowing the Scrip- 
 ttires, neither the power of God ? ... As touching the dead, that 
 they rise, have ye not read in the book of Moses, in the chapter 
 on the bush, how God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of 
 Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ? He 
 is not tlie God of the dead, but the God of the living : ye there- 
 fore do greatly err."^ In this passage, our Saviour's argument 
 for the doctrine of the resurrection consists of an indirect infer- 
 ence from the words of God to Moses, — an inference the force of 
 which it may be fairly said to require a certain amount of thought 
 and spiritual insight fully to perceive. Yet the Sadducees are 
 charged by Christ with sin, with a culpable ignorance of the 
 Scriptures (/xr/ etSdre? ra? <ypa(f)d<i), because they had failed to 
 draw that consequence from the words addressed to Moses, and, 
 on the ground of it, to accept the doctrine of the resurrection as 
 one just as really and authoritatively taught in the Old Testa- 
 ment, as if it had been propounded there in express terms. 
 
 Again, when our Lord w^as reasoning with the two disciples 
 on the road to Emmaus, Avho were dismayed at the crucifixion 
 of the Messiah, and uncertain of the fact of His resurrection, 
 He said to them, " O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that 
 the prophets have spoken ! Ought not (ovxi' eSet) Christ to have 
 suffered these things, and to enter into His glory? And be- 
 ginning at Moses and all the prophets. He expounded unto them 
 in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." ^ Here, 
 
 by a certain and necessaiy consequence from His holy Word which is not His 
 will. This were to make ' the only wise God ' as foolish as man, who can- 
 not foresee all things which will follow from his words. Therefore we 
 must needs hold it is the mmd of God which necessarily foUoweth from the 
 ^\' ord of God. 
 
 " Divers other great absurdities must follow, if tliis truth be not admitted. 
 How can it be proved that wonioi may partake of the Sacrament of the Lord's 
 Supper, unless we prove it by necessary consequence from Scripture? How 
 can it be proved that this or tliat Church is a true Church, and the ministry 
 thereof a true ministry, and the baptism administered therein a true baptism? 
 Sure no express Scripture will prove it, but necessary consequence will. How 
 shall this or that individual believer collect from Scripture that to him, even 
 to him, the covenant of grace and the promises thereof belong? Will Scrip- 
 ture prove this otherwise than by necessary consequence ? " etc. — Gillespie, 
 Misccll. Quest, ch. xx. arg. 3.] 
 
 ^ Mark xii. 24-27. 2 i^^^q ^[y 25-27. 
 
SCRIPTURE CONSEQUENCES. 413 
 
 again, we find Christ blaming men for not having drawn certain 
 consequences from Scripture statements, and accepted the con- 
 clusions thus arrived at as equally binding on their faith and 
 conscience Avith direct and explicit Divine announcements. 
 
 So also, to refer to one other illustration of this truth, all 
 through tlie Epistle to the Hebrews we see with what freedom 
 and effect the apostle uses the privilege of drawing inferences 
 from the inspired language of the Old Testament, and founding 
 upon these as equally decisive in liis argument, and equally of 
 Divine authority with express Scripture statements. " From this 
 we may learn," says Dr. Owen, referring to an instance of this 
 sort in Heb. i. 5, " that it is lawful to draw consequences from 
 Scripture assertions ; and such consequences, rightly deduced, are 
 infallibly true, and de fide. Thus, from the name given unto 
 Christ, the apostle deduceth by just consequence His exaltation 
 and pre-eminence above angels. Nothing will rightly follow 
 from truth but what is so also, and that of the same nature 
 with the truth from whence it is derived. So that whatever by 
 just consequence is drawn from the Word of God, is itself also 
 the Word of God, and truth infallible. And to deprive the 
 Church of this liberty in the interpretation of the Word, is to 
 deprive it of the chiefest benefit intended by it. This is that on 
 which the whole ordinance of preaching is founded ; which makes 
 that which is derived out of the Word to have the power, autho- 
 rity, and efficacy of the Word accompanying it. Thus, though it 
 be the proper work and effect of the Word of God to quicken, 
 regenerate, sanctify, and purify the elect — and the Word pri- 
 marily and directly is only that which is written in the Scriptures 
 — yet we find all these effects produced in and by the preaching 
 of the Word, when perhaps not one sentence of the Scripture is 
 verbatim repeated. And the reason hereof is, because whatso- 
 ever is directly deduced and delivered according to the mind and 
 appointment of God from the Word, is the Word of God, and 
 hath the power, authority, and efficacy of the Word accompany- 
 ingit."^ 
 
 1 Owen, Works, Goold's ed. vol. xx. p. 147. Gumming, Grounds of the 
 Present Differences — Part i. " Concerning the Authority of Scripture Con- 
 sequences in -Matters of Faith," I^ond. 1720, pp. 3-178. Dunlop, The Uses 
 of Creeds and Confessions of Faith, Buchanan's oil. Lond. 1857, pp. 129 ff. 
 [Turrettiu, Instit. Theol Elenct. loc. i. qu. xii. Gillespie, MisccU. Quest, ch. 
 
 XX.] 
 
414 APPENDIX G. 
 
 APPENDIX G., Vol. I. p. 389. 
 
 THE BOOK OF COMMON ORDER. 
 
 The earliest edition of this work bears the title : The Forme 
 of Prayers and Ministration of the Sacraments, etc., used in the 
 Englishe Congregation at Geneva, and approved hy the famous and 
 godly learned man, John Calvyn. Geneva 1556. It was first 
 drawn up about a year before that date by John Knox, Whitting- 
 ham, Gilby, Fox, and Cole for the use of the English congrega- 
 tion at Frankfurt, where some purer form of service than that 
 furnished by the English Book of Common Prayer was then 
 desired.^ " Our agreement," says Knox, — referring, however, 
 to a form of service somewhat altered from its original shape, 
 in deference to the feelings and associations of some of the 
 English brethren, — " was signified to the congregation, accepted, 
 and allowed by the same to take place to the last day of April ; 
 and then, if any contention should arise, that the matter should 
 be referred to the determination of five learned men (Calvin, 
 Musculus, Peter Martyr, Bullinger, and Viret), as a writing 
 made upon this agreement doth testify. Herewith all men 
 seemed to be pleased ; no man did speak against it ; thanks 
 were given to God, the Lord's Supper was ministered, the Order 
 by us appointed was used, well liked by many, and by none re- 
 proved ; till some of those who after came amongst us, before 
 they desired to be admitted of the Church, did begin to break the 
 Order, whereof they were by the seniors and others admonished, 
 but no amendment appeared. For they were admonished not to 
 murmur aloud when the minister prayed; but they would not give 
 place, but quarrelled, and said, * They would do as they had done 
 in England, and their Church should have an English face.' The 
 
 ^ [Compare Calvin's letter to them on the subject ; Knox's Work.% liaing's 
 ed. vol. iv. pp. 28-30, 51 if. As to Knox's own opinion of the English 
 Liturgy, see vol. iv. pp. 43 f., vol. vi. pp. 11 if.] 
 
THE BOOK OF COMMON ORDER. 415 
 
 Lord grant it to have the face of Christ's Church, which is the 
 only matter that I sought, God is my record ; and therefore I 
 would have had it agreeable in outward rites and ceremonies with 
 Christian Churches reformed." ^ 
 
 The form of service drawn up by Knox and the other office- 
 bearers in the congregation at Frankfurt was adopted, in its 
 original shape, shortly after in the English Church at Geneva, 
 in which both he and Whittingham were for some time pastors. 
 It seems to have been almost immediately received into general 
 use in Scotland, being probably introduced here by Knox himself 
 during his visit to this country in the autumn of 1 555 ; for we find 
 the First Book of Discipline, framed in 1560, speaking familiarly 
 of " our Book of Common Order," " the Book of our Common 
 Order, callit the Order of Geneva,"^ as a work already of recog- 
 nised standing, and generally employed in the Church. 
 
 The need for some such authorized guide and model for the 
 use of Churches suddenly called upon, in a time of great social 
 and political disorder, and amid prevailing ignorance, both to 
 organize their ecclesiastical polity and to settle their form of 
 worship, must be obvious to every one in the slightest degree 
 familiar with the history of the period. The congregations in 
 Scotland, as in all the other countries of Europe, under the sway 
 of Roman Catholicism, had been wont to look on at the mass, 
 independently celebrated by the priests in an unknown tongue, 
 
 ^ Knox, Worls, vol. iv. p. 41. A Brief Discoiiise of tlte Troidiles hecjun of 
 Frankeford, ann. Dom. 1554 (written probably by Whittingham, afterwards 
 Dean of Durham), Lond. 1642, pp. 23-42, etc. [in Knoxs WvrJcs^ vol. iv. pp. 
 21-40]. M'Crie, Life of Knox, 5th ed. vol. i. pp. 140-159. 
 
 2 First Book of Discipline, ch. vii. 1, xi. o, in Knox's Works, vol. ii. pp. 
 210, 230. [An attempt has been made by Sage, and some other Episcopalian 
 writers, to prove that the English Prayer Book was for some years in regular 
 use in Scotland at the time of the Reformation. Their arguments are mainlj-- 
 founded on a sentence in a letter of Kirkaldy of Grange, repeated by Cecil, 
 and a similar statement by Knox and Calderwood in their histories, to the 
 effect that at an early period, before the establishment of the Reformation 
 in Scotland, the Lords of the Congregation agreed that, when the parish 
 Churches were cleansed from Popery, " Common Prayers should bo read in 
 them on the Sunday, with the Lessons of the New and Old Testament, con- 
 form to tlie Order of the Book of Common Prayers." On this point, see the 
 remarks of the learned editor of Knox's Works, vol. vi. pp. 277 ff. " These 
 arrangements," he concludes, after adverting to the facts of the case, " were 
 merely prospective, to suit the exigencies of the time ; and if we admit that 
 the English Liturgy was actually adopted, it could only have been to a partial 
 extent, and of no long continuance. But this, after all, is a question of very 
 little importance, although it has been keenly disputed ; for it is well to 
 
416 APPENDIX G. 
 
 much as they might have looked on at a play, only with less 
 understanding of the meaning of the performance. The Bible 
 had long been a sealed book in Scotland. Ignorance of Divine 
 things characterized all classes of the community to an almost 
 incredible extent. They did not know what God's worship ought 
 to be, or on what principles it should be conducted. Those from 
 among whom the office-bearers of the Church must be drawn, for 
 the most part needed instruction and guidance as to their duties, 
 quite as much as the great body of the membership as to theirs. 
 Accordingly, the aim of John Knox and others, who drew up this 
 work and introduced it into our country, was that it should be a 
 Book of Church Order — a guide to ministers, elders, deacons, and 
 members in their respective duties and functions; and for this 
 purpose every position advanced has the proofs of it from Scrip- 
 ture attached at the foot of the page. " We," say the authors of 
 the preface to the book, " not as the greatest clerks of all, but as 
 the least able of many, do present unto you which desire the in- 
 crease of God's glory, and the pure simplicity of His Word, a 
 Form and Order of a reformed Church Ihnite loithin the compass 
 of God's Word, which our Saviour hath left unto us as only suffi- 
 cient to govern all our actions by ; so that whatsoever is added to 
 this Word by man's device, seem it never so good, holy, or beau- 
 tiful, yet before our God, who is jealous, and cannot admit any 
 companion or counseller, it is evil, wicked, and abominable. . . . 
 The which considerations, dear brethren, when we weighed with 
 
 remember that at this period there were no settled parish Churches, and as 
 there were no special congregations either in Edinburgh or in any of the 
 principal towns throughout the country, no ministers had been appointed. 
 The Lords of the Congregation and their adlierents were much too seriously 
 concerned in defending themselves from the Queen Regent and her French 
 auxiliaries, and more intent for that purpose in endeavom-ing to obtain the 
 uecessaiy aid from England, than to be at all concerned about points of ritual 
 observance. In the following year, when the French troops were expelled 
 from Scotland, and the Protestant cause was ultimately triumphant, we may 
 conjecture that, in some measure swayed by the avowed dislike of Knox to 
 the English Service Book (as expressed in his letter to Mrs. Lock in April 
 1559), the preference was given to the Forms of Geneva. We hear at least 
 no more word of the English Prayer Book ; and in the Book of Discipline, 
 prepared in December 1500, the only form mentioned is ' Our Buke of Com- 
 mon Ordour,' and ' The Buke of our Connnon Ordour, callit the Ordour of 
 Geneva.' At the meeting of General Assembly, held on the last day of De- 
 cember 1562, is this Act : ' It is concludit that ane uniforme Ordour sal be 
 taken and keipit in the Administratioun of the Sacraments, Solemnization of 
 Marriages, and Burial of the Dead, according to the Booke of Geneva.' " Cf. 
 Anderson, The Countryman's Letter to the Curate, 1711, pp. 35-40, CO-94.] 
 
THE BOOK OF COMMON ORDER. 417 
 
 reverent fear and humbleness, and also knowing that negligence 
 in reforming that religion which was begun in England was not 
 the least cause of God's rod laid upon us, having now obtained, 
 by the mercifull Providence of our heavenly Father, a free 
 Church for all our nation in this most worthy city of Geneva, 
 we presented to the judgment of the famous man, John Calvin, 
 and others learned in these parts, the Order which we minded to 
 use in our Church, who approving it as sufficient for a Christian 
 congregation, we put the same in execution, nothing doubting but 
 all godly men shall be much edified thereby." ^ 
 
 The first chapter in the Book of Common Order treats of the 
 ministers or pastors of the Christian Church, the qualifications 
 needed for the office, the duties to be discharged by them, the 
 proper manner of their election, examination, and induction into 
 office — all being supported by Scriptural proof. In chap, ii. are 
 discussed the office, duties, qualifications, and election of ruling 
 elders. Chap. iii. takes up the subject of deacons, the requisites 
 for the office, and the duties properly belonging to it — very dif- 
 ferent from those discharged by the deacons of the Komish Church. 
 Chap. iv. defines the nature and duties of the teaching elder, or 
 doctor, as set apart more especially for the exposition of the Word 
 of God, and urges strongly the need of general as well as theo- 
 logical education throughout the country. " Because men cannot 
 so well profit in that knowledge (of Divine things) except they be 
 first instructed in the tongues and humane sciences — for now 
 God worketh not commonlie by miracles — it is necessary that 
 seed be sown for the time to come, to the intent that the Church 
 be not left barren and waste to our posteritie, and that Schools 
 also be erected and Colleges maintained with just and sufficient 
 stipends, wherein youth may be trained in the knowledge and 
 fear of God, that in their ripe age they may prove worthie mem- 
 bers of our Lord Jesus Christ, whether it be to rule in civil policie 
 or to serve in the spiritual ministrie, or else to live in godly rever- 
 ence and subjection." ^ It is well known to every reader of the 
 history of Scotland how the efforts of our Church to carry into 
 
 ^ Preface to first Geneva ed. of Book of Common Order, 10th Feb. 1556, 
 Dunlop's Collection, vol. ii. p. 389 f. 
 
 2 Dunlop's Collection, vol. ii. p. 410. [Cf. First Book of Discipline, ch. vii. ; 
 M'Cric, Life of Knox, 5th ed. vol. ii. pp. 10 ff. ; Life of Melville, 2d ed, vol. i. 
 p. 156 f., vol. ii. pp. 336-448.] 
 
 VOL. II. 2 D 
 
418 APPENDIX G. 
 
 full effect the noble design of our Reformers in this respect were 
 withstood and frustrated by the avarice of the nobihty, the des- 
 potism of the Court, and the confusions and persecutions which 
 accompanied the repeated and long-continued attempts to force the 
 Prelatic system upon the nation. Chap. v. states the object of " the 
 weekly Assembly of the Ministers, Elders, and Deacons ;" in other 
 words, the regular meeting of the Presbytery or Kirk-session and 
 Deacons' Court. Chap. vi. describes a sort of congregational fellow- 
 ship meeting for the exposition of Scripture and orderly discussion 
 of some Scriptural subject ; and chap. vii. deals at some length with 
 the question of " The Order of the Ecclesiastical Discipline." ^ 
 
 Next follows " The Order of Public Worship," ^ showing 
 what are the legitimate parts of the public services, and how each 
 is severally to be conducted, giving a sort of outline or skeleton of 
 the order of worship, with examples of forms of prayer and bene- 
 diction, confessions of sin, and intercessions, which, " or such like" 
 the minister is to use. Then come the " Order of Baptism," and 
 the " Manner of the Administration of the Lord's Supper," in 
 which the nature and design of the two Sacraments are explained, 
 and the manner in which they are to be dispensed is appointed. 
 Here also examples of suitable exhortations and thanksgivings are 
 supplied ; and the officiating minister is directed to " use either 
 the words following, or like in effect."'' In like manner are given 
 a form of marriage, directions for the visitation of the sick, and, 
 lastly, for the burial of the dead. On the very same principle are 
 constructed two little works which form a sort of supplement to the 
 Book of Common Order: " The Or Jour and Doctrine of tlie General 
 Fast, appointed hy the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 
 halden at Edinburgh the 25th day of December 1565; set doitm by 
 John Knox and John Cixiig at the appointment of the Assemblie; 
 The Ordour of Excommunication and of Public Repentance used 
 in the Church of Scotland, and commanded to be printed hy the 
 General Assemblie of the same (drawn up by Knox), 1569."* 
 
 It must be perfectly clear to any man who reads the Book of 
 Common Order with any attention, that to call it a Liturgy in 
 the strict and technical sense of that term, is a mere misuse of 
 
 ^ [This chapter is in great part literally taken from Calvin, Instit. lib. iv. 
 cap. xii.] 
 
 2 Dimlop, vol. ii. p. 417. ^ Ibid. p. 450. 
 
 * Hid. pp. 645-747. [Knox's Works, Laiug's ed. vol. vi. pp. 381-470.] 
 
THE BOOK OF COMMON ORDER. 419 
 
 words. It was intended to furnish to a community, in general 
 ignorance on the whole subject, a model or outline of what a New 
 Testament Church ought to be, as respects its office-bearers, its 
 congregational Church Courts, its membership, discipline, ordi- 
 nances, and modes of worship. No fixed and unalterable forms 
 of prayer are prescribed or imposed. On the contrary, the true 
 and Scriptural pi'inciple of Church worship, as propounded by 
 Calvin, and afterwards embodied in the standards of our Church, 
 is laid down in the Preface to the Book of Common Order ; and 
 all unauthorized ceremonies, especially when interfering with the 
 liberties of Christ's people, are emphatically denounced. Even 
 wiiere a model or example of public prayer is given, the use of 
 it is only allowed or recommended, not commanded. Thus, for 
 instance : " The minister useth one of these two confessions, or 
 like in effect^ exhorting the people diligently to examine them- 
 selves, following in their hearts the tenor of his words." " The 
 minister, after sermon, useth this prayer following, or such like!''' 
 "It shall not be necessary for the minister daily to repeat all 
 these things before mentioned, but beginning with some manner 
 of confession, to proceed to the sermon ; which ended, he either 
 useth the ' Prayer for all Estates ' before mentioned, or else 
 prayeth as the Spirit of God shall move his heart, framing the 
 same according to the time and manner which he hath entreated of^^ 
 etc. " The minister, exhorting the people to pray, saith in this 
 manner, or such like.'^ " Certain psalms and certain histories are 
 to be distinctly read (which are then specified as being for a par- 
 ticular occasion of public fasting) ; exhortation to be conceived 
 thereupon, and prayers likewise, as God shall instruct and inspire 
 the minister or reader^ " This ordour may be enlarged or con- 
 tracted as the wisdom of the discreit minister shall think expedient ; 
 for loe rather shoio the loay to the ignorant than prescribe order to 
 the learned, that cannot he amended^ ^ 
 
 It is one proof among many of the sound judgment and in- 
 sight into Scriptural principles which marked the fathers of our 
 Church, that even in an age when the standard of ministerial 
 acquirements was at first so low, and the means of a thorough 
 training for the ecclesiastical office were so hard to be obtained," 
 
 1 Dunlop, vol. ii. pp. 417, 421, 426, 694, 746. 
 
 2 M-Ciie, Life of Knox, 5th ed. vol. i. pp. 14-26 ; Life of Melville, 2d ed. 
 vol. ii. ch. xi. ; Miscell. of the Wodrow ISocieUj, Edin. 1844, pp. 321-328. 
 Knox's Works, vol. vi. p. 388, etc. 
 
420 APPENDIX G. 
 
 they yet carefully refrained from imposing a stated Liturgy on 
 the Church ; and while giving models of prayer, and forms which 
 might be employed where desirable, left it to the Presbyteries 
 and other Church Courts to prescribe the use of forms in any 
 individual cases, as circumstances, in their view of them, might 
 demand. 
 
IMPOSITION OF HANDS IN ORDINATION. 421 
 
 APPENDIX II, Vol. I. p. 469. 
 
 IMPOSITION OF HANDS IN ORDINATION. 
 
