jfevTi^r-^ 
 
 /A 22,23 
 
 3Fntm tl|? SItbrarg of 
 
 l^quf atl|pi bg Ijftm to 
 
 tt|i? Htbrarg af 
 
 Primrrton Slt^nlogtral ^^mtttar^ 
 
 BV 600 .P4 
 
 Peck, Thomas E. 1822-1893. 
 
 Notes on ecclesiology 
 
ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
NOTES 
 
 ON 
 
 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 / 
 
 BY 
 
 T. E. PECK, D. D., LL. D., 
 
 Professor in Union Theological Seminary. 
 
 RICHMOND, VA. 
 
 Presbyterian Committee of Publication. 
 
 1892. 
 
COPXEIGHT 
 BY 
 
 James K. Hazek, Secretaky, 
 1892. 
 
 Pkinted by 
 Whitxet & Shepperson, 
 
 RiCHMOMD, VA. 
 
PREFATORY NOTE. 
 
 The most of these "Notes" were printed in 1880 by 
 the students of Union Theological Seminary in Vir- 
 ginia, exclusively for their own use. They are now 
 published for the first time. About fifty pages have 
 been added, the additional matter consisting of the 
 expansion of the hints on "Apostolical Succession" 
 and of a short chapter on "The Deacon's Ofiice." 
 
 THE AUTHOE. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 I. Introductory, ^ _ . . - - 7 
 
 II. Terms and Denominations, - - - - 10 
 
 III. Definitions and Descriptions, - - - 13 
 
 rV. Distinction of Church External and Internal, 16 
 
 V. General Description of the Church Visible, - 20 
 
 VI. Proofs of the Existence of a Church Visible, - 22 
 
 VII. First Organization of the Church Visible, - 28 
 
 VIII. Method of Perpetuating the Church Visible, - 34 
 
 IX. The Initiating Seal, ----- 38 
 
 X. Infant Members, ------ 42 
 
 XI. The Notes or Marks op a True Church, - 47 
 
 The Pretended Notes of Rome, - - - 51 
 
 Apostolical Succession, ----- 51 
 
 Is the Church of Rome a True Church of 
 
 Christ? ------ 103 
 
 XII. The Nature and Extent of Church Power, - 106 
 
6 Contents. 
 
 XIII. The Power Ecclesiastical Contrasted with 
 
 THE Power Civil. Relation of the 
 
 Church to the State, - - - 119 
 
 XIV. Other Theories of Church and State, - - 156 
 XV. Subject of Church Power. — Materia in qua, 162 
 
 XVI. Officers of the Church, - - - - 171 
 
 XVII. Presbyteries — Congregational — "Sessions,"- 178 
 
 XVIII. Presbyteries — Classical, Synodical, General, 185 
 
 XIX. The Deacon's Office, ----- 197 
 
ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 The scientific theologians of Germany have arranged 
 the cycle of sacred knowledge under five leading cate- 
 gories, viz. : 1, " Theology^' the science of God. 2, A:n- 
 throjwJogy, the science of man in relation to God. 3, 
 Soteriology, the science of salvation. 4, .Ecdesiology, 
 the science of the church. 5, Eschatology, or the 
 science of "the last things." The term Theology, in 
 this classification, you will notice, is used in a narrow 
 sense for a particular branch of theology, commonly 
 so-called ; and is concerned with discussions touching 
 the Being and Personality of God, and embraces, as a 
 sub-division, " Christology^' or the doctrine of the 
 Person of Christ, the God-man. It includes also the 
 doctrine concerning the creation and government of 
 the world, and the doctrine of angels and dremons. 
 (See Hagenbach's History of Doctrines ; Robinson on 
 the Church.) ^^ Aiithropology !' or the science of man, 
 treats of such questions as the origin of the soul, liberty 
 and immortality, the fall, sin, tfec. Soteriology, or the 
 science of salvation, embraces, chiefly, the doctrines of 
 redemption and atonement, justification, and, in 
 short, the priestly work of Christ in all its relations to 
 the curse of the law_, and to human guilt and condem- 
 nation, and the work of the Holy Ghost. {TIagenhach 
 'tit sup. cit.) 
 
 Now, such a classification implies in the history of 
 doctrine, these three things: 1, That Ecelesiology i^ a 
 branch of theology in the wide sense. 2, That it 
 
8 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 comes after the first three, in a natural or logical 
 method. 3, That it comes after the first three in an 
 historical order. 
 
 (1), Ecclesiology belongs to theology. The doc- 
 trine of the church belongs to the things which have 
 been revealed of God, and are, therefore, objects of 
 faith. Accordingly, we find this doctrine in the very 
 earliest sjanbol of the Christian church, the " Apostle's 
 Creed," standing in the same relation to the "credo" 
 as the other articles, and in the same order, with re- 
 spect to the doctrines concerning the Father, the Son, 
 and the Holy Ghost, w^hich we find in the classification 
 we are considering. So also, in nearly all the larger 
 creeds and confessions of a later date. The 25th 
 chapter of onr own ".Confession of Faith," is entitled 
 "Of the Church." 
 
 (2), The doctrine of the church, in a rational or lo- 
 gical order, falls to be considered after theology, an- 
 thropology, and soteriology, for the very obvious 
 reason that the church is the great and last result con- 
 templated by the revelation concerning God, man, and 
 salvation. It is the highest end, next to the glory of 
 God, of all the counsels and all the works of the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Chosen by the Father, 
 redeemed by the Son, sanctified by the Spirit, and 
 finally presented a "glorious church," without spot or 
 wrinkle, or any such thing, the Bride, the Laml)'s 
 wife, shall be hailed by principalities and powers in 
 heavenly places, as the highest and noblest display of 
 the manifold wisdom of God (Eph. iii. 9, 10) ; as far 
 transcending in glory the old creation, over which the 
 morning-stars sang together and all the sons of God 
 shouted for joy, as the second Ac\am, who is a quick- 
 ening Spirit, transcends in glory the first Adam, who 
 was but a living soul. 
 
 Meanwhile, during this dispensation of testimony 
 and of trial, it is the office of the church, as the pillar 
 and buttress of the truth, to bear witness of the great 
 
Intkoductoey. * 9 
 
 truths which are comprehended under the terms The- 
 ology, Anthropology, and Soteriology. She is not 
 only the object of the working of that Triune God of 
 whom theology treats, and the subject of that sin and 
 salvation of which anthropologj^ and soteriology treat, 
 but to her have been committed the lively oracles 
 which alone determine the faith of mankind upon all 
 these classes of truths, and through her are these 
 truths to be published to the race. The contents of 
 the message are to be pondered first, then the nature 
 of the messenger. This is the rational order. 
 
 (3), It is also the order of history. It is worthy of 
 note that "the history of the church since the apostles 
 seems to have been a development in succession of 
 these four in their order. "Theology " had its full de- 
 velopment during the controversies concerning the 
 nature of the Godhead, which closed. with the labors of 
 Athanasius; "Anthropology," during the Pelagian con- 
 troversy, closing with the labors of Augustine. Next,' 
 after a thousand years of repose and silence in the 
 church, was developed Soteriology, through the labors 
 of Luther and Calvin, proclaiming salvation as by grace 
 through faith ; leaving the fourth (Ecclesiology) yet to ■ 
 be developed." {I^ohinson on the Church, pp. 27, 28.) 
 This is certainly striking, though absolute accuracy 
 would, perhaps, require the statement to be modified 
 and limited. 
 
 In harmony with this idea, that the development of 
 Ecclesiology may be reserved for the last, perhaps our 
 own times, is the fact that many of the most obtrusive 
 tendencies of speculation, socialistic, political, philo- 
 sophical, in the nineteenth centuryjappear in discus- 
 sions about the principle oi felloioship, the j^i'iuciple 
 upon which the church is constituted. I may instance 
 " Communism," " St. Simonianism," &c., in social 23hil- 
 osophy; the principles of "sodality" and "solidarity," 
 in political philosophy ; and the principle of " catholi- 
 city " used as the criterion of certitude in philosophy 
 
10 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 properly so-called. (See Trenclis Ilulsean Zec^., VIII., 
 p. 125; MoJ^eWs Philosophy of Religion; Morell on 
 Phil. Tendencies of the Age, L. 4tli.) Indeed, it is not 
 unlikely that two of the three frog-like, nnclean spirits 
 which John tells ns (Rev. xvi. 13) proceed out of the 
 mouths of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet, 
 "infidelity" and "formalism," may form a coalition 
 upon the principle of catholicity {quod semper, quod 
 vh'njue, quod ah oinnihus) for one final, desperate assault 
 upon the church of God, (see Presh. Critic, Yol. I., 
 p. 291-'2), envied, like Abel of old, for her possession 
 of the absolute truth, certitude and assurance. 
 
 However this may be, there can be no doubt that 
 the question of the church is, in our day and in our 
 own branch of the church, one of the most conspicu- 
 ous ; and there is little doubt that assertions are made 
 in regard to the nature and functions of the church, in 
 some of these discussions, which, if accepted and be- 
 lieved, must be fatal to the soul. 
 
 These facts constitute an ample vindication of the 
 importance of the studies upon which we are about to 
 enter as well as of the appropriateness of the place as- 
 signed to them in the Seminary Curriculum. 
 
 II. 
 
 Terms and Denominations. 
 
 " Church." This word, and German lirche, Saxon 
 circe, and Scotch hlrh, are derived, probably, from the 
 Greek yjj(naxo^, or to '/j)(na'Aov, that which belongeth to 
 the Lord. "As a house of God is called a Basilica, 
 i. e., regia a Pege, so also it is named Kyrica, i. e., 
 Porniniccc a Domino ( xo^no'-:) " says an old author 
 (quoted in Gieselers O. H., § I.) It appears from Ul- 
 filas that, in general, the Greek names of Christian ' 
 things were adopted among the Goths. The Greek 
 origin of the word is confirmed also by its being found 
 not only in all the German dialects, (Swedish kyrka, 
 
Terms and Denominations. 11 
 
 Danish kirke^ etc.,) but also in those of the Sclavonian 
 nations who were converted by the Greeks (PoHsh 
 cerkieiv, Kussian herkoiv, Bohemian cyy'kevj.) (See note 
 to the section in Gieseler td supra.) 
 