 The laying on of hands, or the action which usually accom- 
 panies ordination, is no essential part of it. Ordination essentially 
 consists in the solemn setting apart of a man to the regular dis- 
 charge of certain ecclesiastical functions, and his formal investiture 
 with office by the Church in the name of Christ. The act of the 
 Church in thus ordaining to office is not rendered null and void 
 by the absence of the accessory or accompaniment of the laying 
 on of hands by the parties who conduct the ordination. For, in 
 the first place, there is no Scriptural warrant for believing that 
 the imposition of hands in the New Testament Church conveyed 
 any supernatural gift or grace, except when the action was per- 
 formed by an apostle for that purpose. There is no evidence 
 whatever, but the reverse, for the assertion, that in the ordinary 
 case of a man's being ordained to office by fasting and prayer, 
 with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, as we know 
 was the custom in the apostolic Church, any supernatural gifts 
 were communicated by the action or gesture now referred to. 
 Far less is there any ground for maintaining that the special 
 promises of grace and blessing connected with the entrance upon 
 the ministerial office, and with the subsequent discharge of its 
 duties, are made to depend, in all ages and in every case, upon 
 this ceremony of the laymg on of hands. And, in the second place, 
 imposition of hands in ordination is no significant part of the 
 institution, no teaching sign like the water in Baptism, or the 
 bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. On this ground the Re- 
 formers and their successors used to prove against the Romanists, 
 that Orders could not lawfully be reckoned among the Sacra- 
 ments. They pointed out that, with respect to all the five 
 spurious Sacraments of the Romish Church, there was no signi- 
 ficant and Divinely instituted sign answering to the thing signi- 
 
422 APPENDIX H. 
 
 fied, as in the case of the two genuine Sacraments of the New 
 Testament.^ 
 
 In the apostolic Church, indeed, imposition of hands seems 
 always to have accompanied ordination to office in the Church ; 
 and their recorded practice in this respect gives sufficient war- 
 rant for our following their example, as has been done in almost 
 all the Protestant Churches. We lay on hands in ordaining to 
 ecclesiastical office very much as we raise our hands in public 
 benediction in the Church. It is a suitable and Scriptural accom- 
 paniment of our then and there imploring the Divine blessing 
 on the person ordained, and of his solemn designation to office 
 and consecration to the work of the Lord, which all take place 
 at that time. But it does not enter as an essential part into the 
 ordination, as if that would be invalidated by the absence of the 
 imposition of hands. 
 
 In the Fii'st Book of Discipline, drawn up in 1560, after 
 stating that ordinary vocation to the pastoral office involves three 
 things, — election by the people, examination " before men of 
 soundest judgment" in the ministry, and admission by the Pres- 
 bytery in the presence and with the consent of the congregation, — 
 the authors of the work proceed : " We judge it expedient that 
 the admission of ministers be in open audience, and that some 
 special minister make a sermon touching the duty and office of 
 ministers, touching their manners, conversation, and life ; as also 
 touching the obedience which the Church owetli to their ministers. 
 Commandment should be given as well to the minister as to the 
 people, both being present ; to wit, that he with all careful diligence 
 attend upon the flock of Christ Jesus, over which he is appointed 
 pastor ; that he walk in the presence of God so sincerely that the 
 graces of the Holy Spirit may be multiplied unto him, and in the 
 presence of men so soberly and uprightly, that his life may con- 
 firm in the eyes of men that which by tongue and word he per- 
 suaded unto others. The people should be exhorted to reverence 
 and honour their ministers chosen, as the servants and ambassadors 
 of the Lord Jesus, obeying the commandments which they pro- 
 nounce from God's Word, even as they would obey God Himself. 
 . . . Other ceremony than the public approbation of the people, 
 and the declaration of the chief minister, that the person there 
 
 ^ Chemnitz, Examen Concil. Trident., Pars. ii. loc. xiii. sect. iii. 2-\. 
 Turrettin, Instit. Theol. Elenct., loc. xix. qu. xxxi. 
 
IMPOSITION OF HANDS IN ORDINATION. 423 
 
 presented is appointed to serve the Church, wc cannot approve ; 
 for albeit the apostles used imposition of hands, yet seeing the 
 miracle is ceased, the using of the ceremony we judge not 
 necessary^ ^ This opinion with regard to the imposition of hands 
 in ordination — which is, however, by no means expressed in a 
 very decided manner — was evidently founded, in the minds of 
 the authors of the First Book of Discipline, mainly on the flagrant 
 abuse of the rite in the Church of Rome, — Avhere it was considered 
 to be a sign and condition of the invariable communication of the 
 supernatural grace and "character" of the priesthood, — but partly 
 also, perhaps, on a failure to distinguish clearly between those cases 
 in the New Testament in which laying on of hands was connected 
 with the miraculous gifts and endowments conveyed to others by 
 the apostles, and those in which the action simply accompanied 
 an ordinary investiture with office in the Church. 
 
 In the Second Book of Discipline, which was drawn up in 
 1578, with much more deliberation and care than there had been 
 an opportunity of bestowing upon the First, we have the follow- 
 ing statements on this point : " Ordination is the sepai'ation and 
 sanctifying of the person appointed to God and His Kirk, after 
 he be weil tryit and fund qualifiet. The ceremonies of ordina- 
 tion are, fasting, earnest prayer, and imposition of hands of the 
 eldership."^ 
 
 " Although," says George Gillespie, " (1) I hold the impo- 
 sition of the hands of the presbytery to be no Sacrament, nor 
 efficacious and operative for giving of the Holy Ghost, as the 
 laying on pf the apostles' hands was ; nor (2) necessary to ordi- 
 nation, necessitate medii vel finis, as if ordination were void, and 
 no ordination without it, or as if they who were not ordained with 
 the laying on of the hands of the presbytery were therefore to be 
 thought unordained or unministeriated ; although, likewise, (3) 
 I do not hold the laying on of hands to be the substantial act 
 or part of ordination, which I have before proved to be essential 
 to the calling of a minister, but only the ritual part in ordina- 
 tion ; and although (4) I hold the laying on of hands to be a rite 
 whereunto we ought to be very sparing to ascribe mysterious sig- 
 nifications, whei'ein some have gone too far, and taken too much 
 liberty ; yet I hold, with the generality of Protestant writers, and 
 
 1 First Book of DiscipUne, ch. iv. 3. Dunlop's Collection, vol. ii. p. 529. 
 
 2 Second Book of Dincipline, ch. iii. 6. Dunlop, vol. ii. p. 768. 
 
424 APPENDIX H. 
 
 •with the best Eeformed Churches, that the laying on of hands is 
 to be still retained in ordination. I hold also, that this laying on 
 of hands is an ordinance of the New Testament, — and so our dis- 
 senting brethren of the Independent way hold also, — and that it is 
 necessary, by the necessity of precept and institution, and in point 
 of duty. ' For although there is no certain precept extant con- 
 cerning the laying on of hands, yet because we see the apostles 
 did always use it, their so accurate observing of it ought to be 
 unto us instead of a precept,' — saith Calvin, Instit. lib. iv. cap. iii. 
 16. For the example of the apostles or apostolic Churches in 
 approved things, which have a standing reason, are binding, and 
 instead of institutions. The laying on of the hands of the 
 apostles, in so far as the Holy Ghost was given thereby, was 
 extraordinary, and ceased with themselves ; yet in so far as the 
 apostles, yea, and the presbytery too, laid on hands in their 
 ordaining of ministers, there is a standing reason why we should 
 do in like manner ; the laying on of hands being a rite properly 
 belonging to the praying over those whom we bless in the name 
 of the Lord, as is manifest by those examples of laying on of 
 hands, in Jacob's blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh, and in 
 Christ's blessing and praying over the little children.^ 
 
 " Looking thus upon laying on of hands, first, as a rite in 
 blessing and prayer over,^ second, as a rite for public designation 
 and solemn setting apart of such a person,^ and if you will, third, 
 as a rite of giving up, dedicating, and offering unto the Lord, — 
 of which use of laying on of hands there are divers examples in 
 the books of Moses,* — in these respects, and under these con- 
 siderations, we use laying on of hands in ordination, and ought 
 to do so in regard of the primitive patt 
 
 ern."^ 
 
 1 Gen. xlviii. 14 ; Matt. xix. 15 ; Mark x. 16. 
 
 2 Lev. ix. 22 ; Luke xxiv. 50. 
 
 3 Num. viii. 10, xxvii. 18, 23 ; Deut. xxxiv. 9. 
 
 * Lev. i. 4, iii. 2, iv. 24, etc., xvi. 21, xxiv. 14 ; Deut. xiii. 9, xvii. 7. 
 . ^ Gillespie, " Miscell. Quest.," ch. viii. in Presht. Armoury, vol. ii. p. 46 ; 
 cf. pp. 14 f., 26. " Dispute against the Engl.-Popisli Ceremonies," Part iii. 
 ch. viii. digr. i. in Presbt. Armoury, vol. i. p. 165. 
 
NOTES ON THE LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT. 425 
 
 APPENDIX I, Vol. II. pp. 278, 294. 
 
 NOTES ON THE LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT OF THIS 
 TREATISE. 
 
 The following works are worthy of being consulted in con- 
 nection with the various departments of our subject. I mention 
 them in order, according to the different divisions and heads under 
 which we have been led to arrange the topics discussed. And, in 
 the first place, I name two works of primary importance and value, 
 both of Avhich cover, to a certain extent, almost the whole ground 
 which we are called upon to traverse : the Fourth Book of Calvin's 
 ' Institutes,' taken along with his ' Tracts on the Sacraments,' and 
 the Third Part of Turrettin's ' Institutio Theologiae Elencticae.' 
 
 I. The Fourth Book of Calvin's ' Institutes ' is entitled, ' Be 
 externis Mediis vel Adminiculis, quibus Deus in Christi Societatem 
 nos invitat, et in ed retinet.' It consists of three parts : 1. ' De 
 Ecclesia ; ' 2. ' De Sacramentis ; ' 3. ' De Politica Administra- 
 tione.' Under the 1st head, or the Church, we have four divisions, 
 each comprising several chapters. First, the Notes of the Ciiurch ; 
 second, the Government of the Church, and more especially, the 
 corruptions of and departures from its primitive constitution under 
 the Papacy ; Mrd, the Power of the Church as to matters of 
 faith, legislation, and jurisdiction ; fourth, the Discipline of the 
 Church in its uses and abuses. Under the 2d head, the Sacra- 
 ments, we have three divisions. First, the Nature and Import of 
 the Sacraments in general ; second, Baptism, as administered to 
 infants and adults, and the Lord's Supper, with a discussion of 
 the Romish corruptions of both ordinances ; tliird, the five spurious 
 Sacraments of the Popish system. Under the 3d head, or Political 
 Administration, the subject of civil government is considered under 
 its various aspects, more especially as regards the relation between 
 the State or the Magistrate and the Church. 
 
 Two general deficiencies, arising from the circumstances of the 
 
426 APPENDIX I. 
 
 writer, may be observed in Calvin's masterly, and in some respects 
 unrivalled, vs^ork. In the first place, it is very largely a polemic 
 against Popery ; and, secondly, more modern theories of the 
 Church, such as the Independent and the High Church Episco- 
 palian, are of course not discussed, since they had not yet been 
 propounded among the Keformed Churches. 
 
 II. Calvin's ' Tracts on the Sacrament ' comprise : 
 (1.) A short Treatise on the Lord's Supper, 1540. 
 
 (2.) The ' Consensus Tigurinus,' or Mutual Consent regarding 
 the Sacraments between the Churches of Zurich and Geneva, 
 1549. 
 
 (3.) Exposition of the Heads of Agreement, 1554. 
 
 (4.) Second Defence of the Pious and Orthodox Faith con- 
 cerning the Sacraments, in answer to Westphal, 1556. 
 
 (5.) Last Admonition to Westphal, 1557. 
 
 (6.) The true Partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in 
 the Holy Supper, in reply to Heslmsius, 1560. 
 
 (7.) The best Method of obtaining Concord on the Sacraments, 
 1560. 
 
 III. The Third Part of Turrettin's ' Institutio Theologicse 
 Elencticse ' may be divided into four heads : 
 
 (1.) The Nature of the Church, loc. xviii. qu. i.-xv. 
 
 (2.) The Government of the Church, qu. xvi.-xxviii. 
 
 (3.) The Power of the Church, qu. xxix.-xxxiv. 
 
 (4.) The Sacraments, loc. xlx. 
 
 Under (1) we have such subjects discussed as the Scriptural 
 definition of the Church, its membership, unity, invisibility, per- 
 petuity, infallibility, the true notes of the Church, etc. Under 
 (2) we have a discussion of such points as the Scriptural form of 
 Church government, the primacy of the Pope, whether there 
 ought to be any distinction between bishops and presbyters, the 
 necessity of the ministerial office, the call to it, the call of the 
 first Eeformers, the immunities of the clergy, etc. Under (3) 
 are considered such questions as, what kind and amount of power I 
 belongs to the Church, whether that power is distinct from the ■ 
 civil, how exercised about matters of faith and creeds and con- 
 fessions, whether the Church has the power of making new laws, 
 properly so called, ecclesiastical discipline and excommunication, 
 the origin and authority of Councils, the power of the civil 
 Under (4) the subject of the Sacraments 
 
NOTES ON THE LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT. 427 
 
 is taken up very fully, and handled with masterly power and 
 clearness. Bcoinninfr with the general nature of the New Tes- 
 tament Sacraments, the author discusses their nature, necessity; 
 the sacramental sign, word, union between the sign and thing 
 signified; the intention of the minister, the "character" alleged 
 to be communicated by some of the Popish Sacraments, the 
 efficacy of Sacraments, the difference between those of the Old 
 and those of the New Testament. Then, coming on to particular 
 Sacraments, Turrettin takes up the subject of Baptism, its nature, 
 necessity, by whom administered, the baptismal formula, Romish 
 Baptism, the efficacy of Baptism, and on what grounds it is to be 
 administered to infants. Next, the topics connected with the 
 Lord's Supper are discussed, — the nature and design of the 
 ordinance, the consecration of the elements, the breaking of 
 bread, communion under both kinds, the sacramental words, 
 transubstantiation, the real presence, the sacrifice of the mass, 
 the five false Sacraments of the Romish Church. 
 
 One or other of these two books I strongly recommend for 
 careful study in connection with our whole subject. If choice 
 must be made between the two, Turrettin is, on the whole, to 
 be preferred, as furnishing the more complete, scientific, and 
 thoroughly well considered discussion of the various departments 
 of the doctrine of the Church. The best edition of his works is 
 the Edinburgh one, published in 1847. I may also refer you to 
 the third volume of Principal Hill's ' Lectures on Divinity,' where 
 the subjects of the Sacraments, Church government. Church 
 power as to doctrine, ordinances, and discipline, are ably, thougli 
 more briefly treated.^ Some of the works next to be mentioned 
 profess also to deal more or less with the general subject, as well 
 as with particular branches of it. It may, however, be more con- 
 venient to arrange them under the different divisions of the 
 course, although the classification may be of a somewhat rough 
 and general sort. 
 
 1 Hill, Lectures on Divinity, 2d ed. Edin. 1825, vol. iii. pp. 268-545. 
 [Cf. his Theological Institutes, Edin. 1808, Parts ii. and iii. The editions 
 mentioned here and elsewhere in this part of the Appendix are those conunonly 
 used by Dr. Bannerman.] 
 
428 APPENDIX I. 
 
 PART I. — NATURE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 Under this lieacl may be named : 
 
 Mastriclit/TheologiaTheoretico-practica,' Trajecti adElienum, 
 1715. A work of much abihty and learning. The seventh book 
 takes up the doctrine of the Church under the following divisions : 
 1. The Nature of the Church ; 2. The Ministers of the Church; 
 3. The Sacraments ; 4. Discipline and Government. 
 
 Field, ' Of the Church, five bookes/ 2d ed. Oxford 1628.— This 
 is a learned, able, and comprehensive book, and has always been 
 regarded as a standard work in the Church of England. Book i. 
 treats of the Name, Nature, and Definition of the Church ; Book 
 ii. of the Notes of the Church ; Book iii. discusses which is the 
 true Church as tested by those notes ; Book iv. the Privileges 
 of the Church ; Book v. the different degrees, orders, and callings 
 of those to whom the government of the Church is committed. 
 
 Mestrezat, ' Traitte de I'Eglise,' Geneve 1649. A valuable 
 work, by a minister of the French Reformed Church at Charenton. 
 
 Bishop Jewel's ' Apology for the Church of England,' and his 
 ' Defence of the Apology.' Jewel was perhaps the first really 
 great theologian of the Reformed Church of England. His 
 works now referred to, deal of course with the doctrinal as well 
 as the ecclesiastical points in dispute between Protestants and 
 Romanists. 
 
 Hooker, ' Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity,' eight books, 
 'Works,' Oxford 1845. — This famous work of Hooker's was 
 written to meet the objections of the Puritans to the defective 
 reformation of the English Church. It exhibits very great 
 ability, eloquence, and learning ; but it is by no means fair in 
 the representation often given of the views of opponents, nor 
 happy in the ground which it adopts in its defence of the exist- 
 ing state of ecclesiastical matters in England. Hooker does 
 not attempt to vindicate the Prelacy of the Church of England 
 against the Scriptural arguments of his Presbyterian opponents 
 on the ground of any Divine right supposed to attach to it. He 
 maintains, on the contrary, that no universally binding form of 
 government has been appointed for the Christian Church at all, 
 and seeks to defend the royal supremacy in the English Establish- 
 ment, and the consequences which have resulted from its exercise, 
 on the footing of the king's being " the highest uncommanded com- 
 
NOTES ON THE LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT. 429 
 
 mander," who in a Christian country has proper jurisdiction within 
 the Churcli, as really but another department of the commonwealth. 
 
 Palmer, ' Treatise on the Cliurch of Christ/ Lond. 1838. — 
 The author belongs to the extreme High Church party in the 
 English Establishment, but to that section of it which still seeks 
 to vindicate a position against the Church of Rome with its own 
 weapons. The literature of the subject is very fully given in the 
 way of reference and quotation. 
 
 Archbishop Whately, ' The Kingdom of Christ,' 4th ed. Lond. 
 1845. — This is a very able, candid, and valuable work. Its chief 
 defect is that of regarding the Church too exclusively from the 
 merely human point of view. The author does not hold the 
 Divine appointment of any one form of Church government ; 
 although, as regards the New Testament Church, he gives up 
 almost all the Episcopalian, and adopts many of the Presbyterian 
 positions. Hence he seeks to prove that all the powers and privi- 
 leges of the Church may be traced up to the powers and privi- 
 leges inherent in a mere human and voluntary society. His 
 arguments are very generally sound and valuable so far as they 
 go ; but he stops short too soon. The characteristics of Dr. 
 Whately's mind eminently fitted him for dealing with the Trac- 
 tarian system. Those parts of his work which take up the theory 
 of Apostolical Succession and some kindred points are especially 
 able and effective. 
 
 Maurice, 'The Kingdom of Christ,' 2ded. Lond. 1842. — This 
 work is greatly inferior to Archbishop Whately's in clearness, 
 vigour, and accuracy of statement ; but it agrees with it in con- 
 templating the Church almost exclusively from the human stand- 
 point. 
 
 * Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici ; or. The Divine Eight 
 of Church Government asserted and evidenced by the Holy 
 Scriptures. By sundry Ministers of Christ within the City of 
 London.' Lond. 1646. — This work contains an extremely able, 
 thorough, and satisfactory discussion of most of the points relating 
 to the nature of Church government as a Divine institution, and 
 to the power or authority of the Church, its seat and exercise. 
 Several of the authors of this treatise were members of the 
 Westminster Assembly. 
 
 Claude, ' Defense de la Reformation contre le livre [par Pierre 
 Nicole], intitule Prejugez legitimes contre les Calvinistes/ Araster- 
 
430 APPENDIX I. 
 
 dam 1683. — This celebrated book was written by Claude, min- 
 ister of the French Protestant Church at Charenton. It contains 
 a masterly discussion of the topics, doctrinal and historical, which 
 naturally arise out of a thorough answer to the favourite question 
 of Romanists to Protestants : " Where was your Church before 
 Luther?" The fourth part is especially worthy of careful study. 
 An English translation of this work was published in London in 
 the year 1683, under the title, ' An Historical Defence of the 
 Reformation, in answer to a book intituled " Just Prejudices 
 against the Calvinists" . . . ; translated by T. B. M. A.' 
 
 Ayton, ' The Original Constitution of the Christian Church,' 
 Edin. 1730. — This is an able and valuable work. Its author was 
 minister of our Church at Alyth. 
 
 Killen, ' The Ancient Church : its History, Doctrine, Worship, 
 and Constitution, traced for the first three hundred years.' Lond. 
 1859. 
 