 " Synagogue." This word is used in the LXX. often, 
 as well as in the New Testament. It is put for any 
 kind of an assembly, whether sacred or civil (Exod. xii. 
 3, 19 ; Num. xvi. 2), nay, even in a bad sense, for a pro- 
 fane and impious assembly (Psa. xxvi. 5) ; sometimes 
 for the place of meeting (Luke vii. 5), in which the 
 Jews were accustomed to assemble to hear the law, 
 offer prayers and perform other offices of devotion be- 
 side those which were to be performed in the temple. 
 Thence the so frequent mention of synagogues in the 
 New Testament, the origin of which, according to some, 
 was in the time of Moses (Acts xv. 21) ; according to 
 others in the time of the captivity, when they were de- 
 prived of the temple services. Hence, the " synagogue " 
 has come to denote the Jewish church, in like manner 
 as "the church" has been applied to the Christian 
 church. 
 
 "Ecclesia" is a Gentile, as synagogue is a Jewish, 
 denomination {Turret/ n, Vol. III., pp. 7, 8). Hence, in 
 the Epistle of James (ii. 2), which is addressed to Jew- 
 ish Christians, the assembly of worshippers is called 
 the synagogue; but the churches under the gospel 
 being composed for the most part of Gentile converts, 
 the term ecclesia is most commonly used (Turretin nt 
 supra — Witsius^Exercit. Sac. in Synibolum, xxiv. p. 451, 
 Amstelod, 1697). 
 
 The Greek EAxXr^aca answers precisely to the kahal 
 and gheda and moid of the Old Testament, all these 
 terms signifying an assendjly, especially one convened 
 by invitation or appointment. (Ilasons Essays on the 
 Okurch, No. 1, Works, Yol. lY. p. 3). '' That this 
 is their generic sense," says Dr. Mason, "no scholar 
 will deny; nor that their particular applications are 
 ultimately resolvable into it. Hence it is evident, 
 
12 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 from the terms tliemselyes, nothing can be conckided 
 as to the nature or extent of the assembl}^ which they 
 denote. WhencA^er either of the two former occurs in 
 the Old Testament, or the other in the new, you are 
 sure of an assemhly, but of nothing more. What that 
 assembly is, and whom it comprehencTs, you must learn 
 from the connection of the term and the subject of the 
 writer." A few instances will exemplify the remark : 
 
 In the Old Testament, halial^' is applied : To the 
 whole mass of the j)eople (Exod. xii. 6) ; to a portion 
 of the people, who came upon Hezekiah's invitation to 
 keep the passover (2 Chron. xxx. 24) ; to the army 
 of Pharaoh (Ezek. xvii. 17) ; to an indefinite mvltitude 
 (Gen. xxviii. 3) ; to the society of Simeon and Levi 
 (Gen. xlix. 6) So also ghecla is applied : to the whole 
 nation of Israel (Exod. xvi. 22) ; to the particular 
 company of Korah, Dathan and Abiram (Num. xvi. 
 16) ; to the assembly of the just, as opposed to the 
 loicJcecl (Psa. i. 5) ; to the juclicato7'y, before whom 
 crimes were tried (Num. xxxv. 12, 24, comp. with 
 Deut. xix. 12, 17, 18). In like manner exxXr^aca, in the 
 New Testament, is applied : To the ivhole hody of the re- 
 deemed (Eph. V. 24, 27) ; to the whole hody of professing 
 Christians, whether more or less extensive, as in the 
 apostolic salutations and inscriptions of the Ej^istles; 
 to a small association of Christians meeting together 
 in a private house (Col. iv. 15, Phil. i. 2) ; to a civil 
 assembly laiofully convened (Acts xix. 39) ; to a body 
 of persons irregidarly convened (Acts xix. 32). In ap- 
 plication to the church, note the following meanings : 
 1st, The church invisible. 2d, The church visible, in the 
 sense of a single congregation worshipping statedly in 
 
 *It is only this word which the LXX. render by t/./.h^aia ; though 
 they sometimes use (rovaYil'yri to represent it. In Psa. xxvi. 12 ; Ixviii. 
 27, a cognate word in the plural is rendered by the plural of ecdesia. 
 The three Hebrew words seem to be used indiscriminately in Num. x. 
 1-7, still it may be a question whether the assembly of vs. 7 is the same 
 as that of vs. 3, or rather with the select assembly of chiefs in vs. 4. 
 
Definitions and Descriptions. 13 
 
 one place. 3rd, Separate congregations united under 
 one government, ( Church of Jerusalem). 4th, The 
 church visible, vaguely and indefinitely so called — the 
 whole body of professing Christians, without reference 
 to external organic unity (Confession of Faith, Chap. 
 XXV. Art. I. ; compare "Jews"). 5tli. The church re- 
 presentative, the church court. 
 
 " IlavYjY'jocz,'' (Heb. xii. 23) which has a significa- 
 tion somewhat different from the ecdeda. AVhen the 
 people among the Greeks were convoked for the pur- 
 pose of deliberating and determining concerning matters 
 pertaining to the republic, the assembly, as we have 
 already noted, was called ecdeshu But when, as in 
 the Panatheufea, they were invited to some festive 
 spectacle, then the assembly was called llawj'j(>cc, and 
 an oration delivered on such an occasion was called 
 navfffO(ir/,oz, loyo:;. An assembly of the faithful, there- 
 fore, convened to act upon things pertaining to the 
 kingdom of God, i. e., spiritual and heavenly things, 
 may be called ecclesia, but inasmuch as they are in- 
 vited and admitted to the greatest spectacle in the uni- 
 verse, the glory of God shining in the face of Jesus 
 Christ, the assembly may be called T.avf^y')(n::. (See 
 WiUius nt Sup.) 
 
 III. 
 
 Definitions and Descriptions. 
 
 The church may be defined, " a society of faithful or 
 believing men, called by God, through the word, out 
 of the whole human race, to the communion of the 
 covenant of grace in Christ." ( Witmis uf i<up., 24, 
 sec. 6.) The difterent members of this definition must 
 be explained in their order : 
 
 1st. It is a society. This implies not only that the 
 individuals composing it are many (1 Cor. x. 17) ; but 
 as we are taught in this text, and in 1 Cor. xii. 14, many 
 joined together organically, so as to make one hody. 
 
14 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 Society implies a community of nature and of ends. 
 Instance in the family and in the state, which, like the 
 church, have been instituted by God. The same is 
 true, to a certain extent, even of voluntary associations. 
 The members are "fellows," at least with respect to 
 the ends for which the association is instituted. This 
 idea of community of nature, feeling, interests, etc., is 
 expressed emphatically in the common illustration 
 drawn from the human body. (See 1 Cor xii. ; Eph. 
 iv. 4, &c.) If one member suffers or rejoices, tlie other 
 members suffer or rejoice with it. The functions dis- 
 charged by one memlDer are discharged for the good of 
 all. Each is interested in all and all in each. The 
 notion of a body, however, implies also (see Eph. iv. 16) 
 organization, a constitution of the parts or members in 
 certain relations to each other and to the whole, and 
 especially a common relation or union to a head, a 
 directing power which shall give unity to the operations 
 of all the parts. Of the body, the church, Christ is 
 the head. This view of the nature of society shows the 
 absurdity of all theories of the church which make 
 connection with the church the means of regeneration. 
 This is equivalent to saying that a man must become 
 a member of society in order to be a human being; 
 that the atmosphere creates the lungs, or that the light 
 makes the eye. The truth is, that a man becomes a 
 Christian and a member of the church at the same 
 time by the same act of God ; but in the order of na- 
 ture he must become a Christian first. 
 
 The same idea of society is conveyed in other ima- 
 ges of Scripture besides that of a body. For instance, 
 the images of a tree (Rom. xi.), a fold under one shep- 
 herd (John X.), a city or state (Phil. iii. 20, with Eph. 
 ii. 19). See Potter on Church Govennneat, Chap I. ; 
 2[aso)is Plea for Communion, at the beginning. 
 
 2d. It is a society of men. The angels are our fel- 
 low-servants (Rev. xix. 10), having the same Master; 
 they are children of the same great family (Job. i. 6 ; 
 
Definitions and Descriptions. 15 
 
 xxxviii. 7), and partakers of the same blessedness, wliicli 
 consists in communion with God, whence we are said 
 "to come to an innumerable company of angels" (Heb. 
 xii. 22). Yet they are what they are in a dilterent 
 mode and by a different title, not redeemed by Christ, 
 not called by the gospel, not born again of the Spirit, 
 not partakers of the covenant of grace, which are the 
 highest privileges of the church, and its characteristic 
 marks. (See Heb. ii. 16). Witsius ut snj)7Yi, 24, sec. 
 6. 
 
 3rd. It is a society of heUering men. As I have 
 already stated in the course on History, the word and 
 the life of the church constitute its form or formal 
 nature; and faith is the first and most prominent 
 exponent of the life. Now, faith cometh by hearing 
 and hearing by the word of God. The word comes pro- 
 miscuously to all, bat is not believed by all. Faith makes 
 the difference among them. The faithful have a new 
 life. Faith is mixed with the word (Heb. iv. 2), and a 
 Christian is the result, and the church is composed of 
 Christians. The object of faith is substantially the 
 same in all ages, and, therefore, faitli is substantially 
 the same; and, therefore, the church is substantially 
 the same in all ages. (See Acts ii. 41-47 ; Heb. iii. 5, 6 ; 
 iv. 1, cfec.) 
 
 4th. It is a society of holy men. This is virtually 
 included in the last, but deserves an articulate state- 
 ment. (1 Peter ii. 9; 1 Cor. i. 2, and other inscrip- 
 tions to the Epistles). (See Witsius ut sup). 
 
 5th. It is a society called of God (Gal. i. 6 et id). 
 God is said to be the caller (Rom. ix. 11). Hence the 
 church is the church of the living God (1 Tim. iii. 15). 
 Hence the church is, in one sense, a voluntary society, 
 and in another sense it is not. The call of God is a 
 command, as well as an invitation to every man who 
 hears it, to come out and be separate from the world 
 which lies in wickedness. If he is destitute of faith, 
 he is bound to seek it, and if he seek it not, he is lost. 
 
16 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 On tlie other hand, no man is coerced to become a 
 member of the church. God makes his people willing 
 in the day of his power. The yjjizoi are called sweetly 
 as well as powerfully by the Spirit, enaUed and -per- 
 stiaded to receiA^e Christ as he is offered to them in the 
 gospel. As before man, the church is a voluntary so- 
 ciety; for in the wdiole matter God has left the con- 
 science free from the commandments of men. 
 
 God is a sovereign in calling (Rom. ix. 11). Many 
 are called but few are chosen (Matt. xx). This is im- 
 plied in the very term " Ecclesia." 
 
 6th. It is a society called of God Inj the word. Hence 
 where there is no word, there is no church. (See 
 under third head, " believing men ;" see 1 Cor. i. 21). 
 This word is law and gospel. 
 
 7th. The church is called out of the whole huviaii 
 race ; first, the Israelites (Psa. cxlvii. 19, 20) ; then the 
 Gentiles (Isa. Iv. 5 ; Acts xv. 14.) 
 
 8th. The end of this calling is eonimunioa ivith Christ 
 in the covenant of (jrace (Prov. ix. 4, 5 ; Isa. Iv. 2, 3 ; 
 1 Cor. i. 9 et al.. 
 
 9th. The church is one. This follows from all that 
 has been said. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Distinction of Church External and Internal. 
 
 It is to be noted, however, that there is a two-fold 
 form, or if you prefer the expression, state and condi- 
 tion of the church ; the one internal and mystical^ in 
 which God alone judges wdth certainty concerning its 
 members ; the other external and visible^ in which man 
 is also the jndge. To refer to the definition of the 
 church already given, we may note : 
 
 1st. That there is a tico-fold callinrj : the one external 
 by the v'ord (Matt. xx. 16) ; the other internal, by the 
 Spirit (Rom. viii. 30). 
 
 2d. A two-fold faith answering to this calling : the 
 one contvion, found even in reprobates, by wdiich, as- 
 
Distinctions of Church. 17 
 
 senting to the truth of the gospel, they experience 
 some transient joy (Acts viii. 13; Matt, xiii, 20, &c. ; 
 Mark vi. 20; Heb. vi. 4, &c.) ; the other savhig, "the 
 faith of God's elect" (Tit. i. 1), "faith unfeigned" (1 
 Tim. i. 5), "faith working by love" (Gal. v. 5). 
 
 3d. A tivo-fold holiness: the one relatwe, external^ 
 federal, consisting in the segregation from the com- 
 munion of the impure and the profane (Ezra ix. 2). 
 In this sense the Israelites are called "the holy seed." 
 kSee also Eom. xi. 16. Such a holiness is recognized 
 also in the New Testament. (See 1 Cor. Ad. 1, 2 ; 1 
 Cor. vii. 14). The other is ahsolute, internal, real, the 
 property of those who are born again, a conformity to 
 God and an image of his holiness (Psa. xciii. 5 ; 1 Pet. 
 i. 15, 16). 
 
 4th. A tvo-fold conn n union in the rorencmt : the one 
 external in the signs of the covenant, belonging to the 
 infant offspring of parents in the covenant (Gen. xvii. 
 7 ; Acts ii. 39), and to adults who make a credible pro- 
 fession of their faith, though they possess it not (John 
 XV. 2, 6); the other, an internal, sp'trltafd, saving com- 
 munion in the things signified, such as remission of 
 sins, the law written upon the heart, etc. (Heb. viii. 
 10-12). Compare the distinctions in Eomans ii. 28, 
 29, Avhich mav be analogically transferred to Christi- 
 anity. ( Witmm, Ex. 24, § 11.) 
 
 Hence the two-fold form or condition of the church, 
 the one visdjle, depending upon the profession of faith 
 and the observance of worship ; the other sjnritval and 
 invisdde, which, owing its origin to the eternal election 
 of God, reaches its consummation by a living faith and 
 holiness. (See 1 John ii. 19.) 
 
 With this distinction correspond very nearly the 
 definitions commonly given, and given in our Confes- 
 sion of Faith, Chap. XXV.) 
 
 The church Invisd/le is thus defined: See Sec. 1. — 
 "The Church," c^-c. Note that the invisible church 
 catholic, according to this definition, differs from the 
 
18 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 intemal, mystical, spiritual clinrcli of wliicli we have 
 been speaking only in this, that it includes all the elect 
 of all ages, past and future, while the latter includes 
 only those who at any given period are actually justi- 
 fied and sanctified. (See the scriptural references in 
 the Confession.) The invisible church catholic may be 
 considered eiih.er universally and 'AadoAo'j, with respect to 
 the whole multitude of the faithful which constitute it, 
 of whatever time or place they may be; or 2)ccrticularly 
 and xazafizpoc, and now, concerning that which reigns 
 with Christ in heaven, and now concerning that which 
 labors and sojourns in the world and is distributed in 
 particular churches. {Turretin, Sec. 7, Quest. 2, Lect. 
 18, Yol. III. p. 9.) 
 
 Note, that the church invisible is not j'/rc^c'^/rrt//?/ 
 recognized at all by the Church of Rome ; they make 
 a distinction between the church militant and the 
 church triumphant. The church militant, which is 
 also visible, is the Roman Catholic, out of which there 
 is no possibility of salvation. To this church they 
 ascribe all the attributes of the true or invisible church, 
 unity, catholicity, holiness, indefectibility, etc., and 
 thus make merchandize of souls. The great champion 
 of Rome, in the sixteenth century, Bellarmine, thus de- 
 fines the church (See Tarrethi at suj).) : " Coetuin honvi- 
 num, ejusdem Christianaefideiprofessione, et eorvndeni 
 sacfrainentorum coiiimunione colli gatti'ni, suh recjindne 
 legiti/iti ovum, p>(^^lorana, ae 'p^'n^ci^p^f^c, unius Cltristi in 
 terris vicarii, Pontifcis Iiomani,'' — a definition not 
 draAvn from the Scriptures, but made to serve a turn. 
 
 The church visible is thus defined in our Confession 
 of Faith, Chap. XXV. Sec. 2: "The Visible Church, 
 cV'C." Tarretin gives a definition in some respects 
 more complete, or at least more explicit. It is as 
 follows (18, 2, 10, p. 10): '' Societas hoinimim p)rae- 
 conio evangelii vocatorani ad anitrs fidei 2yt'<f'''^sioneni^ 
 eoTundem sacrorurn co-ininiuvionein, et ejusdein ordinis 
 ohservationem'' 
 
Distinctions of Church. 19 
 
 Before I proceed to consider the contents of these 
 definitions of the church visible, I will say a word on 
 its relation to the church invisible, in addition to what 
 has already been said when considering the general 
 doctrine of the church. This relation is suggested by 
 the etymon of the term '' ecclesia,'' and is contained in 
 the notion of a vocation, or rather an evocation {ex- 
 xaAz(v), a calling out of the mass of the human race. 
 Both are referred, the church visible and the church 
 invisible, to the sovereign purpose of God ; of wdiich 
 the whole process of salvation is an evolution. That 
 purpose was a purpose to save, " not merely myriads 
 of men as individual men, but myriads of sinners as 
 composing a mediatorial body, of which the Mediator 
 shall be the head ; a mediatorial kingdom whose gov- 
 ernment shall be on his shoulders forever; a church, 
 the Lamb's bride, of which he shall be the husband, a 
 bride whose beautiful portrait was graven upon the 
 palms of his hands and whose walls were continually 
 before him, when in the counsels of eternity he under- 
 took her redemption. " Christ did not undertake 
 from eternity the office of a prophet merely, nor 
 the office of a priest merely, but as the result of 
 all and the reward of all, to found a community, to 
 organize a government, and administer therein as a per- 
 petual k'nigy (JRohinson on the Church, pp. 38, 39, and 
 Appendix to Discourses on Bedenqjtion, note to Dis. 
 IV.) Now in the manifestation and fulfilment of this 
 purpose in time, " the ideal zxhy-oc of the covenant of 
 redemption became the actual xhizoi. Inasmuch as 
 they are called by an external clesis of the Word, they 
 are gathered in successive generations to constitute the 
 ecclesla on earth. In as far as they are called also by 
 the internal clesis of the Spirit, they are gathered to 
 constitute the invisible ecclesla, the full and complete 
 actual of the eternal ideal. For whilst, indeed, the 
 effectual call of the Spirit can alone fulfil the promise 
 of the eternal covenant to Messiah, yet, as that call is 
 2 
 
20 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 externally throiigli the word and tlie visible ordinances, 
 the very process of calling and jDreparing the elect of 
 God creates the visible church in the very image of 
 the invisible, and it is in this visible body that the 
 Mediator carries on his administration, works by his 
 Spirit, etc., and it is by this body that he carries on his 
 purposes of mercy toward a world Ij^ing in wickedness." 
 {Bohinson, pp. 41, 42.) See also Iiobinsorts '^ Dis- 
 courses Oil JRede7nption,'' pp. 455 et seq. 
 
 General Description of the Church Yisible. 
 
 See the definitions given in No. IV. Many of the 
 features of the visible church are common to it with 
 the church invisible, and have been described in pre- 
 ceding numbers. III., IV. It is a society, an organ- 
 ized society, a society of men, a society called of God, 
 a society called by the word, called out of the whole 
 human race, a society subject to the authority of Christ 
 as its head. 
 
 The characteristic features of the church visible, 
 those which make it visible, are, according to the defi- 
 nitions : 
 
 1st. A credible profession of faith and holiness, and 
 not real faith and holiness, as the term of membership 
 and communion on the part of adults. 
 
 2d. The right of infants, children of such credible 
 professors, to the initiating sign and seal of the cove- 
 nant, recognizing them members of the church, in some- 
 what the same manner as minors in civil society are 
 members of the state. 
 
 3d. Certain sacred rites and forms of worship, 
 through which this credible profession is made, and 
 the covenant state of infants recognized. 
 
 4th. A certain " order" or government, or system of 
 discipline, in the hands of church officers, called of God 
 and chosen by the people. 
 