 Litton, ' The Church of Christ in its Idea, Attributes, and 
 Ministry,' Lond. 1851. In this very interesting and able work, 
 the author brings out v.'ith great effect some of the fundamental 
 differences between the Protestant theory of the Church on the 
 one hand, and that of Romanists and semi-Romanists on the other. 
 Mr. Litton, like most other moderate English Churchmen, builds 
 his main arguments in support of Prelacy on expediency and 
 ancient ecclesiastical custom. The Scripture argument in its 
 behalf he very frankly gives up, admitting that there is no evi- 
 dence in the New Testament that any other order of office- 
 bearers was established in the Christian society by our Lord or 
 His inspired followers besides those of presbyters or bishops and 
 deacons, and that the analogy of the Jewish synagogue upon 
 which the Christian Church was founded, while it furnishes the 
 model of the Presbyterian system, fails us with respect to the 
 Prelatic. 
 
 Principal Cunningham, ' Historical Theology/ vol. i. ch. I. 
 xi'ii., ' Works,' Edin. 1863, vol. ii. pp. 9-42, 390-412. ' Discus- 
 sions on Church Principles,' ch. vi. vlii., ' Works,' vol. iv. pp. 
 164-234. Of the standing and value of the writings of Principal 
 Cunningham, it is unnecessary that I should say anything. 
 
 Jonathan Edwards, ' Inquiry concerning the Qualifications 
 for Communions,' 'Works,' vol. i. Lond. 1834, pp. 434-531. — 
 
NOTES ON THE LITERATUllE OF THE SUBJECT. 431 
 
 This treatise is well worthy of consultation in connection with 
 the subject of the membership of the visible Church. 
 
 Knox, ' Answer to a Letter written by James Tyrie, a Scottish 
 Jesuit,' 1572, 'Works,' Laing's ed. vol. vi. pp. 486-512.— This 
 was John Knox's latest work, and deals with great vigour with 
 the question of the visible and invisible Church. 
 
 M'Crie, ' Statement,' Edin. 1807. — This work comprises about 
 the ablest discussion of the questions of national religion, the 
 relation of Church and State, etc., with which I am acquainted. 
 See also the same author's ' Discourses on the Unity of the 
 Church,' Edin. 1821. 
 
 As specimens of works on the Church by divines of the Church 
 of Rome, I name four, — the authors of the first two being repre- 
 sentatives of the more rigid and traditional class of Romanists, 
 while those of the second two belong to the modern and philo- 
 sophic school. Bellarmine, ' De Ecclesia Disputationes,' torn. ii. 
 Ingolstadii 1605. Perrone, ' Prgelectiones Theologicse,' tom. ii. 
 Parisiis 1842. Mohler, ' Symbolism,' Robertson's Transl. 2d 
 ed. Lond. 1847, vol. i. pp. 286-361, vol. ii. pp. 1-148. [Sym- 
 bolik, 6te Ausgabe, Mainz. 1843.] De Maistre, 'The Pope,' 
 Dawson's Transl. Lond. 1850. — Mohler is by far the ablest of 
 modern defenders of the Church of Rome. His work is an 
 admirable specimen of what can be done by a thoroughly efficient 
 and dextrous controversialist in the way of omission, modification, 
 plausible explanation, and defence, to maintain the cause of the 
 Papacy. To any one wishing an excuse for going over to Rome, 
 this is a book to be strongly recommended. [The best answer to 
 ^lohler is probably Nitzsch's ' Protestantische Beantwortung der 
 Symbolik Dr. Mohler' s,' which first appeared in the ' Studien und 
 Kritiken,' and was afterwards published separately at Hamburg, 
 1835. For further specimens of the views of modern Romanists of 
 the more Ultramontane school, regarding the Church among other 
 subjects, see ' Essays on Religion and Literature by various 
 writers,' edited by Dr. Manning, 1st series, Lond. 1865 ; 2d series, 
 Lond. 1867.] 
 
432 APPENDIX I. 
 
 PART II. — POWER OP THE CHURCH. 
 
 Voetius, ' Polltica Ecclesiastica,' Amstelodami 1663-1676, in 
 four volumes. — Gisbert Voets or Voetius was Professor of Theo- 
 logy and Oriental Languages at Utrecht. He was a man of 
 extraordinary learning, of very great ability, and of the highest 
 standing among the theologians of the Church of Holland, who 
 at that time were among the first in Europe. This work of his 
 is an exceedingly important one, displaying immense theological 
 research, as well as intellectual power. It discusses, in a very 
 able, elaborate, and exhaustive way, almost all the points con- 
 nected with the power of the Church and the matters about 
 which that power is exercised, as well as the question of Church 
 government, which is taken up very fully in the third volume. 
 The period was one fruitful to an unparalleled extent in works on 
 Church polity, the sphere of the civil magistrate, etc. ; and no- 
 where are references to the contemporary literature and to the 
 controversies in England and the Continent given more abun- 
 dantly than in Voetius. 
 
 Apollonii, ' Jus Magistratis circa Sacra ; sive, Tractatus Theo- 
 logicus de Jure Magistratus circa Ees Ecclesiasticas,' Medioburgi 
 Zelandorum 1642. — Apollonii, or Apollonius, as in this country 
 he is more commonly called, was a minister of the Dutch Church 
 at Middelburg, in Holland, and contemporary with Voetius. 
 This work of his displays very high ability, sound judgment, and 
 mastery over his subject. It has always been regarded as a 
 standard in the Erastian controversy. Another valuable treatise 
 by the same author, which deals with the question of Church 
 power among other topics, was addressed to the Westminster As- 
 sembly. It is entitled ' Consideratio quarundam Controversiarum 
 ad Regimen Ecclesias Dei spectantium, quaa in AngliiT3 Regno 
 hodie agitantur,' Lond. 1644. An English translation of it was 
 published in London in the following year : ' A Consideration of 
 certaine Controversies,' etc. 
 
 George Gillespie, 'Aaron's Rod Blossoming; or. The Divine 
 Ordinances of Church Government Vindicated.' Lond. 1846. — 
 This famous treatise is unquestionably the most able, learned, 
 systematic, and complete work on the Erastian controversy in 
 existence. It deserves, and will repay, the most careful study. 
 
NOTES ON THE LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT. 433 
 
 The author's 'Treatise of ISIlscellany Questions,' Edin. 1630, is 
 also an exceedingly important and useful book, discussing a wide 
 range of topics connected with ecclesiastical theology. The whole 
 of Gillespie's works, along with a memoir of his life, arc included 
 in the first two volumes of the ' Presbyterian Armoury,' edited 
 by Dr. Hctherington, Edin. 1846. 
 
 Samuel Ivutherford, ' The Divine Eight of Church Govern- 
 ment and Excommunication,' Lond. 1846. ' The Due Right of 
 Presbyteries; or, A Peaceable Plea for the Government of the 
 Church of Scotland,' Lond. 1644. These works take up kindred 
 topics with those discussed by Gillespie ; the last-named deals 
 especially with the Independent theory of Church powei\ They, 
 are valuable and learned, but somewhat wanting in the clearness 
 and method which characterize all Gillespie's productions. 
 
 Cunningham, ' Works,' vol. ii. ch. ii., vol. iv. ch. iii.-vi. ix. x. 
 
 TART III. — MATTERS IN REGARD TO WHICH CHURCH 
 POAVER IS EXERCISED. 
 
 Div. I. — CJiurch Poxcer exercised in regard to Doctrine. 
 
 Whitaker, ' Disputation on Holy Scripture against the Papists, 
 especially Bellarmine and Stapleton,' Parker Soc. ed. Cambridge 
 1849. 
 
 Tillotson, ' The Rule of Faith' (in reply to Sergeant), Lond. 
 1666. 
 
 Chillingworth, ' The Religion of Protestants,' 4th ed. Lond. 
 1674. 
 
 Goode, ' The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice,' Lond. 
 1842. — This treatise was written with a special view to the Trac- 
 tarian heresies. It is a very elaborate, able, and useful book, and 
 has deservedly become a standard on the subject with which it 
 deals. 
 
 Newman, ' Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,' 
 2d ed. Lond. 1846. — This remarkable and interesting book was 
 written by Mr. Newman on the eve of his joining the Church of 
 Rome. It embodies an ingenious method — which, if not absolutely 
 new, is at least put in a novel and effective shape — of meeting the 
 Protestant doctrine of the sufficiency and sole supremacy of Scrip- 
 ture as the rule of faith, and our objections on that ground to 
 
 VOL. II. 2 E 
 
434 APPENDIX I. 
 
 the corruptions of tlie Romish Church. Newman's ' Essay ' was 
 answered with much abihty by Professor Arclier Butler, in his 
 ^ Letters on the Development of Christian Doctrine,' which first 
 appeared in the pages of the ' Irish Ecclesiastical Journal,' but 
 Avere published separately in Dublin in 1850. Professor Butler 
 does not confine himself to a reply to Newman's theory, but takes 
 up many points connected with the general question of progress 
 in theology, and the place of creeds and confessions. Compare 
 also Principal Cunningham's review of Newman's ' Essay ' in his 
 ' Discussions on Church Principles,' ch. ii., ' Works,' vol. iv. pp. 
 35-77. 
 
 Dunlop, ' The Uses of Creeds and Confessions of Faith.' — 
 The production of this very useful work, along with the larger 
 compilation to which it was originally attached, forms but one 
 of the many services for which the Church of Scotland stands 
 indebted to the illustrious family to which the author belonged, 
 — services, of which not the least memorable or important have 
 been rendered in our own day. The little treatise now referred 
 to was written by Professor Dunlop of Edinburgh, son of the 
 well-known Principal Dunlop of Glasgow, who lived at the end 
 of the seventeenth century. It first appeared in the shape of a 
 Preface to a very valuable ' Collection of Confessions of Faith, 
 Catechisms, Directories, Books of Discipline, etc., of Public 
 Authority in the Church of Scotland,' Edin. 1719, — a book 
 which has now become somewdiat scarce and high priced. 
 Dunlop's Preface was republished a few years ago in a separate 
 form, under the editorship of my respected friend and colleague, 
 Dr. James Buchanan. [Lond. 1857. Cf. Blackburne, ' The 
 Confessional : A Full and Free Inquiry into the Right of Estab- 
 lishing Confessions of Faith in Protestant Churches,' 1767 ; 
 Wardlaw, ' Systematic Theology,' Edin. 1856, vol. i. pp. 46-74. 
 Dr. Wardlaw admits the abstract lawfulness of creeds and con- 
 fessions, both as public testimonies to truth, and as tests of fitness 
 for membership and office in the Church ; but he objects to them 
 on the ground of practical expediency, p. 55 f.] 
 
 DiY. II. — Church Power exercised in regard to Ordinances. 
 
 ' Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici ; or, The Divine Right 
 of the Gospel Ministry.' Published by the Provincial Assembly 
 
NOTES ON THE LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT. 435 
 
 of London, Loncl. 1654. A very able and useful work, dealing 
 especially with the views of the Independents and sectaries of the 
 day. In the Second Part of it, ' Jus Divinum Ministerii Angli- 
 can!; or, The Divine llight of the Ministry of England,' the 
 argument from Scripture and antiquity in favour of the Presby- 
 terian system of Church polity is taken up. 
 
 Gillespie, ' Dispute against the English-Popish Ceremonies 
 obtruded upon the Church of Scotland,' Edin. 1G37. — This was 
 Gillespie's first work, and it may be truly said to have settled the 
 controversy which called it forth, so far as argument was con- 
 cerned. No answer to it was ever attempted by the Prelatic party; 
 and no answer was possible. It displays singular acuteness, 
 learning, and force of reasoning; and the thoroughness of the 
 discussion is as remarkable as the power with which it is 
 conducted. 
 
 Ames, ' Suit against Human Ceremonies in Divine Worship,' 
 1633. By the celebrated author of the '^ledulla SS. Theologian,' 
 and of ' Bellarminus Euervatus.' 
 
 Bradshaw, ' Several Treatises of "Worship and Ceremonies,' 
 Lond. 1660. — This is a collection of pamphlets written during 
 the Puritan controversy. 
 
 Owen, ' A Discourse concerning Liturgies, and their Imposi- 
 tion,' Works, Goold's ed. vol. xv. ; giving the Scriptural argument 
 against the Imposition of Liturgies as well as of other humanly 
 devised elements in Divine worship, with great clearness and 
 force. Along with this work may be named one by Clarkson, 
 Owen's colleague in the ministry: ' A Discourse concerning 
 Liturgies,' Lond. 1689. It is published also, together with some 
 valuable works against Diocesan Episcopacy, in Clarkson's ' Select 
 Works,' published by the Wycliffe Society, Lond. 1846, pp. 247- 
 374. In this treatise the argument against Liturgies, from their 
 non-existence in the early Church, and from the history of their 
 gradual introduction and prevalence afterwards, is given with 
 very great learning and effect. 
 
 Robinson, ' A Review of the Case of Liturgies and their Im- 
 position,' Lond. niO. 
 
 Sir Peter King (afterwards Lord Chancellor), ' An Enquiry 
 into the Constitution, Discipline, Unity, and Worship of the 
 Primitive Church,' Lond. 1691. 
 
 Riddle, ' Manual of Christian Antiquities ; or, An Account 
 
436 APPENDIX I. 
 
 of the Constitution, Ministers, Worship, Discipline, and Customs 
 of the Ancient Church,' 2d ed. Lond. 1843. 
 
 Seaman, ' Vindication of the Judgment of the Reformed 
 Churches concerning Ordination, and Laying on of Hands/ 
 Lond. 1647. 
 
 Courayer, ' Dissertation on the Vahdity of the Ordinations of 
 the English, and of the Succession of the Bishops of the Anglican 
 Church,' Oxford 1844. — This work is translated from the French. 
 It contains a very elaborate, but by no means very satisfactory or 
 conclusive argument in favour of the validity — from a Roman 
 Catholic point of view — of the Orders of the English Church. 
 [The singularity of a Romanist coming forward to defend a 
 position denounced by the general voice of his Church is lessened 
 by the consideration that Courayer, at the time of writing this 
 book, was unsound on various articles of Roman Catholic belief, 
 besides those involved in the ' Galilean Liberties' (see e.g. pp. 
 148, 150, 219 ff.). Before the close of his life he seems to have 
 fallen into very serious doctrinal errors on many points, pp. 
 Iviii.-lxi.] 
 
 Calderwood, ' Altare Damascenura,' Lugduni Batavorunil708. 
 This is a very learned, able, and comprehensive work. Chap. ix. 
 deals at great length with the question of humanly invented and 
 imposed ceremonies in the worship of God, with special reference 
 to the controversies on that subject in Scotland and England in 
 the early part of the seventeenth century. See also, by the same 
 author, 'The Perth Assembly,' 1619; 'Re-Examination of the 
 Five Articles of Perth,' 1636. [As specimens of works by divines 
 of the Lutheran Church on Ordination, the Ministerial Office, 
 etc., may be named, Gerhard, ' Loci Theologici,' xxiii., ' De 
 Ministerio Ecclesiastico,' ed. Preuss, tom. vi. ; Harless, ' Kirche 
 und Amt nach lutherischer Lehre,' Stuttgart 1853; Kostlin, 
 ' Luther's Lehre von der Kirche,' Stuttgart 1853, §§ 2-4, 6, etc. ; 
 Nitzsch, ' Praktische Theologie, Gottesdienst,' 2te Aufl., Bonn 
 1863.] 
 
 On the important subject of the Sacraments, the following 
 books are worthy of consultation : 
 
 Calvin's ' Tracts on the Sacraments,' and Turrettin, loc. xix., 
 as before mentioned. Bellarmine, in his ' Disputationes,' tom. 
 iii. Ingolstadii 1605, gives a very full and exact statement of 
 the Romish doctrine on the subject. 
 
NOTES ON THE LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT. 437 
 
 Archbishop Tillotson, ' On Transubstantiation.' 
 AYaterhxucl, ' lieview of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, as hxicl 
 down in Scripture and Antiquity,' Cambridge 1737. 
 
 Bishop Cosin, ' History of Popish Transubstantiation,' Lond. 
 1G76. 
 
 Hospinian, ' liistoria Sacramentaria,' Tiguri 1602. 
 
 Johnson, ' The Unbloody Sacrifice and Ahar Unvailed and 
 Supported,' Lond. 1724, — This work was repubhshed by tlie 
 Tractarian party at Oxford in 1847. 
 
 Hoadly (successively Bishop of Bangor, Hereford, Salisbury, 
 and Winchester), ' Plain Account of the Nature and End of the 
 Sacrament of the Lord's Supper,' 2d ed. Lond. 1735. The view 
 of the ordinance advocated by Hoadly is, in substance, that of 
 the Socinian body. 
 
 One of the most recent defences of the Ilomish doctrine of 
 transubstantiation, and that by a plausible and dextrous, if not 
 very profound controversialist, is to be found in Cardinal Wise- 
 man's ' Lectures on the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Eucharist,' published in 
 1836. The same subject was discussed by him in the second 
 volume of his ' Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and Practices 
 of the Catholic Church,' which also appeared in 1836. His argu- 
 ments were replied to by Dr. Turton, then Regius Professor of 
 Divinity in Cambridge, and Dean of Peterborough, in his ' Roman 
 Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist Considered,' Camb. 1837. Dr. 
 AViseman responded by ' A Reply to Dr. Turton's Roman Catho- 
 lic Doctrine of the Eucharist Considered,' Lond. 1839 ; to which 
 Dr. Turton again rejoined in some ' Observations on the Rev. 
 Dr. Wiseman's Reply,' Camb. 1839. The controversy was also 
 taken up by Mr. Stanley Faber, in a work entitled ' Christ's Dis- 
 course at Capernaum fatal to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation,' 
 Lond. 1840. 
 
 Wilberforce, ' The Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist,' 3d ed. 
 Lond. 1854. — The writer advocates the extreme High Church 
 view of the Sacrament ; but his book displays a good deal both 
 of learning and ingenuity. The doctrines propounded on this 
 subject by Wilberforce, Pusey, and others of the Tractarian 
 party, were met and refuted Avith great ability and success by 
 Mr. Goode, afterwards Dean of Ripon, in a very valuable work, 
 ' The Nature of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist ; or, the True 
 
438 APPENDIX I. 
 
 Doctrine of the Eeal Presence Vindicated,' Lond. 1856. I would 
 also strongly recommend, in this connection, an admirable essay 
 by Dr. Hodge of Princeton upon ' The Doctrine of the Eeformed 
 Church on the Lord's Supper,' which is published among his 
 ' Essays and Keviews,' New York 1857. See also Dr. Cunning- 
 ham's discussion of the subject, ' Works,' vol. i. pp. 225-291, vol. 
 ii. pp. 201-207, vol. iii. pp. 121-143. 
 
 Dr. Halley's work on ' The Sacraments,' published as the 
 Congregational Lecture for 1844, marks an era in the history of the 
 English Independents as regards the views which it advocated 
 with respect to indiscriminate Baptism, — views which had been 
 spreading widely for some time among the denomination to which 
 the writer belonged, but which, when publicly maintained by him 
 as their representative, took many by surprise.^ Apart from this, 
 however, the book is an important and valuable one for its often 
 very effective refutation of the High Church doctrines of Baptism 
 and the Lord's Supper, as well as for the great ability and general 
 scholarship displayed throughout it. [Dr. Halley defended his 
 position as to indiscriminate Baptism against Dr. Wardlaw and 
 other critics, in a work entitled ' Baptism, the Designation of the 
 Catechumens, not the Symbol of the ]\Iembers of the Christian 
 Church,' Lond. 1847.] 
 
 Goode, ' Doctrine of the Church of England as to the Effects 
 of Baptism in the case of Infants,' 2d ed. Lond. 1850. The main 
 object of the author is to vindicate the position and teaching of 
 the evangelical party with respect to Baptism, from the standards 
 of the English Church. With this in view, Mr. Goode proves 
 most conclusively, as indeed had been done before by Hickman, 
 Toplady, and others, that the Keformers of the Church of Eng- 
 land, and those who drew up her Articles, were Calvinists in 
 doctrine.^ Having established this point, he then argues from it, 
 that they, as Calvinists, could not have consistently held the doc- 
 trine of baptismal regeneration, and therefore could not have 
 meant to teach it in the Baptismal Service or the Church Cate- 
 chism ; and therefore that he and other evangelical members of 
 the Church of England who do not believe in baptismal regene- 
 ration, need have no scruple in using these formularies and 
 interpreting their expressions about the effects of Baptism in a 
 sound sense, — a kind of argument which, in the case of a Church 
 [1 See above, p. 54 of this vol.] ^ Goode, pp. 38-142. 
 
NOTES ON THE LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT. 439 
 
 notoriously foun<leJ on a compromise, is not perliaps very con- 
 clusive.^ In itself, however, like all the writings of this author, 
 the book displays much learning, talent, and soundness of view. 
 