Genekal Description of the Church Yisible. 21 
 
 5tli. The possession and. use of oracles, ministry, 
 ordinances, for the ingathering of the elect and their 
 sanctification ; in other words, ^for the completion of 
 the mystical body of Christ, the church invisible. 
 (See Confession of Faith, Chap. XXY., Sec. III.) Out 
 of the church visible there is " no ordinary possibility 
 of salvation." {Ihid., Sec. II.) 
 
 6th. Catliolicity. I mention this as a distinctive 
 feature of the church visible, although it belongs also 
 to the church invisible, for the reason that the term 
 catholic is used in several different senses : (1), In the 
 widest sense, embracing alldifferencesof places, times, 
 persons, and states, and denoting the whole family of 
 God, in heaven and earth, militant and triumphant, 
 past, present, and future. In this sense it is properly 
 applied only to the church invisible. (2), In a narrower 
 sense, for the church under the gospel, in opposition 
 to the church under the law ; and this in regard to 
 places, persons, and times, {a), Places. Christian 
 church no longer restricted to one place of w^orship. 
 (John iv. 21, 23 ; 1 Tim. ii. 8.) (/>), Persons. Chris- 
 tian church has no respect to differences of family, 
 rank, nation, etc. Neither Jew nor Greek, male nor 
 female, etc. (Rom. x. 12 ; Acts x. 35 ; Col. iii. 11 ; Apoc. 
 V. 9.) (c). Times. The Christian church must continue 
 till the consummation of the ages. In the sense thus 
 explained, the term catholic is also applied to the 
 whole church on earth, in opposition to "particular 
 churches," existing in certain places or at certain 
 times. (3), In an abusive sense, as equivalent to 
 " orthodox.'" Commonly so used by the Fathers after 
 Augustine, to denote a particular church which main- 
 tained its communion with the church universal, and 
 had not been separated from it by heresy or schism. 
 Thus, the "Catholic church in Smyrna," "in Alexan- 
 dria," etc. This use of the term seems to have become 
 common during, and in consequence of, the discussions 
 about the Montanists, Donatists, Novatians, and other 
 
22 EcclesioloctY. 
 
 catliaric of early times. Unfortunately, however, 
 catholicity was made to depend upon official succes- 
 sion, instead of the succession of the truth ; and this 
 stupendous error led, in the course of time, to Popery. 
 (See on the word Catholic, W/'hius, id ^u})- xxiv. 20 ; 
 Tvrrethi, L. xviii., q. 6, Yol. III., p. 27, 28; Pearson 
 Oil the Creed, Art. IX. ; Suicers Thesau. &uh vei'h.) 
 
 It is in the second of the senses above given that 
 our Confession uses the word of the church visible. 
 " All those throughout the Avorld." 
 
 7th. Unity. Same remark about this term as the 
 last. The true idea of unity in the church visible will 
 be explained when we come to consider the Presby- 
 terian system, in opposition to Popery and Indepen- 
 dency. 
 
 So much for the general features of the church 
 visible. Many of these Avill be described more fully 
 hereafter, as they are connected with the proofs of the 
 existence of such a church, and with the mode in which 
 it is maintained and perpetuated. 
 
 YI. 
 
 Pkoofs of the Existence of a Church Yisible. 
 
 1st. To say nothing of the dim traces of such a body 
 in the garden of Eden, to be discerned in the skins 
 with which our first parents were clothed, (implying 
 that the animals slain had been slain in sacrifice, and 
 that the form of public Avorship, by which a j;^^^^^'^?'^/^ 
 of fa'dh in the promise of God was made, had been 
 already instituted) ; nor to insist upon the clearer traces 
 of it in the history of Cain and Abel ; {puhlie inorsh'q) 
 and profession of faith, Gen. iv. 4, with Heb. xi. 4; 
 — stated times of worship, vs. 3, " at the end of days ;" 
 — -a stated place, marked by some insignia of God's 
 presence, a foreshadowing of the tabernacle and the 
 temple, vs. 16, and compare 14, "from thy face shall I 
 be hid ;" exconiinunication, vs. 14, compare with vs. 12, 
 
Pkoofs of the Existence of a Church Visible. 23 
 
 16 — ajwstasy from a religions profession, vs. 16) ; nor 
 upon the additional trace of such a body in the times 
 of Enos, when "men began to call themselves by the 
 name of the Lord," Gen. iv. 26 — or, as it is explained 
 afterwards in the history, vi. 2, "sons of God," in op- 
 position, probably, to the apostate posterit}^ of Cain, 
 who were called "sons of men," or, as we say, "men of 
 the world," — see Gen. iv. 17, 19, 22, and compare Psa. 
 xvii. 14 ; iv. 6 ; nor again in the times of Noah (when, 
 in consequence of the intermarriage of the "sons of 
 God" with the " daughters of men," or the members of 
 the true church with apostates — see Gen vi. 1, etc., and 
 compare Num. xxv. 1, &:c. ; Ezra. ix. 2, Neh. xiii. 26, 
 27 ; universal apostasy was the result) ; nor upon the 
 manifest tracks of a patriarchal church, before the 
 covenant of circumcision with Abraham, (see the his- 
 tor}", specially the account of -Melchisedek, Gen. xiv. 
 18, kc. ; Heb. vii.) ; not to insist upon any of these, 
 the visible church becomes conspicuous from the time 
 of the ecclesiastical covenant with Abraham, down 
 through the whole history of his descendants in the 
 line of Jacob, to the advent of the Messiah. This 
 clmrch, or "kalial Jehovah," embraced all who had the 
 token of the covenant in their flesh, whether regener- 
 ated or not, whether in or out of Judea (Acts ii. 5). 
 Now, if such a church existed before the advent of 
 Messiah — a church founded upon faith (or the credible 
 profession thereof), in the promise of salvation, with 
 solemn ordinances of worship, by which that profession 
 was made and constantly renewed ; a church embrac- 
 ing the infant offspring of such professors, and possess- 
 ing a sign and seal by which this status of infants 
 was recognized ; a church with a government and dis- 
 cipline in the hands of men appointed of God, and in 
 general with a ministry, oracles and ordinances, for the 
 edification of the true Avorshippers ; a church, too, as 
 will appear hereafter, catholic in its constitution and 
 design, though not so in fact to any great extent under 
 
24 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 the law ; if such a church existed then, what has became 
 of it ? Its ceremonial form has been abolished, but it 
 has not ceased to be the church on that account, any 
 more than the creature in its chrysalis condition ceases 
 to be when it passes into the higher and freer sphere 
 of the gorgeous butterfly. Nor does it cease to be be- 
 cause the people who pre-eminently enjoyed its privi- 
 leges at first have been deprived of them ; any more 
 than the olive tree has ceased to be because the 
 natural branches have been broken off and wild ones 
 have been grafted in. He who denies the existence of 
 a visible church since the advent of Christ, is bound 
 to show that the church before Christ has been abol- 
 ished, both in law and fact. (See Ifason, Vol. IV., 
 pp. 5-8 ; Essay I.) 
 
 2d. " The Old Testament scriptures proceed on the 
 supposition that the visible church state, co-extensive 
 with the Kedeemer's kingdom on earth, was not to cease 
 at the introduction of the gospel dispensation." (Mason 
 ut sup., p. 8, <fec.) 
 
 (1), There are numerous predictions concerning the 
 church, and numerous promises to her in her public 
 capacity, which are still unfulfilled, and can never be 
 fulfilled, if her visible unity be not asserted. See 
 Isa. Ixvi. 12, 22 ; xlix. 23 ; Ix. 3, 5. Now, upon the 
 principle that " God is not the God of the dead, but 
 of the living" (Matt, xxii.), the church must continue 
 to exist in order to receive the fulfilment of these 
 promises. [Mason, IV., p. 8, &c.) 
 
 (2), The natiire of many of these promises implies 
 that the narrow ceremonial trammels by which it was 
 confined should be done away. The promises, there- 
 fore, imply at once perpetuity and change, and con- 
 sequently, that the change is not inconsistent, much 
 less incompatible, with perpetuity. 
 
 Note {a) that these promises contemplate the church 
 as one ; {!)) that this unity is not ascribed to her as 
 composed of the elect alone. The church is not rep- 
 
Proofs of the Existence of a Church Visible. 25 
 
 resented as consisting of a multitude of independent 
 associations, but as a great whole ; and further, as a 
 visihle body, her "light" Adsible, the "brightness of 
 her rising" attracting the "kings," etc. (See also Isa. 
 liv. 1, 2, for a description implying the same thing.) 
 
 Note the difference between the unity and the one- 
 7iess (or oneliness) of the church. The papists indentify 
 them; the Protestants predicate unity of the church 
 invisible; oneness of the church visible. See Litton 
 Church of Christ, p. 1, chap. 1, sec. 1, (American 
 Edition, pp. 268, ff.) for this unity ; p. 1, chap. 1, sec. 
 2, pp. 335, ff.) for the oneness. It is in this last sense 
 that Mason hei'e calls the church one. 
 
 3rd. "The language of the New Testament implies 
 that an external visible church state was not abolished 
 Avith the law of Moses." {Mason, IV., 11, <fec.) 
 
 " The writers of the New Testament never go about 
 to jf;?'6»?.'6 that there is a visible church catholic ; 
 far less do they speak of it as originating in the evan- 
 gelical dispensation ; but they assume its existence as 
 a point which no Christian in their days ever thought 
 of disputing." The doctrine of the one visible church 
 is interwoven with the texture of their language. 
 (Acts vii. 38: ii. 47; viii. 3 : 1 Cor. xii. 28, &c. ; Rom. 
 xvi. 23; 1 Cor. x. 32; xv. 9, &c., &c.) The church to 
 which the Lord added daily such as should be saved, 
 Avas not the body of the elect, for no addition can be 
 made to them ; nor a single congregation, unless God 
 had no more people to be saved in Jerusalem than, 
 together with mere professors, were sufficient for one 
 pastoral charge. Nor is it to be imagined that Saul 
 confined his persecutions to a single congregation, nor 
 that he was able to pick out the elect. Nor will a 
 solder man allege that God has set no officers but in 
 one congregation, or that they have no functions to- 
 ward any but His elect ; or that all whom He hath set 
 are themselves of the number ; nor yet that " offence " 
 can never be given to any but the elect," ... " The 
 
26 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 plirases referred to (in tlie above cited passages) being 
 utterly inapplicable either to a single congregation, or 
 to tlie body of tlie redeemed, must designate another 
 and different society, which can be no other than what 
 we have called the visible church catholic. Too ex- 
 tensive for partial assemblies, too notorious for any 
 secret election of men, and yet a church — the church — 
 it is general, external, and but OXE." 
 