 Booth, ' Ptcdobaptism Examined,' Lond. 1829, in three 
 volumes, first published in 1787. — This work used to be the 
 standard among Antipaidobaptists, before the appearance of 
 Dr. Carson's writings on the subject. It was replied to with 
 great ability by Dr. Williams, in his ' Antipredobaptism Ex- 
 amined,' Shrewsbury 1789. Dr. Williams was a theologian of 
 higli standing. He is the author of an ' Essay on the Equity of 
 Divine Government and the Sovereignty of Divine Grace,' and 
 of a ' Defence of Modern Calvinism,' in reply to Bishop Tomline, 
 both of which are very valuable books. 
 
 Wardlaw, ' Dissertation on the Scriptural Authority, Nature, 
 and Uses of Infant Baptism,' 3d ed. Glasg. 1846. — This is an 
 acute and masterly discussion of the question of Infant Baptism. 
 In an Appendix, the author controverts the views of Dr. Halley 
 and the English Independents as to indiscriminate Baptism. 
 
 Carson, ' Baptism in its Mode and Subjects,' Lond. 1844. — 
 This is the ablest book which has appeared in recent times on the 
 Antipasdobaptist side. Among other replies to it, may be men- 
 tioned that by Professor Wilson of Belfast : ' Infant Baptism a 
 Scriptural Service,' Lond. 1848. 
 
 Beecher, ' Baptism with reference to its Import and Modes,' 
 New York 1849. A singularly clear, logical, and scholarly dis- 
 cussion of the Scriptural meaning of the word ' Baptism,' and 
 the modes in which the rite may be lawfully performed. [Cf. 
 Princeton Essays, 2d Series, Ess. xvi.] With respect to the 
 practice of the early post-apostolic Church as to Infant Baptism, 
 see Wall, ' History of Infant Baptism,' 3d ed. Lond. 1720. It 
 is a very thorough and reliable book. 
 
 Cunningham, 'Works,' vol. iii. pp. 144-154. 
 
 [Among the numerous works on the Sacraments by German 
 theologians, both of the Reformed and the Lutheran Churches, 
 may be mentioned : Ebrard, ' Dogma vom heiligen Abendmahl,' 
 Frankf. 1845 ; Jul. Midler, ' Lutheri et Calvini sentential de sacra 
 Coena,' Halis 1851 ; Ilarnack, ' der christliche Gemeindegottes- 
 dienst im apostolischen und altkatholischen Zeitalter,' Erlangen 
 1854; Hofling, 'das Sakrament der Taufe,' Erlangen 1846; 
 [1 Cf. Ciinuingham, Works, vol. i. pp. 17G ff.] 
 
UO APPENDIX I. 
 
 Kalinis, 'die Lelire vom Abendmahl,' Leipzig 1851. The two 
 last named are very learned and elaborate works, written from 
 the High Lutheran confessional standpoint.] 
 
 Div. III. — Church Poicer exercised in regard to Discipline. 
 
 Durham, ' Treatise concerning Scandal,' Glasg. 1740 ; see 
 esp. Part ii. This is a very excellent and useful work. There is 
 a great deal of practical Christian wisdom and sound judgment 
 shown, both in the principles M'hicli the writer lays down with 
 respect to the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline, and the appli- 
 cations which he makes of them. [Compare the same atithor's 
 ' Commentary on the Kevelation,' Glasg. 1788, pp. 179-190.] 
 
 Voetius, ' Politica Ecclesiastica,' tom. iii. lib. iv. Tract ii.-iv.. 
 Amstel. 1676. 
 
 'Book of Common Order,' ch. vii. Dunlop's Collection, vol. 
 ii. pp. 413-417. [This chapter is little else than an abridged 
 translation of Calvin, ' Instit.' lib. iv. cap. xii. Besides the works 
 referred to on pp. 190, 199 of this vol., see Wilson, 'The King- 
 dom of our Lord Jesus Christ,' Edin. 1859, pp. 349-431 ; 'Essay 
 on Sacerdotal Absolution,' Princeton Essays, 1st Series, No. xv.] 
 
 PAET IV. — THE PARTIES IN AVHOM THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE 
 CHURCH POWER IS VESTED. 
 
 The question of Church government did not come up for any 
 very formal and detailed discussion until the Eeformation, the 
 monarchical system of ecclesiastical polity which had grown up in 
 Europe along with the Papacy being generally acquiesced in, 
 save among the Vaudois, and in a few other such exceptional 
 cases. " We have, however," as Dr. Cunningham has remarked, 
 " a pretty full and formal statement of the argument in favour of 
 the two systems of Episcopacy and Pi'esbytery as early as the 
 fourth century, of the Scriptural argument in favour of Pres- 
 bytery by Jerome, usually regarded as the most learned of the 
 Fathers, and of the argument in favour of Prelacy by Epi- 
 phanius in reply to Aerius. And it may be worth while to ob- 
 serve in passing, that Jerome's Scriptural argument for Presbytery 
 is still generally regarded by Presbyterians as a conclusive and 
 unanswerable defence of their cause ; while the earliest defence 
 of Prelacy by Epiphanius has been admitted by some of the ablest 
 
 i 
 
NOTES ON THE LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT. 441 
 
 defenders of Prelacy — such as Cardinal Bellarniine, De Doininis, 
 Archbishop of Spalatro, and Hooker — to be weak and unsatis- 
 factory, though they have not, I think, been able to devise any- 
 thin<f that was greatly superior to it." ^ 
 
 Calvin, ' Inst.' lib. iv. cap. iii.-v. 
 
 Turrettin, loc. xviii. qu. xvi.-xxi. 
 
 Beza, ' Kesponsio ad Tractationem de Ministrorum Evangelii 
 Gradibus ab Hadriano Saraviaeditam,' 3 592 ; ' De diversis ^Minis- 
 troruni Gradibus contra Saraviam,' Geneva? 1594. 
 
 Bucer, ^ Dissertatio de Gubernatione Ecclesioe,' Middelburgi 
 Zelandorum 1618. 
 
 Voetius, ' Politica Ecclesiastica,' torn. iii. lib. ii. Tract ii.-iv., 
 lib. iv. Tract i.-iii. 
 
 Salmasius, 'De Priniatu Papse,' Lugdun. Batav. 1645. — This 
 is a standard book for the views of the Fathers on the subject of 
 the Papal supremacy. 
 
 Salmasius, ' De Episcopis et Presbyteris,' Lugdun. Batav. 
 1641, published under the assumed name of ' \Yalo ^lessalinus.' 
 
 Blondel, ' Apologia pro sententia Hieronymi de Episcopis ct 
 Presbyteris;' taking up especially the argument from antiquity 
 with extraordinary learning, and in great detail. 
 
 Vitringa, ' De Synagogji Yetere.' A book of immense learn- 
 ing and research, the object being to prove that the government 
 of the synagogue was the model on which that of the Church was 
 founded. The main fault of the work is a tendency to strain 
 likenesses in matters of detail ; its general design is very success- 
 fully accomplished. As regards the remarkable unanimity with 
 which all the leading Reformers arrived at from Scripture, and 
 maintained in their writings the essential principles of Presby- 
 terianism, see, besides the treatises on Church government of 
 several of them already referred to : Dr. Cunningham's ' Works,' 
 vol. iii. pp. 514-533 ; JNliller, ' Letters concerning the Constitu- 
 tion and Order of the Christian Ministry,' 2d ed. Philadelphia 
 1830, pp. 351-406. [See also Luther, ' samtliche Schriften,' ed. 
 AValch, Th. xiv. pp. 139 f., 362 ff., Th. xix. pp. 877-886, etc.; 
 Melanchthon, ' Opera,' in the ' Corpus Keformatorum,' vol. xxi. 
 BrunsvigiK 1854, pp. 834 ff., 1100, vol. xxii. pp. 515-524, etc.] 
 
 A rather curious illustration of the difficulty of getting any 
 show of authority from the Reformers in favour of Prelacy, even 
 ^ Cimniugham, H'ocA*-, vol. iii. p. 549. 
 
442 APPENDIX I. 
 
 by the method of isolated quotation, may be seen in Dr. Words- 
 worth's 'Theophilus Anglicanus,' a book which has gone through 
 many editions, and is commonly used as a text-book for students. 
 The author has collected together (ed. 1863, p. 105 f.) most of 
 the passages handed down by Anglican tradition from the days of 
 Bancroft and Durel, with a view to prove that the Reformers 
 were forced into Presbyterian ism against their real convictions of 
 the Scriptural authority of Prelacy. I take those which he has 
 thought worthy of being printed at full length ; two or three 
 more, given in reference, are even less relevant. The first is 
 the well-known passage from Melanchthon's ' Apology for the 
 Augsburg Confession ' (art. vii. 24), in which he states : " We 
 are exceedingly anxious to preserve the ecclesiastical polity and 
 the orders in the Church, although appointed hy human authority. 
 For we know that this Church polity was established by the Fathers 
 in the way that the ancient Canons describe, loitlt a. good and. 
 useful design." He then goes on to throw the responsibility of 
 the dissolution of this established order of things upon the Romish 
 party, seeing that the other side were willing to yield the bishops 
 their jurisdiction, "if only they would cease to rage against our 
 Churches." ^Melanchthon was at this time almost overwhelmed 
 by a sense of the dangers that threatened to crush the Protes- 
 tant cause altogether. His very interesting correspondence with 
 Luther, who was unable to be present at the Diet, shows him 
 willing to give up almost anything, if only the light of the Gospel 
 might be spared them. He constantly appeals to Luther to tell 
 him what further concessions he might make to the Romanists. 
 This passage accordingly shows his willingness to yield the bishops 
 their place and jurisdiction, both being regarded simply as of 
 human appointment, for the sake of peace ; just as, a few years 
 after this, when signing a decided declaration of the Scripture 
 authority of Presbyterianism drawn up by Luther (art. Schmalc. 
 De Potest, et Jurisd. Episc), he added to his signature a state- 
 ment that, the Gospel safe, he would, " propter pacem et com- 
 munem tranquillitatem," concede — not only to the bishops but — 
 to the Pope himself, his present supremacy over the Church, ^^ jure 
 humano." This particular concession of his in the Apology ex- 
 posed him, as he tell us, to reproaches from many of his friends ; 
 and even Luther, with all his wish to spare ISIelanchthon's sen- 
 sitiveness to blame from himself, wrote to him : " I have received 
 
NOTES ON THE LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT. 443 
 
 your Apology, and wonder -wlint you mean by wishing to know 
 what and how much you may yield to the Papists. For my part, 
 I hold that there is only too much yielded to them already in the 
 Apology. (Fiir meine Person ist ihnen allzuviel nachgegeben 
 in der Apologia.)" Walch, Th. xvi. p. 1070. Cf. pp. 1101, 
 1G95, 175G, 1794, etc. 
 
 The defects of the German Reformation on several points — 
 e.g. the place given to the civil power in Church affairs — arose 
 from a failure on the part of the leading Keformers to insist in 
 practice upon the Scriptural principles clearly perceived in theory. 
 Eight years at least before the Diet of Augsburg, Luther had 
 discovered that no order of Church office-bearers above presbyters 
 had any warrant in Scripture, and announced his convictions on 
 the point to the world W'ith his usual emphasis, anticipating Beza's 
 distinction between "a Divine, a human, and a Satanical Epis- 
 copacy." " Es soil Jedermann wissen," he says in a work written 
 against the Pope and " the order of bishops, falsely so called," 
 " dass die Bischoffe, die jetzt liber viele Stiidte regieren, nicht 
 christliche Bischoffe nach gottlicher Ordnung sind, sondern aus 
 teuflischer Ordnung und menschlichem Frevel, sind auch gewiss- 
 lich des Teufels Boten und Statthalter. Das will ich redlich und 
 wohl beweisen, dass weder sie selbst, noch Jemand soil leugnen 
 konnen." He then proceeds to prove the Divine authority of the 
 Presbyterian system by the usual Scripture arguments. Walch, 
 Th. xix. p. 877, etc. 
 
 After the extract from ISIelanchthon's Apology, Dr. Words- 
 worth gives three short and wholly detached sentences from 
 Calvin, and one from Beza. The first is from Calvin's letter to 
 Cardinal Sadolet in 1539 : " Disciplinam, qualem habuit vetus 
 Ecclesia nobis deesse non diffitemur ; sed cujus erit aequitatis nos 
 everssG disciplinas ab iis accusari, qui [et] earn soli penitus sustu- 
 lerunt, [et guiim postliminio reducere conaremur nobis hactenus 
 ohstiteruntV'] Now, any one who had read the context could 
 not fail to be aware that this passage has nothing whatever to 
 do with Church government, strictly so-called. " Disciplina " has 
 just its ordinary meaning, as distinct from " regimen," and refers 
 to that famous system of Church censures which Calvin was then 
 striving to establish at Geneva — that same " godly discipline of 
 the primitive Church," in short, for the restoration of Avhich the 
 Church of England still utters an annual longing in the Commi- 
 
444 APPENDIX I. 
 
 nation Service. The Genevese Reformer had not yet succeeded 
 in his attempt ; lie was, in fact, in banishment at that very 
 moment, because of the opposition encountered in it. He could 
 not but admit, therefore, that as yet " the discipline of the 
 ancient Church is wanting to iis." It was not until about two 
 years after this that he could write to Myconius : " Nunc habe- 
 mus qualecunque presbyterorum judicium, et formam discipUncp, 
 qualem ferebat temporum infirmitas." If Dr. Wordsworth had 
 given the last clause of the sentence quoted, the true meaning of 
 the first would have been suggested. He has not done so. On the 
 contrary, he has put a full stop after " sustulerunt," and printed 
 immediately after it another short sentence — which does not even 
 occur in the letter to Sadolet — beginning with " Episcopatus,'' 
 without the slightest break or indication that that is not the next 
 Avord in the original. The impression left on the mind of the reader 
 is, of course, that the '' discipline" referred to was Episcopacy. 
 
 The Prelatic value of the other three sentences is simply this, 
 that they happen to contain the word "Episcopus" or " Episco- 
 pate." They contain nothing which any Presbyterian in the 
 present day would not heartily agree to, understanding the words, 
 as Calvin and Beza did, in their Scriptural sense. " In that I 
 call those who rule the Churches," says Calvin, when formally 
 discussing the subject, " bishops, presbyters, pastors, and ministers 
 indifferently, I do so according to the usage of Scripture, which 
 employs these terms as synonymous, giving the title of bishop to 
 all who discharge the ministry of the Word" {Inst. lib. iv. cap. 
 iii. 8). And this is the evidence by which the authors of the 
 ' Ordonnances ecclesiastiques de Geneve' and the 'De Triplici 
 Episcopatu' are to be proved favourers of Prelacy ! 
 
 ' Vindication of the Presbyterial Government and ^linistry.' 
 By the Provincial Assembly of London. Lond. 1649. ' Reasons 
 presented by the Dissenting Brethren against certain Propositions 
 concerning Presbyterial Government, with the Answers of the 
 Assembly of Divines to the reasons of Dissent,' Lond. 1648. 
 The representatives of Independency in the Westminster As- 
 sembly, although few in number, were men of much ability and 
 learning. We have here the arguments urged by them in behalf 
 of the Independent theory of the Church, with a careful and 
 thorough answer to these by the divines who drew up the stan- 
 dards of our Church. 
 
NOTES ON THE LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT. 445 
 
 Alexander Henderson, ' The Government and Order of tlic 
 Church of Scotland,' 1641. 
 
 Gillespie, ' Assertion of the Government of the Chnrcli of 
 Scotland,' Edin. 1G41 ; especially full and valuable in connection 
 with the office and duties of the rulino; elder. 
 
 Rutherford, ' The Due Right of Presbyteries ; or, a Peaceable 
 Plea for the Government of the Church of Scotland,' Lond. 1644. 
 — This is a very learned and elaborate treatise, chiefly directed 
 against the views of the Independents. By the same author is, 
 * A peaceable and temperate Plea for Paul's Presbyterie in Scot- 
 land,' Lond. 1642 ; also dealing mainly with the Independent 
 theory. Principal Baillie's ' Dissuasive from the Errors of the 
 Times,' Lond. 1645, discusses, likewise, the principles of the 
 Independents among those of the other sects of the day. A second 
 part or continuation of the ' Dissuasive' appeared in 1647, taking 
 up the special subject of ' Anabaptism.' 
 
 Calderwood, ' Altare Damascenum.' — A sort of first sketch or 
 outline of this celebrated and important work was published by 
 the author in 1621. It is in English ; and the title-page — as is 
 the case with many other of Calderwood's works — exhibits neither 
 the author's name nor the place of publication, this being a pre- 
 caution very necessary in his case, in order to avoid the perse- 
 cuting measures of the Court and the Prelatic party in Scotland. 
 The title of the little volume referred to is, ' The Altar of Damas- 
 cus, or the Pattern of the English Hierarchic and Church Policie 
 obtruded upon the Church of Scotland,' — the allusion being to 
 the incident recorded in 2 Kings xvi. 10, 11. The first edition 
 of the work in its completed form appeared in Latin in 1623, and 
 immediately established the fame of the writer in the theological 
 world, both at home and abroad. It is constantly quoted as an 
 authority by Voetius and other eminent Continental divines of the 
 seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It contains an exceedingly 
 elaborate, able, and learned discussion of all the main points relat- 
 ing to Church government and worship then in dispute between 
 Prelatists and Presbyterians, beginning with the royal supremacy 
 in the Church of England.^ 
 
 In 1640, Bishop Hall, the author of the 'Contemplations,' at 
 the request of Archbishop Laud, wrote a book called ' Episcopacie 
 
 * [See the "Life of Calderwood " aj^pended to the hast volume of Ids Histori/ 
 of the Kirk of Scotland, Wodrow Soc. ed. Edin. 1849.] 
 
446 APPENDIX I. 
 
 by Divine Eight, asserted by J. H.,' Lond. 1640. In the same 
 year, seeing that apphcations were being largely made to Parlia- 
 ment for the abolition of Diocesan Episcopacy, and the estabhsh- 
 raent of the Presbyterian system in its place, Bishop Hall came 
 forward again to oppose this movement in a work published anony- 
 mously : ' An Humble Remonstrance to the High Court of Par- 
 liament by a dutiful Son of the Church.' This called forth a 
 very able treatise, ' An Answer to a Book entitled " An Humble 
 Remonstrance," in which the Parity of Bishops and Presbyters in 
 Scripture is demonstrated, the occasion of their Imparity in An- 
 tiquity discovered, the Disparity of the ancient and our modern 
 Bishops manifested, the Antiquity of Ruling Elders in the Church 
 vindicated, and the Prelatical Church bounded. By Smec- 
 tymnuus.' 1641. This work was reprinted from the 5th ed. in 
 Edinburgh, 1708. The authors were five eminent ministers of 
 the Puritan party : Stephen Marshall, Edmund Calamy, Thomas 
 Young, Matthew Newcomen, and William Spurstowe, whose 
 united initials make up the word Smectymnuus. Bishop Hall 
 replied in a ' Defence of the Humble Remonstrance against the 
 frivolous and false exceptions of Smectymnuus, wherein the right 
 of Leiturgie and Episcopacie is clearly vindicated from the vain 
 cavils and challenges of the Answerer,' Lond. 1641. In reply 
 to this appeared ' A Vindication of the Answer to the Humble 
 Remonstrance from the unjust imputations of frivolousness and 
 falsehood, wherein the cause of Liturgy and Episcopacy is further 
 debated,' by the same Smectymnuus, Lond. 1641. Bishop Hall 
 rejoined in 'A short Answer to the tedious Vindication of 
 Smectymnuus,' Lond. 1641. The controversy was also taken up 
 by Milton in his 'Animadversions upon the Remonstrant's De- 
 fence against Smectymnuus,' Lond. 1641, and 'An Apology for 
 Smectymnuus,' Lond. 1642. These works of Milton's, as Avell as 
 two others which he published about the same time, ' Of Refor- 
 mation in England,' and ' The Reason of Church Government 
 urged against Pi'elaty,' are very vigorously written, often highly 
 eloquent, and thoroughly Presbyterian in principle. 
 
 With respect to the views of the earlier generation of English 
 Puritans, I may refer you to the works of one of their ablest 
 representatives, Thomas Cartwright : ' A full and plaine Decla- 
 ration of Ecclesiastical Discipline out of the Word of God, and 
 of the declining of the Church of England from the same,' 1574. 
 
NOTES ON THE LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT. 417 
 
 This was draAvn up originally in Latin by Travers, but further 
 ekiboratecl and translated by Cartwright.^ ' A Iveplic to an 
 Ansvvere made of M. Doctor Whitgifte againste the Admonition 
 to the Parliament.' ' Second Replie agaynst Maister Doctor 
 AVhitgiftc's Second Answer touching the Church Discipline.' 
 1575. The second part of this appeared in 1577. See also 'A 
 Defence of the Ecclesiastical Discipline ordayned of God to be 
 used in His Church, 1588 ' (in reply to Bridges). 
 
 One of the most learned and elaborate works on the opposite 
 side is that of Bilson, ' The Perpetual Government of Christ's 
 Church/ Oxf. 1842, first published in 1593. It is still commonly 
 regarded as a standard authority in the Church of England. 
 
 Dodwell, ' Separation of Churches from Episcopal Govern- 
 ment, as practised by the present Nonconformists, proved schis- 
 matical,' 1679. — The author was an extreme and consistent High 
 Churchman. He was replied to by Baxter, in ' A Treatise of 
 Episcopacy,' Lend. 1681 ; and by an eminent Lutheran divine, 
 Buddeus, in his ' Exercitatio de Origine et Potestate Episcopo- 
 rmn,' Jena? 1705. As among the ablest writers on the same side 
 with Dodwell, may be further named, Cave, ' Dissertation concern- 
 ing the Government of the Ancient Church,' Lond. 1683 ; and 
 Thorndike, ' Two Discourses ; the one of the primitive Govern- 
 ment of the Churches, the other of the Service of God at the 
 Assemblies of the Church,' Cambridge 1650. 
 
 Stillingfleet, in his ' Irenicum,' 2d ed. 1662, abandoned the 
 attempt to prove a Jus Divinmn for Diocesan Episcopacy, as the 
 school of Laud had sought to do, resting his argument for it 
 solely on considerations of expediency, and urging the Noncon- 
 formists to union on the ground that no form of Church polity 
 had been specially appointed in Scripture. His book is a remark- 
 ably able, and in many respects a very fair and candid one. 
 
 Baxter, ' Five Disputations of Church Government and Wor- 
 ship,' Lond. 1659. 
 
 Owen, ' An Inquiry into the Original Nature, Institution, 
 Power, Order, and Communion of Evangelical Churches,' ' Works,' 
 Goold's ed. vol. xv. ; ' True Nature of a Gospel Church,' vol. xvi. 
 The first of these two treatises appeared in 1681, in answer to 
 an attack on the Nonconformist position by Stillingfleet, in his 
 ' Unreasonablenss of Separation ; ' the second of them was pub- 
 1 [Neal, Hist, of Puritans, ed. 1837, vol. i. p. 292.] 
 
448 APPENDIX T. 
 
 Hshed in 1689, a few years after the death of the author. These 
 two works, exhibiting as they do the matured opinions on Church 
 government of the greatest Enghsh theologian of that age, are 
 exceedingly interesting and important. Like all the wi-itings of 
 Owen, they display great force of argument, and much learning, 
 wielded by sound judgment. In them the Avriter maintains very 
 powerfully all the great leading principles of Presbyterianism, 
 the Scripture authority for the office of ruling elder, courts of 
 review, etc. It would be well if the position of modern Indepen- 
 dents on the question of Church polity were no further removed 
 from our own than that which is marked by the illustrious name 
 of Owen. 
 
 I have already referred to the works of Owens colleague, 
 David Clarkson, on the subject of Presbyterianism and Pi'elacy. 
 They are especially able and valuable in connection with the 
 argument for the Presbyterian system, which is to be drawn from 
 the views and practice of the early post-apostolic Church. See 
 Clarkson's ' Select Works,' Wycliffe Soc. ed. Lond. 1846. As 
 useful books in the same department of the discussion, I may 
 mention further, Chauncy's ' Complete View of Episcopacy, as 
 exhibited from the Fathers of the Christian Church until the close 
 of the Second Century,' Boston 1721 ; Boyse's ' Clear Account 
 of the Ancient Episcopacy, proving it to have been Parochial, 
 and not Diocesan,' Lond. 1712 ; and Lauder of Mordentoun's 
 ' Ancient Bishops, considered both with respect to the extent of 
 their Jurisdiction and the nature of their Power, in answer to 
 Mr. Chillingworth and others,' Edin. 1707. 
 
 Principal Rule, ' The Good Old Way Defended,' Edin. 1697 
 (in reply to Monro and Sage, two Episcopalian writers of the 
 day); ' A Vindication of the Church of Scotland,' 1691. The 
 author published also a ' Second Vindication,' and finally a 
 ' Defence of the Vindication,' in 1694. 
 
 Anderson, ' A Defence of the Church Government, Faith, 
 Worship, and Spirit of the Presbyterians,' Edin. 1820. — This work 
 was first published in 1714. The author was minister of our 
 Church at Dumbarton, and took part to a considerable extent in 
 the controversies of the time. This treatise of his is a remarkably 
 acute and vigorously written book. I would also strongly recom- 
 mend the woi"ks on this subject of a contemporary of Anderson 
 and Rule's, Professor Jameson of Glasgow, especially his ' Cypri- 
 
NOTES ON THE LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT. 449 
 
 anus Isotimus,' Edin. 1705 ; and his ' Sum of the Episcopal Con 
 troversy,' Edin. 1712. Several very able treatises on Church 
 iTovernmcnt were also published about the same time by Principal 
 Forrester of St. Mary's College, St. Andrews ; such as, ' Rectius 
 Instruendum,' in 1684, ' The Hierarchical Bishop's Claim to a 
 Divine Right, tried at the Scripture bar,' in 1699, ' A Review and 
 Consideration of two late Pamphlets,' and ' Causa Episcopatiis 
 hierarchici lucifuga ' (in reply to Sage), in 1706. 
 
 To come down to more recent works on Church government, 
 I may mention Dr. Mitchell of Kemnay's ' Presbyterian Letters,' 
 Lond. 1809, addressed to Dr. Skinner, a bishop of the Scotch 
 Episcopal body at Aberdeen, who had attacked some of the state- 
 ments in Dr. Campbell's 'Lectures on Ecclesiastical History,' when 
 published after the author's death.^ Both Dr. Campbell and his 
 vindicator, in defending Presbyterianism, agree in so far with 
 Mr. Litton and others, that they hold that apostolic practice, even 
 when proved in favour of one particular form of Church polity, 
 will not avail to establish a Jus Divinum, and that a proved and 
 fundamental departure from apostolic precedent does not affect 
 the inherent lawfulness of any system of ecclesiastical government. 
 Dr. Brown of Langton, ' The exclusive Claims of Puseyite 
 Episcopalians to the Christian Ministry Indefensible ; with an 
 Inquiry into the Divine Right of Episcopacy and the Apostolical 
 Succession :' in a series of Letters to Dr. Pusey. Edin. 1842. 
 This is an able, learned, and useful book. Along with it I may 
 name two treatises by an American divine. Dr. Smyth of 
 Charleston : ' The Prelatical Doctrine of Apostolical Succession 
 Examined,' Boston 1841 ; and ' Presbytery, not Prelacy, the 
 Scriptural and Primitive Polity,' Boston 1843. Both of these 
 works are especially valuable for the great collection wdiich they 
 furnish of literary material and references bearing on the subjects 
 discussed. 
 
 ^Mason of New York, ' The claims of Diocesan Episcopacy 
 Refuted,' Lond. 1838. 
 
 King, ' Exposition and Defence of the Presbyterian From of 
 Church Government,' Edin. 1853. This is a very useful little 
 volume, comprising in small space a good statement of the main 
 arguments in favour of Presbyterianism as against both Indepen- 
 
 1 [Campbell, Lect. on Eccles. Hist., 3cl ed. p. 202 f. M'Crie, Miscell. 
 Works, Edin. 1841, pp. 67-69. Mitchell, Preshyt. Letters, pp. 274-377.] 
 
 VOL. II. 2 F 
 
450 APPENDIX I. 
 
 clency and Prelacy. The same may be said of the ' Manual of 
 Presbytery,' 2d ed. Edin. 1847, by Dr. Miller of Princeton, and 
 Dr. Lorimer of Glasgow. 
 
 I next name two very excellent works of somewhat wider 
 range, which discuss with much ability the main points in dispute, 
 both as to government and worship, between Presbyterians and 
 Episcopalians. Both of them were published by ministers of the 
 Synod of Ulster : ' Presbyterianism Defended,' Glasg. 1839, and 
 the 'Plea of Presbytery,' 3d ed. Belfast 1843. 
 
 With respect more especially to the Independent controversy, 
 the following books may be referred to : A work by Professor 
 Wood of St. Andrews in answer to Lockyer, who was the first 
 to introduce the Independent theory into Scotland, under the 
 quaint title of ' A Little Stone, pretended to be out of the Moun- 
 tain, tried, and found to be a Counterfeit ; or, an Examination 
 and Refutation of Mr. Lockyer's Lecture preached at Edin- 
 burgh, anno 1651,' Edin. 1654. 
 
 Whytock, ' Vindication of Presbytery ; with Twelve Essays 
 on the Church,' Edin. 1843. — The author was minister of the 
 Associate Congregation, Dalkeith, and died in 1805, shortly 
 before the deposition of his friend Dr. M'Crie, whose views he 
 shared, from office in the Secession Church. 
 
 Brown (of Gartmore, and afterwards of Langton), ' Vindica- 
 tion of the Presbyterian Form of Church Government, as pro- 
 fessed in the Standards of the Church of Scotland,' Edin. 1805. 
 — This is a very acute, vigorous, and thorough discussion of the 
 points at issue between Presbyterians and Independents. 
 
 Dr. Cunningham, ' Works,' vol. ii. pp. 43-64, vol. iii. pp. 
 545-556. 
 
 As expressing the views of modern Independents may be 
 named, Wardlaw, ' Congregational Independency,' Glasg. 1848 ; 
 and Davidson, 'Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament,' 
 Lond. 1848. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 [The Italic n indicates that the reference is to the Notes.] 
 
 Alexander, Dr. "W. L.— 
 
 Remarks of, on Dr. Warcllaw's \'iews 
 of Sabbath legislation, i. 147 n, 
 148 n. 
 
 Views of, respecting the legitimacy 
 and possibility of unions among 
 Christian societies, consistently 
 with the independency of the 
 Churches, ii. 319, 320 n. 
 Anabaptist.s — 
 
 Views of, regarding Church power, 
 i. 232, 233. 
 Antip.edoeaptists — 
 
 Reply of, to the argument from the 
 example of Abraham in favour of 
 the fact that infants are compre- 
 hended within the covenant, ii. 71. 
 
 Consideration of the arguments of, 
 in reference to the example of 
 Abraham, ii. 71-74. 
 
 Views of, regarding the relation sus- 
 tained by infants to the covenant 
 or the Church, ii. 80. 
 
 Views of, regarding the title of ad- 
 mission to the ancient Church, ii. 
 82, S3. 
 
 Objections of, to Infant Baptism, ii. 
 96-106. 
 Apollonius — 
 
 statement by, respecting the subject 
 of Church power, i. 273, 274 n. 
 Apostles — 
 
 Office of the, proved to be extraordi- 
 nary and temporary by their sepa- 
 ration to be witnesses of Christ's 
 ministry and resurrection, ii. 217- 
 219. 
 
 The call and commission given by 
 Christ Himself proves the office of 
 the, to have been extraordinary 
 and temporary, ii. 219-221. 
 
 Supernatural power possessed by the, 
 proves their office to have been 
 extraordinary and temporary, ii. 
 221, 222. 
 
 Apostles — 
 
 The universal commission and un- 
 limited authority conferred by 
 Christ on the, show their office to 
 have been extraordinary and tem- 
 porary, ii. 222, 223. 
 
 Objections against the argument prov- 
 ing that the office of the, was ex- 
 traordinary and temporary, ii. 224- 
 228. 
 Apostolical Succession— 
 
 Doctrine of, not necessarily connected 
 with the Popish or Prelatic form of 
 Church government, i. 438, 439. 
 
 Distinction to be observed in dealing 
 with the doctrine of, between the 
 succession of a Christian ministry 
 generally from the days of the 
 Apostles, and the succession of this 
 or the other minister individually, 
 i. 439, 440. 
 
 No statements of Scripture can be 
 alleged in favour of, as necessary 
 to the validity of the ministerial 
 title, or to the essence of a Church 
 i. 440-442. 
 
 No precedents or analogies of Scrip 
 ture in favour of, i. 442, 443. 
 
 Scripture principles forbid the doc 
 trine of, in the line of indivi 
 dual ministers as necessary to the 
 validity of the ministerial title, 
 or the validity of ordinances, i, 
 444-451. 
 Aquinas, Thomas — 
 
 View of, respecting the supremacy of 
 the Pope, ii. 247. 
 Arnolp, Dr.— 
 
 Theory of, regarding the Church, i. 26. 
 
 Views of, respecting the connection 
 between Church and State, i. 110, 
 111. 
 Augustine — 
 
 The opinion of, on the subject of the 
 invisible Church, i. 8 n. 
 
452 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Augustine — 
 
 View of, as to the test for deciding 
 what are or are not true Churches 
 of God, i. 54 n. 
 
 Baillie, Egbert — 
 
 Views of, regarding the subject of 
 
 Church power, i. 266. 
 Statement by, respecting the views 
 of the earlier and later Anabaptists 
 as to the mode of Baptism, ii. 121, 
 122 w. 
 Ba'TT/^s; — 
 
 Scriptural meaning of, ii. 123-126. 
 Baptism — 
 
 Nature of, determined by the appli- 
 cation to it of Scriptural view of 
 the characteristics of the Sacra- 
 ments, ii. 42-50. 
 
 Three opinions in regard to the sub- 
 jects of Christian, ii. 54. 
 
 Question in debate between our 
 Church and the advocates of in- 
 discriminate, ii. 57, 58. 
 
 Nature and import of, inconsistent 
 with the idea of indiscriminate, ii. 
 58-60. 
 
 Bearing of the baptism of John on 
 the question of indiscriminate, ii. 
 60-62. 
 
 Terms of the commission given to the 
 Apostles forbid the practice of in- 
 discriminate, ii. 62-64. 
 
 Scripture practice bears out the con- 
 clusion that a profession of faith is 
 requisite to the Scriptural admini- 
 stration of, ii. 64-66. 
 
 Principle on which infants under the 
 New Testament Church become 
 entitled to, ii. 89-92. 
 
 Views of Evangelical Baptists in 
 America regarding the mode of 
 administering, ii. 122. 
 Baptismal Eegenep.ation — 
 
 Three modifications of the doctrine 
 of, held by divines of the Church 
 of England, ii. 51, 52. 
 
 Only plausible arguments in defence 
 of, ii. 52. 
 
 Explanation of passages which give 
 plausibility to the doctrine of, ii. 
 52, 53. 
 
 Meaning of, ii. 123, 124. 
 Baronius — 
 
 View of, respecting the supremacy of 
 the Pope, ii. 247. 
 Beechee, President — 
 
 The real question at issue relating to 
 the mode of Baptism as stated by, 
 ii. 122, 123. 
 
 Bellarmine — 
 
 View of, on the subject of the Church, 
 i. 16 n. 
 
 View of, as to the promise of perpe- 
 tuity given to the Church of Christ, 
 i. 52 n. 
 
 Statement of, on the subject of the 
 infallibility of the Church, i. 52 n. 
 
 Notes of the Church given by, i. 63, 64. 
 
 Statement by, regarding the difference 
 between the views of Ptomanists 
 and the Reformers on the subject 
 of the membership of the Church, 
 i. 69 n. 
 
 Statement by, regarding the Pope's 
 supreme power to dispose of the 
 temporal affairs of all Christians, i. 
 105. 
 
 Statement by, respecting the Sacra- 
 ments as causes of justification, ii. 
 31 ». 
 
 View of, respecting the supremacy of 
 the Pope, ii. 247 n. 
 Beza — 
 
 Views of, respecting the essential 
 distinctness of Church and State 
 among the Jews, i. 119. 
 Bible, The — 
 
 Aspects of, towards individual men, 
 and believers collectively, i. 1, 2. 
 
 The only test for deciding what are 
 or are not true Churches of God, 
 furnished by, i. 44, 45. 
 BiLsoN, Bishop — 
 
 Views of, regarding the virtue of the 
 imposition of hands, i. 444 n. 
 Bishops — 
 
 No evidence in Scripture, but the 
 reverse, for the appointment of an 
 order of, distinct from presbyters, 
 ii. 265. 
 
 Unsoundnessof the Episcopalian argu- 
 ment for the office of, founded upon 
 the institution of the Apostolate, 
 ii. 266-271. 
 
 Unsoundness of the Episcopal argu- 
 ment for the office of, from the in- 
 stitution of the office of Evangelist, 
 ii. 271-273. 
 
 The invariable use of the term, and 
 presbyters, as but different titles for 
 the same office, demonstrates that 
 there was no institution of the office 
 of, separate from that of presbyters, 
 ii. 273, 274. 
 
 Scriptural evidence for the invariable 
 use of the term, and presbyters as 
 different titles for the same office, 
 ii. 274-276. 
 
 No evidence in Scripture, but the re- 
 verse, of the exercise of the powers 
 
INDEX. 
 
 453 
 
 Bishops — 
 
 of, by any distinct and permanent 
 order of otHce-bearers apart from 
 tliat of presbyters, ii. *27S, "279. 
 
 Boniface — 
 
 Declaration by, as to the terms of ad- 
 mission to tlie Christian Church, i. 
 70 II. 
 
 BOSSUKT — 
 
 The Reformers charged by, with the 
 invention of the idea of a Church 
 invisible, i. IG. 
 
 Explanation bj% respecting the sacri- 
 fice of the Mass, ii. 172, 173 7i. 
 
 Views of, respecting the supremacy of 
 the Pope, ii. 247. 
 Bruce, Robert — 
 
 Views of, regarding the meaning of 
 the word Sacrament, ii. 4, 5 n. 
 
 Views of, regarding the value of the 
 Sacraments, ii. 11 n. 
 "^ Statement by, regarding the Popish 
 argument for transubstantiation 
 drawn from God's omnipotence, ii. 
 154 71. 
 
 Calvin— 
 
 Views of, in regard to the invisible 
 and the visible Church, i. 34 n, 
 37 n. 
 
 Statement by, in regard to the essence 
 of a Church, i. 57 n. 
 
 Statement of, regarding the necessity 
 of Church power, i. 1S7 n. 
 
 Statement by, respecting the distinc- 
 tion between a spiritual and politi- 
 cal kingdom, i. 200 n. 
 
 Statement by, respecting the magis- 
 trate's being the steAvard of God's 
 right to rule over the persons and 
 properties of His creatures, i. 224 n. 
 
 Statement by, regarding the exercise 
 of Church power, i. 257. 
 
 Argument of, against the claims of 
 the Church of Rome to the power 
 of decreeing rites and ceremonies in 
 public worship, i. 343 n. 
 
 Statement by, respecting the decision 
 of the council of Jerusalem on 
 wounding weak consciences, i. 347 n. 
 
 Statement by, respecting the Church's 
 liberty, under the plea of edifica- 
 tion, to add to the institutions of 
 worship, i. 301 n. 
 
 The argument of, from Gal. iv. 3, 9, 
 against the appointment of ecclesi- 
 astical holidays, i. 414 n. 
 
 Statement by, on the subject of ordi- 
 nation, i. 432 71. 
 
 Statement by, regarding the necessity 
 of the people's consent to the forma- 
 
 Calvin— 
 
 tion of the pastoral relation, i. 433, 
 
 434 ,1. 
 Views of, respecting the necessity of 
 
 election and ordination, i. 462, 
 
 403 71. 
 Views of, on the subject of ordina- 
 tion, i. 4G8, 409. 
 Views of, regarding Baptism, ii. 46 n. 
 Views of, regarding the interpretation 
 
 of John iii. 5, ii. 53 n. 
 Statement of, respecting the relation 
 
 of Baptism to the promises of God, 
 
 ii. 51, 52 77. 
 Statement bj^, regarding circumcision, 
 
 ii. 85, 80 n. 
 Views of, regarding the holiness of 
 
 infants, ii. 90 n. 
 Views of, respecting the connection 
 
 between Baptism and regeneration, 
 
 ii. 120 71. 
 Statement by, respecting the use of 
 
 the term sacrifice in connection with 
 
 the Lord's Suj^per, ii. 182, 183 n. 
 Views of, regarding the power exer- 
 cised by Titus in Crete, ii. 240 n. 
 Views of, respecting the primacy of 
 
 Peter, ii. 202, 203 n. 
 Views of, on Tit. i. 5-7, ii. 294 n. 
 Chalmers, Dr. — 
 
 View of, regarding the basis of the 
 
 definition of a religious establish- 
 ment, i. 135 n. 
 Christ, Headship of — 
 
 What is implied in the doctrine of the, 
 
 i. 194, 195. 
 The doctrine of the, to be differently 
 
 undei'stood, according to the dift'e- 
 
 rent meanings to be attached to the 
 
 term Church, i. 195-198. 
 Distinction necessary to the fuller 
 
 understanding of the doctrine of 
 
 the, i. 198, 199. 
 Encroachments of the Erastian system 
 
 upon the, i. 200-203. 
 Interference of the Popish system with 
 
 the, i. 203-205. 
 Interference of the semi-Romanist 
 
 views with the, i. 206-210. 
 Church— 
 Two aspects of the, given in Scripture, 
 
 i. 3, 4. 
 Meanings of the term, to be gathered 
 
 from Scripture, i. 6-14. 
 Connection of Scriptural meanings of 
 
 the term, and the order in which 
 
 they stand related to each other, 
 
 i. 14, 15. 
 Primary characteristics of the, as an 
 
 outward and visible institute, i. 
 