 The phraseology of the New Testament on this sub- 
 ject, as on many others, is borrowed from that of the 
 old. "Ecclesia" is the same as "kahal," and the 
 Seventy constantly use the former to render the latter. 
 The Jews, then, would understand by " ecclesia Theou," 
 the " kahal Jehovah." The Gentiles Avould (the Greeks, 
 I mean), understand "ecclesia" by itself, but would 
 know nothing of "ecclesia Theou" without looking 
 into the Jewish scriptures, the Old Testament. The 
 Avord " church " is like the word "Christ" in this re- 
 spect. " Neither the nature of the church, nor the 
 office of her head, is to be understood without an ap- 
 peal to the same scriptures. Consequently that very 
 rule which expounds the " Christ of God" as signifying 
 one AVho was qualified b}' the Father's appointment 
 and by the measureless communication of the divine 
 Spirit to be a Saviour for men, will oblige us to ex- 
 pound the "church of God" as signifying that great 
 visible society which professes his name. (See Mason, 
 pp. 14-17.) 
 
 4tli. "The account which the New Testament gives 
 of the church confirms the doctrine of the visible 
 unity." {Ilason ut t^ujyra, p. 17, &c.) 
 
 (1), One of the commonest appellations is " the king- 
 dom of heaven:" one, because the, not a, kingdom. The 
 parable of the "wheat and tares" teaches that it is visi- 
 ble as well as one. (Here read pp. 18, etc., in proof 
 that the parable designates the church, and not civil 
 society). So also the parable of the "net" and the 
 "virgins." These parables of course cannot describe 
 
Proofs of the Existence of a Church Visible. 27 
 
 tlie body of tlie elect ; and it would be absurd to limit 
 them to a single congregation. Ergo, &g. 
 
 (2), The image of a "body" in 1 Cor. xii. It plainly 
 signifies a vhole. Then v^hat whole? Not the church 
 at Corinth, far less a particular congregation, unless 
 the commission of the apostles and the use of all spir- 
 itual gifts extend no further. Not the church of the 
 elect, for there are no "schisms" in that body as such. 
 Nor can it be affirmed, but at the expense of all fact and 
 consistency, that God hath set no officers except in the 
 church of His redeemed. For u]5on that supposition 
 no church officer could ever exercise his office toward 
 any non-elected man ; the pastoral relation could never 
 be fixed without knowing beforehand who are the elect 
 of God, or else no person, however blasphemous and 
 abominable, could be kept out of a church, because 
 such "blasphemer" and "injurious" may possibly be a 
 "chosen vessel." The body, then, here described, must 
 be the visible church catholic. (See Mason ut sujyra.) 
 
 It may be further noted that this bod}^ is represented, 
 here and in Eph. iv., as endowed with sundry gifts, 
 means of salvation and edification, "ministry, oracles 
 and ordinances." These means of salvation are exter- 
 nal and visihle; a visible Bible, a visible ministry, visi- 
 ble worship, sacraments, discipline, etc. ; and if the 
 church and the ordinances committed to her are not 
 of opposite natures, the fact that the ordinances have 
 a solid external existence is proof that the church has 
 also. Indeed, if the New Testament church is not the 
 same great society which God formerly erected for the 
 praise of His glory, and to which he committed the 
 ancient oracles (Rom. iii. 2), then these oracles form 
 no part of the trust committed to the church of the New 
 Testament, and belong not to the rule of her faith, 
 which is contrary to the whole drift of Scripture teach- 
 ing in regard to the relation between the Old and New 
 Testaments. [Mason, ut supra.) 
 
 Finally, the general principle of the church visible 
 
28 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 is so inseparable from tlie Christian style and doc- 
 trine, that its most strenuous opposers are uncon- 
 sciously admitting it every hour of their lives. They 
 talk habitually of the " church," the " faith of the 
 church," the " worship of the church," "God's dealings 
 with his church," and a thousand things of like im- 
 port; and they mean by "church," in such phrases, 
 something different from "the elect," and from a "par- 
 ticular " congregation ;" and that something, if they will 
 analize it, will turn out to be the visible church catholic, 
 or the " aggregate body of those wdio profess the true 
 religion, all making up o?ie society, of wliich the Bible is 
 the statute-book, Jesus Christ the head, and a covenant 
 relation the uniting bond. {Mason, p. 26.) 
 
 VII. 
 
 First Organization of the Church Visible. 
 
 I noticed at the beginning of No. VI. tlie traces of 
 the church in the times before Abraham. But, until 
 the time of the father of the faithful, it cannot be said 
 to have. been formally organized upon the principle of 
 visible unity. Until Abraham's time no separation had 
 been made betw^een the family and the church (as there 
 had been virtually betw^een the church and the state) ; 
 9102V the line is drawn wdtliin the family itself, part be- 
 ing in the church, and part out of it. The account of 
 this organization is to be looked for among the trans- 
 actions of that memorable period which elapsed be- 
 tween the call of Abraham in Ur of the Chaldees, and 
 the birth of Isaac. On the first of these occasions Je- 
 hovah gave him a double promise: (1), A numerous 
 progeny and great personal prosperity (Gen. xii. 2, 8). 
 (2). That he should be the medium of conveying ex- 
 tensive blessings to the world (vs. 3). And to these 
 promises may be referred all the communications 
 which God subsequently made to him. Called up at 
 different times, explained, expounded and confirmed, 
 
First Organization of the Church Visible. 29 
 
 each one of them became the basis of an appropriate 
 covenant. 
 
 1st. The first promise is repeated (Gen. xii. 7), 
 with an engagement to bestow upon the progeny of 
 Abraham the land of Canaan, which was afterwards 
 (xiii. 14-17) confirmed in the most ample terms. And 
 again, in the declining years of Abraham, the Lord 
 came to him in a vision, and having cheered him with 
 this gracious assurance, "I am thy shield, and thy ex- 
 ceeding great reward," (xv. 1) ; the promise was re- 
 newed and solemnly ratified as a covenant (vs. 8-21). 
 The promise of a posterity having been thus sealed, 
 never occurs again by itself. 
 
 2d. Fourteen years after the date of this event, God 
 appeared again to Abraham, and made another covenant 
 with him. I should prefer to say that there were tioo 
 stages of the covenant^ rather than two covenants : one 
 stage in which Abraham appears as the mere recipient 
 of the promise, rather than as a party (Gen. xv.) ; the 
 other in which he appears as a party (Gen. xvii.) It is 
 recorded in Gen. xvii. 1-14 (which read). What was 
 this covenant? Not a covenant, either of works or 
 grace, for eternal life. For Abraham had been "justi- 
 fied by faith without the works of the law," and had 
 been interested in the covenant of God's grace before 
 this. His eternal life had been secured many years. 
 Nor was it merely a personal or domestic covenant. 
 This, too, had been concluded long before, as has 
 been shown. It recognizes, indeed, all that was in- 
 cluded in the personal covenant, which it might other- 
 wise be supposed to supersede ; but it has features of 
 its own, so peculiar, that it cannot be considered in 
 any other light than that of a distinct engagement. For, 
 besides the solemnity with which it was introduced, 
 and which would hardly have preceded a mere repeti- 
 tion of former grants, it contained neto matter ; it con- 
 stituted new relations and was affirmed in an extraor- 
 dinary manner. (See Mason, page 33, et secj.) (1), ]}^ew 
 
30 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 Matter-. "Father of many nations," meaning not at all 
 that he should be a literal father of many nations, but 
 that he should be the means of blessing to all the fami- 
 lies of the earth, in such a manner as to become Avhat 
 no other man, in the sense of the covenant, ever did 
 or ever can become. (See Kom. iv. 13-17 ; Gal. iii. 7, 
 8, 9, 29.) .He should be the father of a sj^iritual seed, 
 as well as the father, according to the other covenant 
 (xv., see above) of a riatnral. Gal. iii. 6, 7, shows that 
 the covenant in Gen. xv. was not a promise as to the 
 "natural seed" onl}'. Indeed, the frequent reference to 
 Gen. XV. 6 by Paul, in proof of justilication by faith 
 alone, without works, shows that the covenant described 
 in that chapter was a covenant for spiritual blessings ; 
 and this confirms the view that thet'e were not two 
 covenants, but two stages of the same covenant. (See 
 p. 29). (2), Neio relatiojis : " To be a God unto thee, and 
 to thy seed after thee." Whatever relation is here ex- 
 pressed, it grew out of the covenant. 
 
 It could not be, therefore, Abraham's relation to God 
 as the God of his salvation, for in that sense God was 
 his God long before. It emlu-aced his seed, too, and 
 God did not now engage to be their God with respect 
 to eternal life, for all that Avas settled in the covenant 
 of grace, and the privilege could not reach beyond 
 those who were the actual partakers of the same pre- 
 cious faith Avitli Abraham. Whereas, in the sense of 
 this covenant, God was the God of all Abraham's seed, 
 without exception, under the limitations which re- 
 stricted the covenant operation, first to Isaac and after- 
 wards to Jacob, including such as should choose their 
 God, their faith, and their society. For he was to be 
 their God in thei?' generations, i. e., as soon as a new in- 
 dividual of this seed was generated, he was within the 
 covenant, and, according to the tenor of it, God was his 
 God. We conclude then, that the covenant with Abra- 
 ham and his seed contemplated them, not primarily 
 nor immediately as of the election of grace, but as an 
 
First Organization of the Church Visible. 31 
 
 aggregate wliicli it severed from tlie bulk of mankind, 
 and placed in a social character under peculiar rela- 
 tions to the " most high God." 
 
 To define precisely the nature of this correspondence 
 we must go a step further, and ascertain who are meant 
 by the "seed." It cannot be the carnal descendants of 
 Abraham exclusively, for (a), three large branches of 
 that seed were actually shut out of the covenant, i. e., 
 the children of Ishmael, Esau and Keturah. (h), The 
 covenant provided for the admission of others who 
 never belonged to that seed. See Gen. xvii. 12: "Not 
 of thy seed." This principle was also acted upon un- 
 der the law of Moses, when the seed of Abraham had 
 become a nation. Ex. xii. 48, for the stranger's right 
 to the passover. See also Deut. xxiii. 7, 8, where the 
 Egyptian, descending from Ham, is put on the same 
 footing with the Edomite, descending from Abraham, 
 (c), Abraham was to be the father of many nations; 
 "the many nations" being equivalent to "all the fami- 
 lies of the earth," in one form of the promise. (Comp. 
 Rom. iv. with Gal. iii.) These " many nations" were 
 the " seed" of him who was their " father :" the seed in 
 the same sense in which he was the "father." But the 
 covenant WMS with Abraham and his seed; therefore,- 
 these " many nations" were included in the cove- 
 nant. 
 
 3d. This covenant was affirmed in an extraordinary 
 manner, viz. : by the rite of circumcision. The uses of 
 this rite were two : (1), It certified to the seed of 
 Abraham, that the covenant with their great progenitor 
 was in force ; that they were entitled to all the benefits 
 immediately derived from it. (2), It was a seal of "the 
 righteousness, etc. (Rom. iv. 11), and as such certi- 
 fied ; (a), that Abraham was justified by faith; (^), 
 that the doctrine and the privilegeof the righteousness 
 of faith were to be perpetuated among his seed by the 
 operation of God's covenant with him ; and, therefore, 
 that all who helieved were children of Abraham, and 
 
32 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 personally interested in the righteousness by which he 
 was justified. 
 
 II. This covenant never lias been annulled. See the 
 argument in the third of Galatians, where the apostle 
 shows, (1), that the Sinaitic covenant did not and could 
 not annul it; and (2), that it was still in force, so that 
 all who believed were Abraham's children or seed, and 
 heirs of the promise, (vs. 29). But more particularly, 
 it is to be noted, that according to Paul : 1st, The 
 promise that Abraham should be the father of many 
 nations could not be fufilled until the Gentiles were 
 brought in, or until the Christian dispensation. (Comp. 
 Rom. iv.) The " promise" upon which his argument 
 turns is, "I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed 
 after thee." The Abrahamic covenant, therefore, is 
 still in force. (Comp. Heb. viii. 6-13.) 2d, If not, then 
 the visible eJidvch, under the gospel, is not in covenant 
 with God ; and -if no covenant, no promises ; if no pro- 
 mises, then the Christian church is worse off than the 
 Levitical. See Isa. lix. 20-22, which is a prediction of 
 New Testament times, but it has no meaning if there 
 is no covenant with the Christian visible church. 
 (Comp. Rom. xi. 26, where the apostle represents the 
 fulfilment of the promise as still future.) But the 
 promise, by its very terms, is given to the church, "in 
 covenant ;" her members, in constant succession, are 
 the " seed" out of whose mouth the Spirit shall not de- 
 part; and when the Jews are restored, they will be 
 brought into this very covenanted church, and be again 
 recognized as a part of the seed. 3d, In arguing the 
 rejection of the Jews, and their future restoration, and 
 the vocation of the Gentiles, the apostle reasons upon 
 false principles, if the Abrahamic covenant has ended. 
 (See Rom. xi. 17-24). 
 
 Add the following: Acts ii. 38, 39, where note the 
 following points. 
 
 1st. The sameness of the forra {See Introductory 
 Lecture on History) of the church. " The promise is 
 
First Organization of the Church Visible. 33 
 
 unto you," &g. It matters not whether this proraise be 
 that of the Messiah or the Spirit, for they go together, 
 and one is nothing without the other. The revelation 
 of salvation, upon which the church is organized, is 
 then the same under the law and under the gospel. 
 
 2d. The constituents of the church are the same, 
 believers and their cJiildren. 
 
 3d. The differences in the church, under the two 
 dispensations, are these : (1), Under the gospel the 
 requirements for church communion are more spiritual 
 than under the law ("repent"), and imply a larger 
 gift of the Holy Ghost — ("ye shall receive the gift of 
 the Holy Ghost.") (2), The initiatory seal is changed: 
 "baptism," instead of circumcision. (3), The church 
 is more catholic under the gospel, "to all that are afar 
 off," &c. Some of these points Avill be considered more 
 fully hereafter. See also Acts iii. 25, 26. 
 
 Note the mistake which was made by the Pharisees 
 who came to John the Baptist (Matt, iii.), and which 
 John removes so effectually in verse 9th, that the 
 Abrahamic covenant and the Sinaitic were the same ; 
 and, therefore, that until the Abrahamic covenant ex- 
 pired, the Jews could not be cast off. See and com- 
 pare Gal. iii., with Heb. viii. 6-13, and Acts iii. 22-26). 
 Paul, as well as John the Baptist, evidently taught that 
 the Abrahamic covenant might survive the casting off 
 of the Jews. 
 
 In the foregoing account of the nature of the cove- 
 nant with Abraham, it will be seen that the community 
 organized upon it possessed the three elements which 
 are essential to the constitution of such a body. These 
 elements, according to Whately {Essays o?i the Kiinj- 
 dom of Christ, Es. 2), are officers, rules, and penalties 
 by which the rules are enforced: («), Officers; the 
 church being at first "a church in the house;" all offi- 
 cial authority was lodged in the head of the house. 
 (Ij), Rules; obedience to God's commandments, and 
 faith in his promise — both signified by the sign of cir- 
 
34 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 cumcision. (c), Penalties ; expulsion or excommuni- 
 cation. The officers under the Sinaitic covenant were 
 priests hucI Levites ; but there can be no doubt that 
 the patriarchal or family church continued, even un- 
 der the outward Levitical ; and at a later period (after 
 the captivity) became more prominent than the Leviti- 
 cal form. In this the elders were the officers ; and in- 
 deed, circumcision and the passover were eminently 
 family institutions. And the church, after the coming 
 of Christ, emerges once more as a church, under the 
 government of elders. The object of faith and the 
 moral law were the same in all the stages. The penalty 
 of excommunication was also the same. The visible 
 community was the same, therefore, through all changes 
 of dispensation. And the definition of this community 
 is the definition of the visible church. The church that 
 now is, therefore, was organized In the family of Abra- 
 ham. 
 
 VIII. 
 Method of Perpetuating the Church Visible. 
 
 The next question that claims our attention is the 
 mode in which the visible church is perpetuated, or 
 its privileges, the privileges of the Abrahamic cov- 
 enant, transmitted. How is a succession of the " seed" 
 preserved ? The definitiongiven of the visible church, 
 indicates that this is done in two ways : 1st, By a 
 credible profession of the true religion ; 2d, By heredi- 
 itary descent. Of these in their order. 
 
 1st. Under all the dispensations of the church, the 
 individual who was without the bounds of the covenant 
 previous to his being of adult age, was to be admitted 
 on his personal faith in that religion which the cove- 
 nant was intended to secure. [Mason, No. III. p. 47.) 
 Till then he was to be considered an "alien," "for- 
 eigner," "stranger." Upon this point there is a gen- 
 eral agreement. But as to what is implied in this per- 
 sonal faith there is no small diversity of views. 
 
Method of Perpetuating the Church Visible. 35 
 
 (1), Some contend (as for example John Locke, in 
 his Reasoimhleiiess of Christianity), "that all that is 
 necessary is a general profession of the truth; under 
 the gospel a general profession of belief that Jesus is 
 the Christ, the Son of God." But this is the sum of 
 the gospel; and an intelligent reception of this proposi- 
 tion as the object of faith involves a reception of the 
 whole testimony of God. See 1 Cor. xii. 3, in which 
 passage it would be, in the last degree, absurd to say 
 that the meaning is, " no man can pronounce the words, 
 Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." See also, 
 1 John V. 1, 5. And if this could not be the meaning then, 
 when Christianity was a new thing among the heathen, 
 much less would it do now, when Christianity is learned 
 by rote by millions of children. 
 
 (2), Others think that a fuller profession of faith in 
 the doctrine of revelation should be required, without 
 solicitude as to the question whether these doctrines 
 have been felt in their saving, transforming power. 
 This seems to be the principle acted upon in some 
 branches of the Presbyterian Church, in which persons 
 of fair moral character, who can answer the questions 
 in the catechism, are admitted to the Lord's table — 
 herein differing from other churches (which they ac- 
 cuse of popery), only in demanding more knowledge. 
 It is a sufficient answer to this view to say, that it di- 
 vorces truth from that which is its great end, godliness. 
 Hence we find in such churches an unusually large 
 proportion of orthodox wicked men, or at least of 
 orthodox men, who show no spirituality. We must 
 never forget that a bad life is a bad, if not "the worst," 
 heresy. 
 
 (3), Others again reverse the opinion of the last, and 
 make the profession to be one of " experience," and 
 not at all, or very little of faith in the doctrines of 
 God's word. I have myself seen persons join the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church on probation, as they call 
 it, simply by giving their hand to the minister, and 
 
36 EcCLESiOLOGY. 
 
 nothing was said or done by whicli any man could tell 
 whether the neophytes were Christians or Mahomme- 
 dans as to their faith. The presumption, of course, was 
 that they professed faith in Christ, but it was only a 
 presumption. All which is absurd, because a man 
 cannot be a Christian without some knowledge of 
 Christ, (See John vi. 45 ; xvi. 7-15 ; even babes 
 must know something. Matt. xi. 25-27) ; for he cannot 
 be a Christian unless he has been taught by the Spirit, 
 who witnesses of Christ. The church is the great wit- 
 ness bearer the pillar and ground, or buttress, of the 
 truth, and knowledge is indispensable. A profession 
 of faith must include the following things. (See Mason, 
 p. 53.) («), Acquaintance with, at least, the leading 
 doctrines of revelation, (h), Some evidence of the 
 saving power of these doctrines upon the heart, {c), 
 An open, unequivocal avowal of the Kedeemer's name ; 
 and (d), vigilance in the discharge of religious and 
 moral duty. {Mason, p. 53.) And all these particu- 
 lars are implied in an adult being baptized into the 
 name of the Fatlier, the Son and the Holy Ghost. 
 Further, it must be noted that the profession of faith 
 upon which a person is admitted to church privileges, 
 is a credible profession. The visible church, because 
 it is visible, and its affairs administered by men, 
 through visible ordinances, can insist upon nothing 
 more thau a profession which seems to be true and sin- 
 cere. It is God's prerogative to judge the heart. And 
 even our Lord Jesus Christ, who knew what was in 
 man, and knew that Judas Iscariot was a devil from 
 the beginning, admitted him not only to the fellowship 
 of the church, but even to the office of an apostle, be- 
 cause he would have l)een adjudged to be qualified for 
 church membership and office by the measures of 
 human judgment. The doctrine, therefore, of Mon- 
 tanism, Donatism, Anabaptism, etc., in regard to a 
 church which shall consist only of the regenerate, is a 
 dream. It is false, both in law and fact ; the principle 
 
Method of PERPETUATlNa the Church Visible. 37 
 
 upon which the judgment of the church is founded in 
 this case, is the principle upon which every association 
 of men must proceed in judging of the quahfication of 
 its members. The judgment must be founded upon 
 what appem^s, not upon what is. A profession of faith 
 in Christ, then, which is not discredited by other traits 
 of character, entitles an adult to the privileges of his 
 church. This is the first way of securing a succession 
 of the covenanted seed, and of handing down these 
 blessings to the end of time. {31ason, as above.) 
 