 18-28. 
 
454 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Chukch — 
 
 Kefutation of the opinion that the 
 Christian, is merely a voluntary 
 association of Christians, i. 21-23. 
 
 Eefutation of the Erastian theory of 
 the, i. 23, 24. 
 
 Refutation of the theory of Dr. Arnold 
 regarding the, i. 26-28. 
 
 Distinction between the invisible and 
 the visible, i. 29. 
 
 Bearings of the doctrine laid down in 
 regard to the visible and invisible, 
 on the Independent theory of 
 Church communion, i. 34-36. 
 
 — on the question of the lawfulness 
 or unlawfulness of Infant Baptism, 
 i. 36, 37. 
 
 — on the diflferences found between 
 the Church system of Eomanists 
 and the Church system of Protest- 
 ants, i. 37-39. 
 
 — on the interpretation of the diffe- 
 rent statements of Scripture in con- 
 nection with the Church, i. 39, 40. 
 
 Explanation of the property of ca- 
 tholic, as contradistinguished from 
 local, which belongs to the Chris- 
 tian, as it refers to the invisible, 
 i. 42-44. 
 
 — as it refers to the visible, i. 44, 45. 
 Primary and fundamental idea of the 
 
 invisible, i. 45. 
 
 Secondary and subordinate idea of 
 the invisible, i. 45, 46. 
 
 Primary idea of the visible, i. 46. 
 
 Secondary idea of the visible, i. 46. 
 
 Important bearing of the principles 
 illustrated as to the local and 
 catholic, on the nature of the rela- 
 tion in which both members and 
 office-bearers of separate Churches 
 stand to each other, i. 46, 47. 
 
 — on schism, i. 48, 49. 
 
 — on the principles of unity exhi- 
 bited in the Christian, i. 49-51. 
 
 — on the meaning of the promise of 
 perpetuity given to the Christian, 
 i. 51, 52. 
 
 — on the statements of Scripture 
 which give the assurance that the 
 Church of Christ shall never fall 
 away from the truth, i. 52, 53. 
 
 Preliminary distinctions to be borne 
 in mind in considering the notes by 
 which a Christian, may be known, 
 i. 55-58. 
 
 Notesby which a Church of Christ may 
 be known and recognised, i. 59-61. 
 
 Refutation of the views of Perrone 
 and other Romish controversialists 
 on the notes of the, i. 64-67. 
 
 Appl 
 do 
 
 Church— 
 
 Place and office assigned to the, in 
 
 the world, i. 82-84, 87-89, 90-92. 
 Refutation of Romanist doctrines as 
 
 to the place and office assigned to 
 
 the, i. 84-87, 89, 90, 92, 93. 
 Relation of the, to the State, i. 94-185. 
 Difference between the, and the State 
 
 in regard to their origin, i. 97, 98. 
 
 — in regard to the primary objects for 
 which they were instituted, i. 98, 99. 
 
 — in regard to the power committed 
 to them respectively by God, i. 99, 
 100. 
 
 — in regard to the administration of 
 their respective authorities, i. 100- 
 102. 
 
 )lication of the principles laid 
 down to the refutation of the Eras- 
 tian system relative to the relation 
 of the, to the State, i. 102-104. 
 
 — to the refutation of the Popish 
 system respecting the relation of 
 the, to the State, i. 104-106. 
 
 Lawfulness of the connection of the, 
 with the State, i. 106-119. 
 
 Fundamental condition of a lawful 
 connection of the, with the State, 
 i. Ill, 112. 
 
 Principles on which the lawfulness of 
 the connection of the, with the 
 State may be argued, i. 112-119. 
 
 Proofs of the non-identity, and yet of 
 the connection of the, and State 
 among the Jews, i. 119-124. 
 
 Duty of the connection of the, with 
 the State, i. 124-135. 
 
 Prehminary distinction to be kept in 
 view in considering the duty of the 
 connection of the, with the State, i. 
 124, 125. 
 
 Principles on which the duty of the 
 connection of the, wdth the State, 
 may be argued, i. 126-135. 
 
 Necessity of the connection of the, 
 with the State, i. 135-148. 
 
 Cases which demonstrate the neces- 
 sity of the connection of the, with 
 the State, i. 137-148. 
 
 Bearing of the connection of the, with 
 the State upon the spiritual inde- 
 pendence of the, i. 149-153. 
 
 Bearing of the connection of the, with 
 the State upon toleration, i. 153- 
 159. 
 
 Investigation of the question of liberty 
 of conscience both as regards its 
 extent and its limitations, in con- 
 nection with the question of an 
 alliance of the, with the State, i. 
 159-171. 
 
 i 
 
INDEX. 
 
 455 
 
 Church— 
 
 Views on the subject of the relations 
 of the, to the State laitl down in 
 the Westminster Confession of 
 Faith, i. 171-185. 
 Church Government— 
 
 Theory which denies the existence 
 of a divine and authoritative form 
 of, ii. -20 1 --203. 
 
 Theory which maintains the divine 
 right of, ii. 204, 205. 
 
 True point in debate respecting the 
 question of, ii. 205. 
 
 Assumptions on which the theory 
 which denies the divine right of, 
 can be fairly argued, ii. 205. 
 
 Groundlessness of the assumptions 
 on which the theory which denies 
 the divine right of, rests, ii. 205- 
 207. 
 
 Theory which denies a di^^Jle warrant 
 for any system of, contradicted by 
 the fact that the Church of Christ 
 is a positive institution of God, ii. 
 207, 208. 
 
 Considerations which fortify the con- 
 clusion that the question of, has 
 not been left to be settled by man, 
 ii. 208, 209. 
 
 A systematic delineation of, not to be 
 expected in Scripture, ii. 209, 210. 
 
 Distinction between what is essential 
 and w-hat is circumstantial on the 
 question of, ii. 210, 211. 
 
 The Word of God the standard of 
 appeal by which we are to try the 
 different forms of, ii. 211-213. 
 
 Importance of fixing the date when 
 the Chi-istian Church was formally 
 organized, in discussing the ques- 
 tion of, ii. 214-217. 
 
 Important bearing of the distinction 
 between the extraordinary and the 
 ordinary ofSce-bearers in the Chris- 
 tian society in considering the ques- 
 tion of, ii. 217. 
 
 Four leading systems of, that claim 
 attention, ii. 245. 
 Church Membership — 
 
 Qualifications that give a right of, in 
 the invisible Church, i. 68, 09. 
 
 E,efutation of the views of former and 
 later Romish controversialists upon 
 the subject of the invisible Church 
 and its membership, i. 70, 71. 
 
 Qualifications that give a right of, in 
 the visible Church, i. 71, 72. 
 
 Eefutation of the Romanist theory 
 of, i. 72, 73. 
 
 Pfccfutation of the principles of Inde- 
 pendents as to, i. 74-80. 
 
 Church Membership— 
 
 Views of Presbyterians on the subject 
 of a title to admission to, i. 74. 
 Church Tower — 
 
 Necessity of, to the existence of the 
 Church, i. 187-189. 
 
 Neither the members of the Church 
 nor the State the source of, i. 190- 
 194. 
 
 The positive divine institution of, 
 having the direct warrant and 
 commission of Christ, i. 191, 192. 
 
 The Word of God the rule for the use 
 and administration of, i. 212-214. 
 
 Extent to which the Word of God is 
 the rule f t)r the use and administra- 
 tion of, i. 214, 215. 
 
 Distinction between what is essential 
 to the existence and use of, and 
 what is not essential to the exist- 
 ence and administration of the 
 Church, i. 215-218. 
 
 Light in which we are bound to re- 
 gard the laws made by the Church, 
 in the legitimate exercise of, i. 
 218, 219. 
 
 Light in which the office-bearers of 
 the Church are to be regarded, in 
 accordance with the doctrine that 
 the Bible is the rule of, i. 219, 220. 
 
 Light in which the decisions of the 
 Church, or its courts, are to be re- 
 garded in consistency with the prin- 
 ciple that the Bible is the rule of, 
 i. 220, 221. 
 
 The nature and character of, demon- 
 strated to be spiritual, i. 225-231. 
 
 Explanation of the three sorts of, i. 
 225-228. 
 
 Proofs from Scripture that the admini- 
 stration of, impHes a s^tiritual, and 
 not a civil or temporal authority, 
 i. 228-231. 
 
 The spiritual nature of, involves the 
 unsoundness of the Erastian theory 
 of, i. 231, 232. 
 
 The claims of the Anabaptists and 
 Fifth Monarchy men shown to be 
 unfounded by the spiritual nature 
 of, i. 232, 233. 
 
 The spiritual nature of, demonstrates 
 the fallacy of the claims of Roman- 
 ists, i. 233, 234. 
 
 Two extremes to be avoided on the 
 subject of the extent of, i. 235, 236. 
 
 True extent of, i. 23G-238. 
 
 Bearing of the doctrine as to the true 
 extent of, on the theory that Church 
 power is of mere human ordinance 
 and institution, i. 238, 239. 
 
 Bearing of the doctrine as to the true 
 
456 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Church Power — 
 
 extent of, on tlie principle of Inde- 
 pendents, i. 239-246. 
 
 Limitations of, i. 247, 248. 
 
 The end and design of, as regards the 
 world, i. 250-252. 
 
 The end and design of, as regards the 
 Church, i. 252-257. 
 
 The primary subject of, i. 262-275. 
 
 Distinction between the parties who 
 in ordinary circumstances have a 
 right to the administration of, and 
 the parties to whom Church power 
 may primarily belong, i. 262. 
 
 The theory which affirms that office- 
 bearers, in contradistinction to the 
 members of the Church, are the 
 primary subject of, i. 264-266. 
 
 The theory which affirms that the 
 Church at large is the primary 
 subject of, i. 266-269. 
 
 The theory which affirms that the 
 primary subject of, is neither the 
 office-bearers of the Church nor 
 the Church at large, exclusively, 
 i. 269-275. 
 
 The exercise of, in regard to matters 
 of faith, i. 278-288. 
 
 The exercise of, in regard to matters 
 of faith, with respect to those within 
 the pale of the Church, i. 278-280. 
 
 The exercise of, in regard to matters 
 of faith, with respect to those with- 
 out the pale of the Church, i. 280- 
 282. 
 
 Limitations to the exercise of, in re- 
 gard to matters of faith, i. 283. 
 
 Application of the principles laid 
 down regarding the exercise of, in 
 matters of faith, to the Eomish 
 theory, i. 283-287. 
 
 Application of the principles laid 
 down regarding the exercise of, in 
 matters of faith, to the Socinian or 
 Rationalistic theory, i. 287, 288. 
 
 The exercise of, in reference to creeds 
 and confessions, i. 289-321. 
 
 The exercise of, in regard to ordi- 
 nances, i. 322-480. 
 Church Unity — 
 
 Fundamental error of Romanists re- 
 garding, ii. 250. 
 
 Inconsistency of the theory of, held 
 by semi - Romanists and High 
 Churchmen, ii. 251, 252. 
 
 Proper theory of, ii. 318, 319. 
 Circumcision — 
 
 Relation of, to Baptism, ii. 81-86. 
 
 Principle of the right of infants to, 
 under the Old Testament Church, 
 ii. 87-89. 
 
 Claude— 
 
 Statement by, regarding the essence 
 of a Church, i. 58, 59 m. 
 
 Views of, respecting the necessity of 
 the call of the people for strengthen- 
 ing the title to the pastoral office in 
 addition to the ministerial, i. 435 /;. 
 
 Views of, respecting the relation of 
 the ministry to the Church, i. 448 n. 
 
 Views of, respecting office of the 
 Apostles, ii. 223 n. 
 Coleridge, S. T. — 
 
 Views of, regarding the alliance of 
 Church and State, i. 108. 
 Confession of Faith (used in the Eng- 
 lish congregation at Geneva) — 
 
 Marks of a true Church given in the, 
 i. 63 n. 
 Congregational Independency — 
 
 The two distinctive peculiarities of 
 the system of, ii. 298, 299. 
 Congregationalism — 
 
 Principles included under the name 
 of, ii. 299. 
 
 Principle of, refuted by the institu- 
 tion in the Church of a power of 
 government and administration in an 
 order of office-bearers separate from 
 the Church collectively considered, 
 and exercised independently of the 
 concurrence of the members, ii. 301. 
 
 The idea of authority and governing 
 power implied in names given to 
 presbyters of the New Testament 
 Church fatal to the principles of, 
 ii. 302, 303. 
 
 Consequences of the dogma of, which 
 makes the authoritative acts of the 
 rulers of the Church dependent for 
 their authority on the consent of 
 the ruled, ii. 303, 304. 
 
 The appointment of ruling elders 
 brings out the unscriptural nature 
 of the principle of, which divides 
 the government between office- 
 bearers and members, ii. 305. 
 
 Principles of, set aside by the Scrip- 
 tural evidence that the proper 
 and distinctive exercises of Church 
 power and authority are statedly 
 performed by the office-bearers of 
 the Church, and never by the mem- 
 bers generally, ii. 308-311. 
 
 Three passages of Scripture usually 
 appealed to in support of the 
 theory of, that the power of 
 government and discipline belongs 
 to the members of the Church col- 
 lectively, ii. 311-313. 
 Conscience, Liberty of— 
 
 True ground of, i. 160-162. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 457 
 
 Conscience, Liherty of — 
 
 Scriptural argument for, i. 162-1G4. 
 General principles applicable to the 
 limits to, i. 1()4-171. 
 
 CONSUBSTANTIATIOX — 
 
 Meaning of, as used by some of the 
 Lutherans, ii. 157. 
 Creeds and Confessions — 
 
 Proofs of the lawfulness of, in the 
 inspired history of the Church, i. 
 291-29:3. 
 
 Proofs of the lawfulness of, in the 
 subsequent history of the Church, 
 i. 294, 295. 
 
 Proofs of the lawfulness and necessity 
 of, from the nature and offices of 
 the Church itself, i. 29G-302. 
 
 Consideration of the objection to the 
 lawfulness and use of, that they 
 deny or set aside the sole supremacy 
 of Scripture as the Church's law 
 both for doctrine and practice, i. 
 304-309. 
 
 Consideration of the objection to the 
 la-\vfulness and use of, that they 
 are inconsistent with the sufficiency 
 and perfection of Scripture for the 
 ends designed by it, i. 309-312. 
 
 Consideration of the objection to the 
 lawfulness and use of, that they 
 expressly or by implication add to 
 the words of Scripture, i. 312, 313. 
 
 Consideration of the objection, in its 
 general form, to, that they are an 
 unlawful restriction of the liberty 
 of the members of the Church, i. 
 313-316. 
 
 Consideration of the objection, in its 
 special forms, to, that they make 
 the name of Christian and the ad- 
 vantages of Christian fellowship 
 dependent on assent to certain 
 positive truths, i. 316, 317. 
 
 — that by embodying truth in a 
 creed, we act in a way injurious 
 to the best interests of Christianity, 
 i. 317-319. 
 
 — that they are hindrances to the 
 progress and development of theo- 
 logical science, i. 320. 
 
 Distinction between, regarded as a 
 declaration of divme truth, and as 
 a test of membership and office, i. 
 320, 321. 
 Cunningham, Dr. — 
 
 Views of, respecting the advisability 
 of shortening and simplifying the 
 terms of ministerial communion, i. 
 309 n. 
 
 Statement by, respecting the ques- 
 ( tion in dispute regarding the Real 
 
 Cunningham, Dr.— 
 
 Presence, with the distinction be- 
 tween the Popish and Protestant 
 views, ii. 156 /'. 
 
 Statement bj% respecting the views 
 of Church polity held by the Church 
 of England, ii. 202, 203 i>. 
 
 View of, respecting the existence of 
 a bishop in the Church at Corinth, 
 ii. 272, 273 ?(. 
 
 View of, respecting the existence of 
 a bishop in the Church at Philippi, 
 ii. 276, 277 n. 
 Cyprian — 
 
 Statement by, respecting worship not 
 warranted by God, i. 344 n. 
 
 Theory of, regarding Church unity, 
 ii. 252, 253. 
 
 Davidson, Dr. S. — 
 
 Views of, respecting the in\'isible and 
 the visible Chiirch, i. 35. 
 
 Views of, respecting the extent of 
 Church power, i. 241. 
 
 Views of, respecting the ministerial 
 title, i. 455, 460. 
 
 Views of, respecting ordination, i. 471. 
 
 Statement by, of the principles of 
 Congregationalism, ii. 299. 
 
 Doctrine held by, respecting the func- 
 tions of the rulers of the Church, 
 ii. 304. 
 Deacon — 
 
 Order of, recognised by Episcopacy, 
 Presbytery, and Independency as 
 a standing and divine institution 
 in the Christian Church, ii. 260. 
 
 Two passages of the New Testament 
 which serve to demonstrate that 
 the offices of, and elder or presby- 
 ter are the only standing and ordi- 
 nary offices in the Christian societj-, 
 ii. 297, 298. 
 Discipline — 
 
 General nature and design of the 
 power of, claimed by the Church, 
 ii. 187. 
 
 The power of, belongs to the Church 
 by the light of nature, ii. 188, 189. 
 
 The power of, conferred on the Church 
 by positive divine appointment, ii. 
 189-194. 
 
 The power of the Church in the exer- 
 cise of, limited by a regard to the 
 authority of Christ as the source 
 of it, ii. 194-196. 
 
 The power of the Church in the exer- 
 cise of, limited by the Word of God 
 as the rule of its exercise, ii. 196, 197. 
 
 The power of the Church in the way 
 of, limited by the nature of it, as 
 
458 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Discipline— 
 
 exclusively a spiritual power, ii. 
 197, 198. 
 
 The power of the Church in the way 
 of, limited by a regard to the liber- 
 ties and edification of its members, 
 ii. 198-200. 
 Discipline, Second Book of — 
 
 Statement of the, regarding the visi- 
 ble Church, i. 11 n. 
 
 View of the true Church given in the, 
 i. 63 n. 
 
 Teaching of the, regarding the hail 
 policy of the Kirk, ii. 306 ii. 
 DoDs, Map.cus — 
 
 View of, respecting the necessity of 
 creeds and confessions in order that 
 the truth contained in the Bible 
 may be recognised and maintained, 
 i. 298 n. 
 
 DURHAJI— 
 
 View of, respecting excommunication, 
 
 ii. 195 n. 
 Views of, respecting the cure of dis- 
 
 ciplme, ii. 198, 199. 
 
 Edwards, President— 
 
 Views of, respecting the perpetuity 
 of the Sabbath, i. 401 n. 
 Edwards, Thomas — 
 
 Views of, respecting the lawfulness 
 of set forms of prayer, i. 380, 381 n. 
 
 ' 'ExxX'/iiria — 
 
 Primary meaning of the word, i. 5, 6. 
 
 Fundamental position of Independ- 
 ents as to the meaning of, ii. 
 320. 
 
 Views of Presbyterians regarding the 
 meaning of, ii. 320, 325. 
 England, Church of — 
 
 Doctrine of the, respecting the exer- 
 cise of Church power about the 
 public worship of God, i. 338-340. 
 
 Doctrine of the, respecting ordina- 
 tion, i. 473-475. 
 
 Points in which the doctrine of the, 
 respecting ordination agrees with 
 that of the Church of Rome, i. 
 475. 
 
 Three modifications of the doctrine 
 of baptismal regeneration held by 
 divines of the, ii. 51, 52. 
 Episcopacy — 
 
 Essential distinction between, and 
 Presbytery, ii. 261, 262, 263, 264. 
 
 Points on Avhich the systems of, and 
 Presbytery approximate or prac- 
 tically coincide, ii. 262, 263. 
 
 Kind of Scripture evidence relevant 
 and necessary to establish the dis- 
 tinctive character of, ii. 264, 265. 
 
 Erastians— 
 
 The theory of, on the subject of the 
 
 Church, i. 23. 
 Views of, respecting the relation of 
 
 the Church to the State, i. 102-104. 
 Views of, respecting the identity of 
 
 Church and State among the Jews, 
 
 i. 119. 
 Effects of the system of the, upon 
 
 the doctrine of the Headship of 
 
 Christ, i. 200-203. 
 Theory of, respecting Church power, 
 
 i. 231-233. 
 Evangelists — 
 The work and duty of, ii. 235, 236. 
 Information in regard to the order 
 
 of, to be gathered mainly from 
 
 what is to be learned respecting 
 
 Timothy and Titus, ii. 235. 
 Grounds of the conclusion that the 
 
 position of Timothy and Titus was 
 
 not fixed and permanent, ii. 237-241. 
 The relation of Timothy and Titus to 
 
 Paul proves that their office of, 
 
 was not fixed and permanent, ii. 
 
 241-243. 
 
 Fifth Monarchy Men — 
 
 Views of, regarding Church power, 
 i. 233. 
 Florence, Council of — 
 
 Doctrine of the Popish Church in re- 
 gard to the constitution and govern- 
 ment of the Christian society, set 
 forth by the, ii. 245, 246. 
 
 Gillespie, George — 
 
 Statement by, respecting the power 
 of excommunication possessed by 
 the Jewish Church, i. 122 n. 
 
 Views of, regarding the subject of 
 Church power, i. 274 n. 
 
 Statement by, regarding the amend- 
 ment of the standards of a Church, 
 i. 308 n. 
 
 Views of, respecting the distinction 
 between matters of decency and 
 order, and matters of express ap- 
 pointment and command, in the 
 public worship of God, i. 354-357- 
 
 Views of, respecting ruling elders, ii. 
 307, 308 n. 
 GooDE, Dean — 
 
 Views of, respecting the meanmg of 
 the expression Real Presence, ii. 
 159 n. 
 Gospel, The — 
 
 The Church's inherent right to pro- 
 pagate the, as demonstrating tlie 
 necessity of the connection between 
 the Church and the State, i. 140- 144. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 459 
 
 H ALLEY, Dr.— 
 
 Oinnion of, ou the subject of Infant 
 Baptism, i. 37. 
 
 VieMs of, on the subject of the 
 Sacraments, ii. 21-27. 
 
 Objections to the views of, regarding 
 the Sacraments, ii. 23-27. 
 
 Explanation by, of John iii. 5, ii. 
 52, 5.3 n. 
 
 Views of, on the subject of indis- 
 criminate Baptism, ii. 5G, 57, 59, 02. 
 
 View of, respecting the Lord's 
 Sui^per, ii. 137. 
 Harding, 27/e Jesuit — 
 
 View of, respecting the relation of 
 the sacrifice of the mass to the 
 sacrifice of the cross, ii. 174, 175. 
 
 H^iJlDWICK — 
 
 Statement by, regarding the authen- 
 ticity of the 20 th article of the 
 Church of England, i. 339 n. 
 Hauber— 
 
 Summary given by, of the views of 
 our Church regarding the Head- 
 ship of Christ, i. 221, 222 n. 
 Hegel — 
 
 View of, on the ultimate identity of 
 Church and State, i. 27 7i. 
 Hennel — 
 
 Views of, regarding the qualifications 
 for bearing the Christian name, i. 
 317. 
 High Churchmen — 
 
 Views of, respecting the ministerial 
 title, i. 438. 
 
 Views of, respecting ordination, i. 
 472-476. 
 
 Views of, respecting the Sacraments, 
 ii. 30-32. 
 
 Views of, respecting Church unity, 
 ii. 251, 252. 
 HoADLY, Bishop — 
 
 Views of, respecting the Sacraments 
 of the New Testament, ii. 21. 
 Hodge, Dr.— 
 
 Views of, respecting the necessity of 
 belief of the truth, i. 317 n. 
 
 Views of, regarding the holiness of 
 children, ii. 91 ;;. 
 
 Statement by, as to the ^^ews of 
 Romanists, Lutherans, and Re- 
 formed on 1 Cor. X. IG, ii. 158 ». 
 
 HOLIDAY.S, ECCLESIA.STICAL — 
 
 Origin of the superstitious reverence 
 
 for, i. J 08, 409. 
 The real . ate of the question between 
 
 the ad\ ■ '.ates and the opponents of, 
 
 i. 410, I. 
 Elements hat enter into the notion 
 
 of, i. 41 412. 
 The appointment of, forbidden by 
 
 HOLIDAY.S, EcCLESrASTICAL— 
 
 Scripture, as the rule for the exer- 
 cise of Church power, i. 412-415. 
 
 The right of appointing, excluded by 
 the authority of Christ as the 
 source of Church power, i. 415- 
 417. 
 
 The ordination of, inconsistent with 
 thelibertyandedification of Christ's 
 people, the grand aim and end of 
 Church power, i. 417, 418. 
 
 The imposition of, as stated and ordi- 
 nary parts of worship, excluded by 
 the true nature of Church power, 
 as exclusively spiritual, i. 418-421. 
 Hooker — 
 
 Views of, respecting the alliance of 
 Church and State, i. 107, 108. 
 
 Views of, respecting ordination, i. 
 474, 475. 
 
 Statement by, as to the use of the 
 word presbyter, ii. 107 n. 
 
 Application of the term, in the New 
 Testament, ii. 166, 167. 
 Impanation — 
 
 Meaning of the phrase, ii. 157. 
 Independency — 
 
 Positions which are common to the 
 three systems of Episcopacy, Pres- 
 bytery, and, ii. 260. 
 
 The bishop and deacon the only two 
 oflice-bearers recognised by, ii. 298. 
 
 Principles included under the name 
 of, ii. 299, 300. 
 
 Question in debate between the ad- 
 herents of Presbyterianism and of, 
 ii. 316. 
 
 Bearing of the lawfulness of associa- 
 tion among the office-bearers of the 
 Church for the exercise of com- 
 mon government, and which may 
 be argiied from the unity of the 
 visible Church, opposed to the prin- 
 ciple of, ii. 317-320. 
 
 Bearing of the lawfulness of asso- 
 ciation among the office - bearers 
 throughout the Church for the pur- 
 pose of common government, and 
 which may be argued from ex- 
 amples in Scripture, upon the 
 principle of, ii. 320. 
 
 Bearing of the assembly of the Synod 
 at Jerusalem on the principle of, ii. 
 325, 326. 
 
 Attempts of the defenders of, to rid 
 themselves of the evidence against 
 them, aftbrded by the assembly 
 of the Synod at Jerusalem, ii. 326- 
 329. 
 
4G0 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Independency — 
 
 Other examples of presbyterial action 
 whicli establish the unsoundness of 
 the principle of, ii. 329. 
 Independents — 
 
 Viewsof, on the subjectof the Church, 
 i. 17. 
 
 Views of, on the title to admission to 
 the Christian Church, i. 74. 
 
 Princiijles of, on the subject of the 
 extent of Church power, i. 239- 
 240. 
 
 Views of, respecting the subject of 
 Church power, i. 268. 
 
 Views of, regarding what constitutes 
 the ministerial title, i. 438, 454, 
 455. 
 
 Two things necessary to be kept in 
 view in dealing with the theory of, 
 respecting the ministerial title, i. 
 456-459. 
 
 Fundamental error of the theory of, 
 in identifying the ministerial with 
 the pastoral office, i. 459, 460. 
 
 Scriptural grounds and statements 
 which prove the distinction between 
 the ministerial and the pastoral 
 office, opposed to views of, i. 460- 
 466. 
 
 Views of, respecting ordination, i. 
 471. 
 
 Fundamental error of, respecting 
 ordination, i. 472. 
 
 Objection to the views of, respecting 
 the Sacraments, ii. 23-27. 
 Infant Baptism — 
 
 Difficulties connected with, ii. 67, 94. 
 
 Primary consideration in the contro- 
 versy respecting, ii. 67, 68. 
 
 The lawfulness of, established by the 
 Scripture doctrine of the essential 
 sameness of the covenant of grace 
 in former and later times, and by 
 the fact that infants were always 
 included in it, ii. 69-75. 
 
 The lawfulness of, established by the 
 Scripture doctrine of the identity 
 of the Church of God under all its 
 outward forms, at all times, and by 
 the fact that it has always included 
 infants among its members, ii. 75-80. 
 
 The lawfulness and duty of, estab- 
 lished by the essential sameness, 
 at all times, of the ordinance of 
 outward admission into the Church, 
 and by the fact that it has always 
 been administered to infants, ii. 
 80-86. 
 
 The lawfulness and duty of, proved 
 by the identity, at all times, of the 
 principle on which the initiatory 
 
 Infant Baptism — 
 
 ordinance of admission into the 
 Church has been administered, and 
 by the fact that it has always been 
 applied to infants, ii. 86-92. 
 
 The lawfulness and duty of, estab- 
 lished by the sameness, at all times, 
 of the practice in regard to the 
 administration of the initiatory 
 ordinance, and by the fact that it 
 has always included infants, ii. 
 92, 93. 
 
 Source of the objections to, ii. 95. 
 
 Objection to, from the alleged fact 
 that the argument for it is built 
 ujion the practice of a former and 
 temporary dispensation, ii. 96-99. 
 
 Objection to, because the reasoning 
 for it is applicable to an outward 
 but not to a spiritual Church, ii. 
 99, 100. 
 
 Objection to, on the ground of there 
 being no express or explicit com- 
 mand in the New Testament to ad- 
 minister the ordinance to infants, 
 ii. 100-103. 
 
 Objection to, that faith, or at least a 
 profession of faith, in Christ, is 
 positively demanded as a prere- 
 quisite to Baj)tism in all cases, ii. 
 104-106. 
 
 An interest in the Church of Christ, 
 as its members, conferred on all 
 infants by, ii. 112, 113. 
 
 A right of i^roperty in the covenant 
 of grace, in the case of all infants 
 baptized, conferred by, ii. 113-117. 
 
 Connection of Baptism by the Spirit 
 with, ii. 117-121. 
 Innes, Bishop — 
 
 View of, regarding the sacrificial 
 theory of the Lord's Supper, ii. 
 185 71. 
 
 Jerusalem, Church at — 
 
 Materials forming the, fatal to the 
 Independent view of the Scriptural 
 meaning of the word "Church," ii. 
 321-325. 
 Jerusalem, Synod of — 
 
 The lawfulness and authority of 
 Church courts established by the 
 case of the, ii. 325-329. 
 Johnson, John — 
 
 View given by, regarding the sacri- 
 ficial theory of the Lord's Supper, 
 ii. 183, 184 «. 
 Jolly, Dr. — 
 
 ^'iews of, respecting the necessity of 
 a proper material sacrifice in the 
 Christian Church, ii. 176 n. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 461 
 
 King, Bishop— 
 
 View of, as to the state of the question 
 on the subject of liturgies, i. 379 n. 
 
 Lamb, Dr. — 
 
 View of, regarding the authenticity of 
 the "JOth article of the Church of 
 England, i. 339 n. 
 Late RAN — 
 
 Fourth CouncU of, regarded by 
 llomanists as ecumenical and au- 
 thoritative, i. 104. 
 
 Supremacy of the sijiritual authority 
 over the civil, and the title belong- 
 ing to the Church to dispose of the 
 temporal rights and property of 
 men, asserted by, i. 10-4, 234. 
 
 L ATITU D IN AR IAN S 
 
 Views of, respecting Church power, 
 i. 191, 214. 
 Lecky — 
 
 Statement by, respecting the election 
 of bishops by universal suffrage 
 among the Church members, i.435 n. 
 
 LiDDON, H. p.— 
 
 Views of, respecting the interference 
 with liberty of creeds and confes- 
 sions, i. 318, 319 n. 
 
 Views of, respecting the Sacraments, 
 withstricturesupouthem,ii. 13,14k. 
 Litton — 
 
 View of, regarding every theory of 
 the Church which makes the true 
 being of it lie in its visible cha- 
 racteristics, i. 67 n. 
 
 View of, respecting Episcopacy, ii. 
 212, 213 n. 
 
 View of, respecting the union of the 
 three orders of bishop, presbyter, 
 and deacon in the apostoUc office, 
 ii. 269, 270 n, 278, 279 n. 
 
 Views of, respecting the form of 
 government proper to the syna- 
 gogue, and the analogy of the 
 synagogue as regards Presbytery 
 and Episcopacy, ii. 282 n. 
 Liturgies — 
 
 The true state of the question be- 
 tween the advocates and opponents 
 of, i. 378-382. 
 
 The three elements included in the 
 notion of, i. 383. 
 
 Consideration of the defence of, as 
 essential to the decency and order 
 of divine worship, i. 384, 385. 
 
 Consideration of the warrant of, that 
 they form part of public worship, 
 sanctioned by the authority of 
 Christ in His word, i. 385. 
 
 The imposition of, forbidden by the 
 limitation affixed to the exercise 
 
 Liturgies— 
 
 of Church power by the word of 
 God as its rule, i. 385-388. 
 
 Scripture argument in connection 
 with the imposition of, i. 38G-388. 
 
 The impositiim of, forbidden by the 
 limitation affixed to Church pov/er 
 by the authority of Christ as the 
 source of it, i. 388. 
 
 The imposition of, excluded by the 
 limitation affixed to Church power 
 hj a regard to the liberties and 
 eililication of Christ's people as its 
 object, i. .388, 389. 
 
 The imposition of, forbidden by the 
 limitation affixed to ecclesiastical 
 power by a regard to its nature, as 
 exclusively spiritual, i. 389-391. 
 Lord's Supper — 
 
 Nature of the, to be determined by 
 applymg to it the views of Scrip- 
 ture regarding the characteristics 
 of a Sacrament, ii. 130-140. 
 
 The ordinance of the, grafted upon 
 the Jewish Passover, ii. 130, 131. 
 
 Commemorative character of the, ii. 
 133-135. 
 
 Proofs that the, is more than a com- 
 memorative sign, ii. 137-139. 
 
 Sacrificial theory of the, which re- 
 gards it as a eucharistic sacrifice, 
 ii. 182. 
 
 Objections to such a theory of the, ii. 
 182, 183. 
 
 Sacrificial theory of the, which holds 
 that in the Supper there is a real 
 propitiatory sacrifice and a real 
 sacrificing priest, ii. 183, 184. 
 
 Objections to such a theory of the, 
 ii. 184, 185. 
 Luther — 
 
 Position taken up bj"", on the subject 
 of ordination, i. 467, 468 n. 
 Lutheran Church — 
 
 Views of the, respecting the Real 
 Presence, ii. 156. 
 Lyra, Nicolaus de. 
 
 Opinion of, regarding the visible 
 Church, i. 11 «. 
 
 M'Crte, Dr.— 
 
 View of, respecting the true state of 
 the question concerning liturgies, 
 i. 383 n. 
 
 Views of, respecting the difference 
 between the superintendents of our 
 Church, and diocesan bishops, ii. 
 243, 244 n. 
 Maistre, De — 
 
 View of, respecting the Papal supre- 
 macy, ii. 250. 
 
462 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Makriage — 
 
 Law of, as illustrating the necessity 
 of the connection between the 
 Church and the State, i. 144, 145. 
 Marshall, Dr. — 
 
 View of, regarding the effect of a con- 
 nection between Church and State 
 upon the spiritual independence of 
 the Church, i. 149 n. 
 Martensen — 
 
 View of, respecting the figurative 
 interpretation of the sacramental 
 language, ii. 151 n. 
 
 Statement by, respecting the Aposto- 
 late, ii. 2i7 «. 
 jMass, Sacrifice of the — 
 
 Close connection between the, and 
 the dogma of Transubstantiation, 
 ii. 160. 
 
 Two features that are essential in 
 the, ii. 160. 
 
 Explanations regarding the, by Popish 
 controversialists, ii. 173 n. 
 
 Doctrine of the, contradicted by the 
 doctrine of Scripture, which de- 
 clares that there is one Priest, and 
 no more than one, under the Gospel, 
 ii. 176-178. 
 
 Doctrine of the, opposed to the doc- 
 triue of Scripture, which declares 
 that there is one sacrifice, and no 
 more than one, under the Gospel, 
 ii. 178-180. 
 
 What is essential to the very nature 
 of a true propitiatory sacrifice is 
 wanting in the pretended, ii. 180, 
 181. 
 Melancthon — 
 
 Statement of, on the subject of the 
 Church, i. 15 n. 
 Melville, Andrew — 
 
 Views of, respecting the distinction 
 between the head of the State and 
 the head of the Church, i. 200 n. 
 Meyer— 
 
 Commentary of, on 1 Cor. xi. 24, ii. 
 151 n. 
 Milton — 
 
 Views of, regarding the election of 
 pastors, i. 434, 435 n. 
 
 Statement by, respecting the exercise 
 of discipline, ii. 197 n. 
 Ministry— 
 
 The ordinance of the, divine and per- 
 manent, i. 424-426. 
 
 Proof of the divinity and permanency 
 of the office of the, from the divi- 
 nity and permanency of the ordi- 
 nance of worship, i. 424. 
 
 The appointment of the Apostles by 
 Christ, with the commission given 
 
 Ministry— 
 
 to them, intimates the perpetuity 
 of the office of the, i. 424, 425. 
 
 The provision by the Apostles for 
 a sufficient staff of pastors and 
 teachers to succeed them, proves 
 the permanency of the office of the, 
 i. 425. 
 
 Evidence of the perpetuity of the 
 office of the, from passages of Scrip- 
 ture, in which the duties of pastors 
 and teachers are described and en- 
 joined, i. 425, 426. 
 
 Permanency of the office of the, proved 
 from the duties enjoined on the 
 flock towards their ministers, i. 
 426. 
 
 Perpetuity of the office of the, proved 
 from the names and titles given in 
 Scripture to pastors and teachers, 
 i. 426. 
 
 Title to the possession of the office of 
 the, conferred by the call of Christ, 
 i. 428, 429. 
 
 Mode in which the call to the office 
 of the, is obtained, i. 429, 430. 
 
 Title to the exercise of the office of 
 the, conferred, in ordinary circum- 
 stances, by Christ through the call 
 of the Church, i. 430-433. 
 
 Title to the pastoral office, in addition 
 to the office of the, requires to be 
 confirmed by the election or consent 
 of the congregation over whom the 
 minister is appointed, i. 433. 
 
 Distinction between the pastoral 
 office and the office of the, i. 433- 
 435. 
 Mohler— 
 
 Statement by, regarding the general 
 doctrinal diff'erence between Ro- 
 manists and Protestants on the 
 subject of the Church, i. 38, 39. 
 
 View of, respecting the place and 
 office assigned to the Christian 
 Church in the world, i. 95. 
 
 Statement of, respecting the "Roman 
 Catholic theory of the Sacraments, 
 ii. 28, 29. 
 
 Views of, respecting the relation of 
 the sacrifice of the mass to the 
 sacrifice of the cross, ii. 175. 
 
 View of, regarding the Papal sujpre- 
 macy, ii. 250. 
 
 View of, respecting the High Church 
 theory of Church unity, ii. 252 ??. 
 
 Neander — 
 
 Remark of, on the history of the 
 Novatian and Donatist contro- 
 versies, i. 40 n. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 463 
 
 Nrwman — 
 
 Views of, respecting the High Church 
 theory of Church uuity, ii. 252 n. 
 NiTZSCH — 
 
 Views of, respectmg the symbolical 
 character of the Sacraments, ii. 22, 
 23 n. 
 
 Views of, respecting the Sacraments 
 as means of gi-ace, ii. 26 ». 
 
 Remarks of, on Miihler's view of the 
 Roman Catholic theory of the Sacra- 
 ments, ii. 29 n. 
 NowELL, Dean — 
 
 Statement in the catechism of, re- 
 specting ruling elders, ii. 307 ». 
 
 Oaths— 
 
 Case of, as demonstrating the neces- 
 sity of a comiection between Church 
 and State, i. 137-140. 
 Onderdonk, Bishop — 
 
 View of, respecting the ground on 
 which the claim of Episcopacy to 
 be of di\-ine institution must rest, 
 ii. 279, 280 «. 
 Ordination — 
 Practice of, very distinctly sanctioned 
 and required by apostolic authority, 
 i. 431, 432. 
 Right to the office of the ministry not 
 
 conferred by, i. 432, 433. 
 Scriptural view of, i. 469, 470. 
 Views of Presbyterians respecting, i. 
 
 471, 472. 
 The claim of the Church to confer 
 the priestly character, and, along 
 with it, supernatural grace in the 
 act of, opposed by Scripture as the 
 rule of Church power, i. 476-478. 
 The idea that the Church can confer 
 the priestly character and super- 
 natural grace by, forbidden by a 
 regard to the authority of Christ 
 as the source of Church power, i. 
 478, 479. 
 The doctrine that the Church can 
 confer the priestly character and 
 supernatural grace by, excluded 
 by a regard to the lil^erty and 
 edification of Christ's people, which 
 forms the object of Church power, 
 i, 479, 480. 
 The claims of the Church to confer 
 the priestly character and super- 
 natural grace by, forbidden by a 
 regard to the nature of Church 
 power as exclusively spiritual, i. 
 480. 
 Owen, Dr. — 
 
 Statement by, regarding the Romanist 
 view of the Catholic Church, and 
 
 Owen, Dr. — 
 
 the obligation to receive the truth 
 
 proclaimed by it, i. 66 n. 
 Views of, respecting the subject of 
 
 Church power, i. 269 n. 
 Views of, respecting the necessity 
 
 of creeds and confessions with a 
 
 vie-w to the unity of faith among 
 
 believers, i. 296 n. 
 Statement by, regarding the province 
 
 of God to determine the manner in 
 
 which He wiU be worshipped, i. 
 