 2d. The other and the principal channel of trans- 
 mission is that of hereditary descent. The relations and 
 benefits of -the covenant are the birthright of every 
 child born of parents who are themselves of the seed — 
 " I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and 
 thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an ever- 
 lasting covenant." This is a characteristic of every pub- 
 lic covenant which God has made with man. Take for 
 example the covenant with Adam and with Noah. Every 
 human creature comes into being imder the full oper- 
 ation of both these covenants. In virtue of the one he is 
 an " heir of wrath," and in virtue of the other, an heir 
 of promise to the whole extent of the covenanted 
 mercy. He has the faithfulness of God pledged to 
 him, as one of Noah's covenanted seed, that the world 
 shall not be drowned by a second deluge, nor visited 
 by another calamity to exterminate his race. Now no 
 imaginable reason can be assigned why, in the cove- 
 nant with his visible church; the uniform and consis- 
 tent God should depart from his known rule of dispen- 
 sation, and violate all the natural and moral analogies 
 of his works and his government. It cannot be. 
 There is no such violation ; there is no such departure. 
 {Mason p. 58, and read on to the end of the chapter.) • 
 
38 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 IX. 
 
 The Initiating Seal. 
 
 We have seen that the Abrahamic covenant had 
 such a seal; that it was the " seal of the righteousness 
 of faith" ; that it certified that the Hebrew, to whom 
 it was applied when he was eight days old, belonged 
 to the church of God, and w^as entitled to all the privi- 
 leges which it derived from that covenant. And fur- 
 ther, that the right to this seal belonged not only to 
 the literal, but to the covenanted seed, as is clear from 
 the provision made for the circumcision of those who 
 were "not" of the literal "seed" of Abraham. (Gen. 
 xvii. 12, 13.) Now this covenant is still in force, as 
 has been proved ; and if the rite of circumcision had 
 not been abrogated, it w^ould still be the duty of pro- 
 fessing parents to apply it to their male offspring. 
 But circumcision has been laid aside. Has the seal 
 which it conveyed been abolished also? If so, then 
 it follows, (1), That there is no longer any initiatory 
 seal for either adults or infants, for an abolished seal 
 is abolished. (2), That the church of God is under 
 the operation of a covenant which has no initiating 
 seal. If it be said that baptism is such a seal, then it 
 follows that baptism has come in the place of circum- 
 cision ; and if so, then God has a visible church, in 
 sealed covenant with himself, distinct from that church 
 which is composed of the elect only ; and as he has never 
 made a new visible church, nor drawn back from his 
 old engagements, that church must be the one which 
 was organized by the Abrahamic covenant ; and then 
 it follows, further, that the application of circumcision 
 must furnish the rule for the application of baptism, 
 and infants are to be baptized. {3fason, pp. 64, 65.) 
 
 In circumcision, and indeed in . any ordinance, we 
 must distinguish between the substance and the form. 
 The substance of the ordinance, that which properly 
 
The Initiating Seal. 39 
 
 constituted the seal^ was the certification to the per- 
 son sealed of his interest in God's covenant. The rite 
 of circumcision was no more than ^^ fonn in which 
 the seal was applied. The rite may be, and was, and 
 is yet performed without any sealing whatever. The 
 sons of Ishmael, the modern Jews, are examples. On 
 the other hand, the certification might have been the 
 same and the rite different — the perforation of an ear 
 or the amputation of a toe, etc. It cannot be argued, 
 therefore, that because the ancient form is laid aside, 
 that the seal and all that it certifies have been laid 
 aside too. It would be quite as just to infer that be- 
 cause the form of church polity is altered the church no 
 longer exists. If it be said that the rite and the seal, 
 though distinguishable, are in fact inseparable, and 
 that the latter cannot be applied except through the 
 medium of the former, the answer is, that the objection 
 concludes equally against the existence of a church on^ 
 earth. In truth, it is a fundamental principle that 
 forms of dispensation do not affect the substance of the 
 things dispensed. The covenant of grace has been 
 dispensed under five forms,* the Abrahamic covenant 
 under tliree^ and yet neither has been abolished. 
 Therefore, the change in the form of the seal does not 
 abolish it. But as circumcision has been abolished, 
 and no one pretends that any other rite has taken. its 
 place than baptism, either baptism is that seal, or 
 there is no initiating seal at all under the gospel. If 
 there is no seal, then the privileges of believers are 
 abridged, instead of enlarged, under the gospel, and in 
 this respect the • gospel covenant is not what the 
 apostle affirms it to be — " a better covenant founded 
 
 *1, Adam to Noali; 2, Noali to Abraham; 3, Abraham to Moses; 4, 
 Moses to Christ ; 5, Christ to the end. But as No. 2 is essentially the 
 same as No. 1 (the Noachian covenant or covenant of "forbearance," 
 embracing so far as it was singular, the whole human race, and there- 
 fore woi "the covenant of grace, "), there have been only /ywr forms 
 of the "covenant of grace." 1, Catholic; 2 and 3, Particularistic; 4, 
 Catholic. 
 
40 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 upon better promises." Baptism, then, is the substi- 
 tute for circumcision. 
 
 This may be argued further, (a), From the coinci- 
 dence in the purpose and meaning of the two ordi- 
 nances. They both put a mark upon their subjects as 
 belonging to that society which God hath set apart for 
 himself. Both signify and seal that wondrous change 
 in the state of the sinner whereby, being justified by 
 faith, he passes from condemnation into acceptance 
 with God (Eom. iv. 11 ; vi. 3, etc. ; Acts ii. 38 ; Col. ii. 
 11-14), wdiich doctrines of pardon and acceptance are 
 exhibited in that society alone which, under the name 
 of his church, God hath consecrated to himself, and of 
 which he hath appointed the circumcised and the bap- 
 tized to be esteemed members. Both represent and 
 are means of obtaining that real purity which is effected 
 by the Spirit of Christ, and is the characteristic of all 
 those members of his church who are justified by faith 
 in his blood. (Deut. x. 16 ; xxx. 6 ; Acts vii. 51 ; Kom. 
 vi. 4; Col. ii. 11-14.) They answer, then, the same 
 ends ; baptism being better suited to the Christian dis- 
 pensation as being capable of more extensive applica- 
 tion, (h), From the scriptural manner of representing 
 circumcision and baptism where they are spoken of 
 together^ or where baptism is mentioned in connection 
 with the covenant of wdiich circumcision was the seal. 
 For one example see Acts ii. 38, 39. For another take 
 the passage in Col. ii. 11-14, above cited. In which 
 note, (1), That both baptism and circumcision are 
 represented -as signs of spiritual mercies. It is for 
 this reason alone that they are or can be used as terms 
 to convey the idea of such mercies. (2), Circumcision 
 was a sign of regeneration and of communion with 
 Christ as the fountain of spiritual life. The apostle is 
 treating of a believer's completeness in Christ. And 
 in order to show that he means the inicard gi^tve, he 
 calls it the circmrtcision made 'without hands, and to 
 make all mistake impossible, explains his explanation 
 
The Initiating Seal. 41 
 
 by adding the " putting off the sins of the flesh hy the 
 circumcision of Christy (3), Baptism, too, is a sign of 
 regeneration and of communion with Christ as the 
 fountain of spiritual hfe. In baptism, Paul says the 
 believer is buried with Christ, and risen with him 
 through a divine faith. The " uncircumcision of the 
 flesh" is a state of unregeneracy. Here, then, again, 
 circumcision and baptism are employed by turns to 
 denote the same thing — a believer's sanctification by 
 union with Christ. He identifies the two ordinances 
 as the same seal under different forms. But the two 
 forms cannot exist at the same time, and circumcision 
 has passed away. Therefore, baptism remains as the 
 "circumcision of Christ," or Christian circumcision, 
 and is expressly so called by Paul, as will be seen by 
 comparing the last clause of verse 11 with the first of 
 verse 12. Compare Rom. iv. 11, 12, where Abraham 
 is called not only the "father of all them that believe," 
 but the ''father of circumcision" to them, i. e., he com- 
 municates the sign and seal as well as the thing signi- 
 fied. Now, if it had been said that he was the "father 
 of circumcision" to the circumcision only, it would 
 mean that the form of the seal, as well as the seal itself, 
 had been handed down by Abraham to his descendants 
 with the things signified. But he is represented, also, 
 as the father of circumcision to the uncircumcised ; to 
 those who walk in the steps of the faith which he had 
 while yet uncircumcised; i. e., these last receive the 
 seal as well as the covenant. But circumcision has 
 been abolished. How, then, is Abraham the " father of 
 circumcision" to the uncircumcised? Through bap- 
 tism, which has come in the place of circumcision 
 {Mason), and as there is no distinction between the 
 mode in which Abraham has handed down the sealed 
 privileges of God's covenant to those who were and 
 those who w^ere not of the circumcision ; and as they 
 were made over to the former and their infant seed, 
 they must also be made over to the latter and their in- 
 
42 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 fant seed. If it should be said that the baptism of in- 
 fants implies the application of the seal of the right- 
 eousness of faith to multitudes who never had and never 
 will have that righteousness, and consequently that the 
 seal of God's covenant is often affixed to a lie, the 
 answer is that the same difficulty lies against circum- 
 cision of infants not only, but against the adminis- 
 tration of baptism and the Lord's supper to adults, 
 unless we can be assured that all the recipients are 
 true converts. But 'the difficulty is created by false 
 notions of the church, and confounding the covenant 
 of grace with the ecclesiological covenant. The seal 
 of God's covenant does, in every instance, certify abso- 
 lute truth, whether it be applied to a believer or an 
 unbeliever, to the elect or to the reprobate. [Mason, 
 p. 83.) 
 