 341 n. 
 
 Pa LEY, Dr. — 
 
 Views of, respecting the connection 
 
 of Church and State, i. 109, 110. 
 View of, regarding the meanuig of 
 the narrative in Genesis of the 
 first institution of the Sabbath, i. 
 396. 
 Palmer, Mr. — 
 
 Views of, regarding the necessity to 
 salvation of union with a Church 
 possessing apostolical succession, i. 
 440, 441 n. 
 Perrone — 
 
 Notes of the Church given by, i. 64. 
 Views of, on the subject of the in- 
 visible Church and its membership, 
 i. 70. 
 View of, respecting the place and 
 office of the Christian Church in 
 the world, i. 85 n, 86 n. 
 Peter, St.— 
 
 Grounds on which the primacy of, is 
 rested by Romanists, ii. 253-255, 
 257, 258. 
 Distinction between the personal and 
 the official precedency claimed for, 
 ii. 254. 
 True interpretation of Matt. xvi. 17- 
 19 in its bearing on the primacy of, 
 ii. 255-257. 
 True interpretation of John xxi. 15- 
 17 in its bearing on the ofiicial 
 superiority of, ii. 257, 258. 
 Considerations which set aside the 
 Popish assumption of the trans- 
 ference of the official supremacy 
 of, to the Roman Pontiffs, ii. 
 258. 
 Ground for contradicting the asser- 
 tion that the supremacy of, was 
 such as to constitute him and his 
 successors in office the true vicars 
 of Christ upon earth, ii. 259. 
 Pirs IV. — 
 
 Creed of, in regard to the exercise of 
 Church power in matters of faith, 
 i. 286. 
 
464 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Pius ix. — 
 
 Views of, regarding subjection to the 
 Roman PontiflF, i. 205 n. 
 Pope— 
 
 Difference between the Ultramon- 
 tane and Cismontane parties in 
 the Pi,omish Church regarding the 
 supremacy of the, ii. 248. 
 Necessity of the siipremacy of the, to 
 maintain and represent the essential 
 unity of the Church, ii. 248. 
 Presbyters — 
 
 Order of, recognised by Episcopacy, 
 Presbytery, and Independency, as 
 a standing and di\'ine institution 
 in the Christian Church, ii. 260. 
 Distinction between bishops and, 
 according to the Episcopalian 
 theory, ii. 261, 262, 280, 281. 
 The 2^of''-^(-(^s onUnationis implied in 
 the nature of the office conferred 
 upon, ii. 282. 
 Example of an act of ordination per- 
 formed \>Y, in the case of Timothy, 
 ii. 284. 
 Eefutation of the allegations of Epis- 
 copalians respecting the ordination 
 of Timothy by, ii. 284-289. 
 Example of ordination by, in the case 
 
 of Paul and Barnabas, ii. 289. 
 Refutation of the objection brought 
 by Episcopalians against ordination 
 by, inthecaseof Paul and Barnabas, 
 ii. 289, 290. 
 The jjotestas jiirisdicfionis implied in 
 thenatureof theofficeof, ii. 291, 292. 
 Passages of Scripture which distinctly 
 ascribe to, the office of ruling and 
 governing in the Christian society, 
 ii. 292, 293. 
 Intimations in Scripture that disci- 
 pline belonged to, ii. 293. 
 Prophets — 
 
 Functions of the office of, in the New 
 
 Testament Church, ii. 231-233. 
 Foundation laid in the circumstances 
 of the Apostolic Church for the 
 office of, ii. 233, 234. 
 Public Worship — 
 
 Foundation of the duty of, i. 324. 
 Demonstration of the institution of 
 the ordinance of, as a standing and 
 permanent ordinance for man, i. 
 324-327. 
 The essential parts of, as a permanent 
 and standing ordinance of God in 
 the Church, i. 327-330. 
 The precise office or power of the 
 Church in reference to ritual and 
 ceremonial observance in connec- 
 tion with, i. 335, 336. 
 
 Public Worship — 
 
 Doctrine of the standards of our 
 
 Church with respect to the exercise 
 
 of Church power about, i. 336-338. 
 
 Doctrine of the Church of Pi-ome in 
 
 regard to the extent and limits of 
 
 Church power in connection with, 
 
 i. 338. 
 
 Doctrine of the Church of England 
 
 respecting the exercise of Church 
 
 power in connection with, i. 338-340. 
 
 Extent of Church power with respect 
 
 to, i. 340-360. 
 Fundamental principle which deter- 
 mines the times and manner of, i. 
 340-342. 
 Office of the Church in the exercise 
 of its power about, to administer 
 and carry out the appointments of 
 Christ, i. 343, 344. 
 Explanations necessary to the under- 
 standing of the office of Church power 
 to administer the appointments of 
 Christ respecting, i. 344-349. 
 Explanation of the office of the 
 Church not in, but ahout, i. 349-360. 
 Limitations of Church power with 
 
 respect to, i. 360-375. 
 Exercise of Church power in reference 
 to, limited by the authority of 
 Christ, i. 363-367. 
 Exercise of Church power in reference 
 to, limited by a regard to the re- 
 vealed Word of God, i. 367-369. 
 Exercise of Church power in reference 
 to, limited by a regard to the 
 liberties and edification of the 
 members of the Church, i. 369-372. 
 Exercise of Church power in reference 
 to, limited by the proper nature of 
 that power as exclusively spiritual, 
 i. 372-375. 
 
 Quakers — 
 
 Views of, respecting Church power, 
 i. 191. 
 
 Views of, regarding Church ordin- 
 ances, i. 331. 
 
 Refutation of the views of, regarding 
 Church ordinances, i. 331-334. 
 
 Views of, regarding the institution 
 of the ministry in the Christian 
 Church, i. 422, 423. 
 
 Views of, respecting Baptism, ii. 42. 
 
 Views of, respecting the Lord's 
 Supper, ii. 130-132. 
 
 Rationalists— 
 
 Theory of, regarding the exercise of 
 Church power in matters of faith, 
 i. 287, 288. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 465 
 
 Ke.vl Presence — 
 
 Protestant view of the, ii. 156. 
 
 Scriptural view of the, ii. 157-159. 
 Eeal Priesthood — 
 
 Doctrine of a, inconsistent with the 
 fact that such an office was abro- 
 gated with the Jewish economy, ii. 
 162-104. 
 
 Doctrine of a, inconsistent with the 
 privileges of believers under the 
 Gospel, ii. 164-168. 
 
 Doctrine of a, inconsistent with the 
 one office of Christ as the priest 
 and mediator of His people, ii. 168- 
 170. 
 Ren AN — 
 
 Views of, respecting excommunica- 
 tion in the early Chi-istian Church, 
 i. 123 n. 
 Romanists— 
 
 View of, on the visible and invisible 
 Church, i. 16, 38. 
 
 Device of, in illustrating their theory 
 of Church principles, or defending 
 their pretensions to Church power, 
 i. 39, 40. 
 
 Views of, regarding the marks of the 
 Church, i. 63. 
 
 Views of earlier and later, regarding 
 the invisible Church and the terms 
 of membership, i. 69, 70. 
 
 Doctrines of, regarding the place and 
 office assigned to the Chiirch in the 
 world, i. 84-87, 89, 90, 92, 93. 
 
 Doctrine of, respecting the relation of 
 the Church to the State, i. 104-106. 
 
 Bearing of the system of, on the doc- 
 trine of the Headship of Christ, i. 
 203-205. 
 
 Views of, regarding the nature of 
 Church power, i. 233, 234. 
 
 Purposes for which Church power has 
 been exercised by the, i. 258, 261. 
 
 Views of, regarding the subject of 
 Church power, i. 266. 
 
 Views of, regarding the exercise of 
 Church power in matters of faith, 
 i. 283-287. 
 
 Doctrine of, respecting the extent and 
 limits of Church power in connec- 
 tion with the public worship of God, 
 i. 338. 
 
 Views of, respecting what constitutes 
 the ministerial title, i. 438. 
 
 Views of, respecting ordination, i. 
 472-476. 
 
 Views of, respecting the efficacy of 
 the Sacraments, ii. 28-30. 
 
 Distinction drawn bj^, between the 
 
 i Sacraments of the Old and New 
 
 Testament Churches, ii. 29, 30. 
 VOL. II. 
 
 Romanists— 
 
 Difference between the views of, and 
 High ('hurchmen, respecting the 
 efficacy of the Sacraments, ii. '30-32. 
 
 Views of, regarding Baptism, ii. 50. 
 
 Views of, regarding the Lord's Supper, 
 ii. 141, 142. 
 
 Views of, respecting the Real Pre- 
 sence, ii. 156. 
 
 System of Church government main- 
 tained by, ii. 245-247. 
 
 Theory of, regarding the unity of the 
 Church, ii. 248-250. 
 
 Views of, respecting the primacy of 
 St. Peter, ii. 253-255, 257, 258. 
 
 ROTHE 
 
 View of, on the ultimate identity of 
 Church and State, i. 27 n. 
 Ruling Elder— 
 
 Evidence for the Scriptural institution 
 of the office of, ii. 305-307. 
 
 Sabbath — 
 
 Case of the, as demonstrating the 
 necessity of the connection between 
 the Church and the State, i. 145- 
 148. 
 
 Distinction between the character of 
 the ordinance of the, as moral and 
 as positive, i. 393, 394. 
 
 The permanent and universal obliga- 
 tion of, manifest from the nature 
 and circumstances of its appoint- 
 ment at first, i. 394-397. 
 
 The permanent and universal obliga- 
 tion of the, shown from the place 
 assigned to it in the moral law, re- 
 asserted and promulgated afresh at 
 Sinai, i. 397-401. 
 
 The perpetual obligation of the, de- 
 monstrated by statements of Scrip- 
 ture, i. 401, 402. 
 
 Transference of the weekly, from the 
 last to the first day of the week, i. 
 402-404. 
 
 The permanent and perpetual obliga- 
 tion of, not affected by the change 
 of the day on which it is observed, 
 i. 404, 405. 
 Sacrament — 
 
 Origin of the term, ii. 3, 4. 
 Sacraments, The — 
 
 General princij)le to be kept in view 
 in considering, ii. 1-3. 
 
 Scriptural view of, as being di^^ne 
 institutions appointed by Christ, ii. 
 5, 6 ; as lieing sensible signs of 
 spiritual blessings, teaching and 
 representing by outward actions 
 spiritual truths, ii. 6-8 ; as being 
 federal acts, affording a seal or cou- 
 2 G 
 
466 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Sacraments, The— 
 
 firmation of the covenant between 
 God and His people, ii. 8-12 ; as 
 means of gi-ace to the individual 
 who rightly partakes of them, ii. 12. 
 
 Points of agreement between, and 
 non-sacramental ordinances, ii. 15- 
 17. 
 
 Points of difference between, and non- 
 sacramental ordinances, ii. 17-20. 
 
 True question in dispute as to the 
 efficacy of, ii. 33, 34. 
 
 The theory of an inherent power, 
 physical or spiritual, in, to impart 
 saving grace, inconsistent with 
 Scripture, which constitutes the 
 rule for the exercise of Church 
 power, ii. 35-38. 
 
 The theory of any inherent power 
 in, inconsistent with the supreme 
 authority of Christ, the source of 
 all Church power, ii. 38, 39. 
 
 The theory of any inherent power 
 in, inconsistent with the spiritual 
 liberties of Christ's people, ii. 39, 40. 
 
 The theory of any inherent power in, 
 inconsistent with the spirituality 
 of the Church, and of the power 
 exercised by it for the spiritual 
 good of men, ii. 40, 41. 
 
 SCHLEIERMACHER 
 
 Statement by, regarding the doctrinal 
 difference between Protestants and 
 Eomanists on the subject of the 
 Church, i. 38 n. 
 Scots Communion Office — 
 
 Views of the, respecting the Lord's 
 Supper, ii. 141, 142 n. 
 Scots Confession of Faith (1560) — 
 
 Notes of the true Church given in 
 the, i. 63 n. 
 
 Explanation of the views of, respect- 
 ing the power of the Church to 
 institute sacred rites, i. 362, 363 n. 
 Semi-Romanists— 
 
 Bearing of the system of, on the 
 Headship of Christ, i. 206-210. 
 
 Views of, respecting the unity of the 
 Church, ii. 251, 252. 
 Socinians — 
 
 Views of, regarding the Sacraments 
 of the New Testament, ii. 20, 21. 
 
 Difference between the views of, and 
 Independents regarding the Sacra- 
 ments of the New Testament, ii. 
 21, 22. 
 
 View of, respecting the Lord's Supper, 
 ii. 137. 
 SocTN US- 
 View of, respecting Sacraments as 
 seals, ii. 19 n. 
 
 Spiritual Independence — 
 
 Bearing of the connection between 
 Church and State upon, i. 149-153. 
 True foundation of, i. 161, 162. 
 Staphylus, F. — 
 
 Charge made by, against the Lu- 
 therans on the subject of the invi- 
 sible and the visible Church, i. 37 n. 
 Stillingfleet — 
 
 Remarks by, on the argument for 
 Episcopacy drawn from the apoca- 
 lyptic angels, ii. 290, 291 n. 
 
 Taylor, Isaac — 
 
 Views of, on the subject of embody- 
 ing truth in a creed, i. 317, 318. 
 Tertullian — 
 
 Argument of, against the inference 
 from Gal. iv. 10, 11, that no days 
 should be regarded as holy under 
 the Gospel dispensation, save those 
 of divine appointment, i. 414 n. 
 
 Statement by, regarding Infant Bap- 
 tism, ii. 127 n. 
 Thirty-nine Articles — 
 
 Definition of a Church as given in 
 the, i. 61. 
 
 Doctrine of the, on the subject of 
 apostolical succession, i. 454. 
 Thomasius — 
 
 Statement of, respecting the position 
 of the advocates of Consubstantia- 
 tion, ii. 144, 145 n. 
 Thorn, Declaration of — 
 
 Doctrine of the, regarding the Sacra- 
 ments, ii. 33, 34 n. 
 Toleration — 
 
 Bearing of the connection of the 
 C!hurch with the State upon, i. 
 153-159. 
 Transubstantiation — 
 
 Two fundamental errors connected 
 with, from which all the rest flow, 
 ii. 142, 143. 
 
 Consequences of the doctrine of, as 
 held by the Church of Rome, ii. 
 134, 1.35. 
 
 Grounds on which Romanists rest 
 their defence of, ii. 144, 145. 
 
 Untenable nature of the Romish de- 
 fence of, ii. 145-155. 
 
 Attempt made by Romanists to con- 
 found the dogma of, with what are 
 caUed the mysteries of religion, ii. 
 155. 
 Trent, Council of — 
 
 Views of the, with reference to the 
 exercise of Church power in matters 
 of faith, i. 285. 
 
 Views of the, as to the reading of 
 the Scriptures, i. 304, 305 n. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 467 
 
 Trent, Council of— 
 
 Deliverance of the, on the subject of 
 ordination, i. 47-, 473. 
 
 Views of the, respecting the efficacy 
 of the Sacraments, ii. 28. 
 
 Doctrine of the, respecting Transub- 
 stantiation, ii. 143, 144. 
 
 Doctrine of the, regarding a real 
 priesthood, ii. 101. 
 
 Doctrine of the, respecting the sacri- 
 tice of the Mass, ii. 172-174. 
 
 Doctrine uf the, respecting the supe- 
 riority and functions of bishops, ii. 
 
 21') 1 71. 
 TURRETTINE — 
 
 Definition of a Church given by, i. 
 62 H. 
 
 X'iews of, regarding a distinction of 
 power, both as to degree of order, 
 and as to jurisdiction, among mini- 
 sters, ii. 2(34 n. 
 
 Usher, ARCnBi-snop— 
 View of, respecting the bishop of the 
 early centuries, ii. 263 m. 
 
 VOETIUS — 
 
 View of, respecting Church power, i. 
 
 199, 200 n. 
 View of, respecting the subject of 
 Church power, i. 273. 
 
 Voluntaries — 
 
 Fundamental maxim of, i. 137. 
 
 Bearing of the fundamental maxim 
 of, on the case of oaths, i. 138- 
 140. 
 
 Bearing of the fundamental maxim 
 of, on toleration, i. 142-144. 
 
 Views of, as to the beariug of a con- 
 nection between Church and State 
 upon the spiritual independence of 
 the Church, i. 150. 
 
 Views of, as to the bearing of a con- 
 nection between Church and State 
 upon toleration, i. 153, 154. 
 
 Bearing of the views of, upon the 
 true foundation of liberty of con- 
 science, i. 162. 
 
 Warburton, Bishop — 
 
 Views of, respecting the alliance of 
 
 Church and State, i. 108, 109, 
 Wardlaw, Dr. — 
 
 Views of, regarding the invisible and 
 
 the visible Church, i. 35. 
 Views of, regarding the magistrate's 
 
 pro\'ince in regard to religion, i. 
 
 137 n. 
 Views of, with regard to Sabbath 
 
 legislation, i. 147 n, 148 n. 
 
 Wardlaw, Dr. — 
 
 Views of, icspecting the e.Ktent of 
 Church power, i. 241. 
 
 Statement by, of the principle of 
 Congregationalism, ii. 299. 
 
 Views of, respecting the principle of 
 Independency, ii. 300. 
 Whately, Akcii'iushop — 
 
 Views of, regarding the bearing of 
 the historical argument on the 
 doctrine of apostolical succession, 
 i. 449. 
 Wheatly — 
 
 Ilemarks by, on the use of the white 
 surplice in some parts of divine 
 service, i. 366 n. 
 White, Blanco — 
 
 Objection of, to creeds and confes- 
 sions, i. 316. 
 Westminster Confession — 
 
 Statement of the, regarding the in- 
 visible Church, i. 8. 
 
 Statement of the, regarding the 
 visible Church, i. 11, 48, 49. 
 
 Statement of the, regarding liberty 
 of conscience, i. 160, 182. 
 
 Statement of the, regarding the limits 
 to liberty of conscience, i. 171, 183, 
 184. 
 
 Doctrine of the, respecting the duty 
 and office of the civil magistrate in 
 regard to the Church, i. 173. 
 
 Vindication of the, from the charge 
 of countenancing Erastianism, i. 
 173-181. 
 
 Doctrine of the, on the Headship of 
 Christ, i. 174. 
 
 Doctrine of the, respecting the exclu- 
 sion of the civil magistrate from 
 all share in the government of the 
 Church, i. 175. 
 
 Doctrine of the, respecting the civil 
 magistrate's power about the 
 Church, i. 177. 
 
 Doctrine of the, respecting the method 
 to be used by the civil magistrate 
 in exercising his authority about 
 the Church, i. 178. 
 
 Vindication of the, from the charge 
 of countenancing persecution, i. 
 181-185. 
 
 Doctrine of the, as to the extent of 
 Church power, i. 236, 237. 
 
 Doctrine of the, regarding the subject 
 of Church power, i. 274. 
 
 Doctrine of the, regarding the falli- 
 bility of a Church's subordinate 
 standards, i. 308. 
 
 Doctrine of the, as to the essen- 
 tial parts of public worship, i. 
 327. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Westminster Confession— 
 
 Doctrine of the, respecting the exer- 
 cise of Church power in connection 
 with the public worship of God, i. 
 336-338. 
 Doctrine of the, respecting Church 
 censures, ii. 199, 200. 
 Westminster Directory — 
 
 Statement in the, regarding the use 
 of the Lord's Prayer in public 
 worship, i. 380 n. 
 WiLKiNs, Bishop — 
 
 Views of, respecting prayer by book, 
 i. 390 n. 
 Wiseman, Cardinal — 
 
 Views of, respecting the exercise of 
 
 Wiseman, Cardinal— 
 
 Church power in matters of faith, 
 i. 284. 
 
 Attempt of, to defend the literal 
 meaning of the words, "This is my 
 body," "This is my blood," ii. 
 148-152. 
 
 Attempt of, to explain away the im- 
 possibility of believing in the literal 
 interpretation of the sacramental 
 words that refer to the Supper, ii. 
 153, 154. 
 
 ZWINGLI — 
 
 Views of, regarding the Lord's Supper, 
 ii. 135, 136. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBURGH, 
 PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICB. 
 
 ^^ 
 
Date Due 
 
 *mmm 
 
 
 
 
 "wmim^ 
 
 k 
 
 
 
 m ■«s!\Si<milil0i 
 
 P"'- 
 
 
 
 wm 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -^^ms 
 
 mr 
 
 
 
 ''^Jt '-■'-' 
 
 -«--» 
 
 
 
 ^**'*wwsrai 
 
 *'mmmmm 
 
 
 
 
 mm' 
 
 
 
 i^imSsS 
 
 
 
 
 gISP*' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ki,, 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • M 
 
 PRINTED 
 
 IN U. S. A.