 X. 
 
 Infant Members. 
 
 According to the definition of the visible church in 
 our Confession of Faith, the children of those who pro- 
 fess the true religion are members of it as well as their 
 parents. This has been already proved, {a), From the 
 fact that the Abraliamic covenant, which included the 
 seed, was an ecclesiological covenant, and has never 
 been abrogated ; and consequently that the Christian 
 church, which is founded on the Abraliamic covenant, 
 must include the infant seed of believers. (^), From 
 the fact that all the public covenants made with men 
 before Christ — Adam's, Noah's, the Mosaic — recog- 
 nized the unity of the family and the identity of the 
 federal status of parents and children, (c), From the 
 fact that baptism has come in the place of circum- 
 cision. {(]), From the recognition of the same princi- 
 ple in the whole course of God's providential govern- 
 ment. When we are asked, therefore, for a "Thus 
 saith the Lord" for infant baptism under the New 
 
Infant Members. 43 
 
 Testament, we answer, where lias God, in the New 
 Testament, taken away from his people a privilege 
 which they had always enjoyed? The burden of proof 
 lies on them who deny, not on those who affirm. But 
 we proceed to some considerations which tend to con- 
 firm the right of the infants of professors to church 
 privileges under the gospel. 
 
 1st. If they have no such right, then God has not 
 only departed from the analogies of former federal con- 
 stitutions, and from the general analogies of his provi- 
 dence, but has done so to abridge the privileges of 
 his people under the new and better covenant. And 
 when we consider that the children of believing parents 
 share in all the disaster's of the visible church, its cor- 
 ruptions, its persecutions, its declensions, the suppo- 
 sition becomes monstrous that they are excluded from 
 its privileges. It represents God not only as discrim- 
 inating against his people by debarring them from a 
 privilege, but as retaining the principle only for the 
 infliction of calamity. (Mason, p. 93.) 
 
 2d. If there be no infant membership under the 
 gospel, then the church has no authority over the chil- 
 dren of believers, but they are to her as Turks or 
 Pagans. She has no authority to instruct or admonish 
 them, any more than the children of Pagans. If she 
 had acted upon this principle she would long ago have 
 ceased to exist. Baptists themselves do not act upon 
 it. They feel, in spite of their own doctrine, that the 
 children of the church do sustain a peculiar relation to 
 it, and that the church is bound in a special manner to 
 look after their instruction. At the same time, it must 
 be acknowledged that they are more remiss in this duty 
 than sects which formally recognize the ecclesiastical 
 status of the children of the church. 
 
 3d. If there be no infant membership in the Chris- 
 tian church, then God has inflicted upon helieving Jews 
 the very curse which he threatened against the unbe- 
 lieving, so far as the children are concerned. (See Acts 
 4 
 
44 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 iii. 23.) Who are the "people" in this passage? Not 
 the nation of the Jews ; for they were the rebels that 
 were to joerish " from among the people," a people who 
 were to continue in the divine protection. Not the 
 elect ; for God never " cast away his people whom he 
 foreknew," and they who committed this crime never 
 belonged to the elect — were never "among" them. If 
 neither the Jewish nation nor the elect, it could be no 
 other than that people whom he owns as his, and who 
 are called by the collective name of his church. And 
 the passage occurring in Moses is a proof of the unity 
 and perpetuity of the visible church. What is meant 
 by "destruction" here? Not temporal death; for 
 that penalty was never ordained for the sin of unbelief 
 in the Messiah. Not an exclusion from the Jewish 
 nation, for this effect did not take place ; and further, 
 if it had, it was as likely to prove a blessing as a curse. 
 It must mean exclusion from the communion of the 
 visible clinrch. This is its technical sense in the Old 
 Testament. Now the execution of this threatening 
 involved the casting out of the children of those on 
 whom it was executed, and conversely the preservation 
 in the church of the children of those who believed. 
 If the converse does not hold good, then the children 
 of believers were cast out, and then the threatening 
 was executed upon believers as well as upon the re- 
 bellious. If the Jewish Christians had understood the 
 apostles in this way, it is impossible to believe that 
 they would not have made trouble about it. As to the 
 spirit of the Jewish Christians, witness the commotions 
 about circumcision as recorded in the Acts and con- 
 stantly referred to in 'some of the Epistles. The Juda- 
 izing teachers made circumcision not only a term of 
 communion, but of salvation ; and if their doctrine had 
 prevailed, circumcision in the Christian church must 
 have been regulated by the Mosaic law, and this law 
 prescribed the circumcision of infants. The only pre- 
 text upon which a compliance with this ordinance 
 
Infant Membeks. 45 
 
 according to the law of Moses was binding upon the 
 Gentile converts, was that the children of these con- 
 verts were members of the Christian church. If they 
 were not, the answer would have been easy. Whatever 
 may be the duty of achdts, there is no reason to cir- 
 cumcise infants, because, by the new order of things, 
 they do not belong to the Christian community and 
 have no concern with its "sealing ordinances." Yet 
 no such exception was ever taken. (See Acts, xxi. 21.) 
 
 4th. If there be no infant membership in the Chris- 
 tian church it is hard to account for the language of 
 God's word respecting children. (See Isa. Ixv. 23; 
 Mark-x. 14; Acts ii. 39; Eom. xi. 23, 24, et al.) 
 
 5th. The supposition of infant membership is neces- 
 sary to give any plausible interpretation of 1 Cor. vii. 
 14. "Holy" here cannot mean internal purity, for 
 that children of professing parents are holy in this 
 sense is contrary to reason, to scripture and to fact. 
 It cannot mean " legitimate," for marriage is an insti- 
 tution existing from the beginning, and altogether inde- 
 pendent of Christianity. It must mean separated and 
 set apart to the service of God. (Lev. xx. 26.) This 
 is evident from the contrast of " unclean " — common. 
 Compare Acts x. 14. The terms " holy " and " unclean " 
 or " common," were precisely the terms for those who 
 were, or were not, respectively within the external 
 covenant of God, and were, therefore, precisely the 
 terms to express the relation of infants to the church 
 visible, according as they were or were not the off- 
 spring of parents who were, one or both, members of 
 the church visible. The only plausible objection to 
 this view is, that if the terms " holy " and " unclean " 
 have the meaning asserted for them, then the word 
 "sanctified" must have the same extent of meaning; 
 and if so, the unbelieving partner to the marriage re- 
 lation must become a member of the church in conse- 
 quence of the church membership of the other partner. 
 
 Answer: (1), The objection, of course, takes for 
 
46 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 granted the impossibility of marriage producing such 
 a change in ecclesiastical relations (which we also 
 hold). Then it follows that the whole statement means 
 nothing. It neither means " holy," in the sense of 
 being within the external coA^enant, nor in the sense of 
 internal spiritual holiness, nor in the sense of legiti- 
 macy, and there is nothing else that it can mean. It 
 is a holiness which is neither within nor without, neither 
 in soul, nor spirit, nor body, nor condition, nor state, 
 nor anything else. 
 
 (2), The covenant of God never founded the privi- 
 lege of church membership upon the mere fact of inter- 
 marriage with his people ; but it did found it expressly 
 upon the fact of being born of them. 
 
 (3), By a positive statute adults were not to be ad- 
 mitted into the church without a profession of their 
 faith. Hence, the doctrine of Paul must be explained 
 so as to agree with the restriction of this statute. Tlie 
 believing partner does "sanctify" the unbelieving; 
 this is plainly asserted, but not so far as to make the 
 unbelieving a member of the church ; this would con- 
 travene the statute above named. 
 
 (4), The very words teach that this sanctification re- 
 gards the unbelieving parent, not for his own sake, but 
 as a medium, affecting the transmission of covenant 
 privileges to the children of a believer. The question 
 was, whether, in the case of one of the parties in the 
 marriage-relation being a Pagan, and the other a Chris- 
 tian, the former or the latter should determine the re- 
 lation of the offspring to the church, or whether neither 
 should. The answer is, that in this case, where the 
 argument for the children seems to be perfectly bal- 
 anced by the argument against them, God has gra- 
 ciously inclined the scale in favor of his people ; so 
 that, for the purpose of conveying to their infants the 
 privilege of being within his covenant and church, the 
 unbelieving partner is sanctified by the believing. It 
 must be thus or the reverse. 
 
The Notes or Marks of a True Church. 47 
 
 This passage decides the same point in another way. 
 It assumes the principle, that where hotli parents are 
 reputed believers, their children belong to the church 
 as a matter of course. {Mason, pp. 109-118.) So 
 that the origin, as well as the solution of the difficulty, 
 establishes the doctrine, that by the appointment of 
 God the infants of believing parents are born members 
 of his church. See Hodge's Coriim. in l<>c. (1 Cor. 
 vii. 14.) 
 
 XI. 
 
 The Notes or Marks of a True Church. * 
 
 1. The occasion and importance of the question. 
 
 2. What is a 7«arX? ? How many kinds of marks? 
 '^\iQ>i prohahle, and what necessary or essential marks? 
 About which kind is this question ? 
 
 3. What essential to constitute a mark ? What meant 
 by its he\n^ proper f By its being conspicuous f 
 
 4. The state of the question — not about the marks 
 by which a man may be probably concluded to be one 
 of the elect, or of the church invisible, nor about the 
 church visible, generally considered, as contradistin- 
 guished from heathenism, but about a particular 
 church; how the true and orthodox may be discrimi- 
 nated from false and heretical churches ; how a church 
 in which we can be saved is discriminated from one in 
 which we cannot. 
 
 5. These marks may be more or less fully stated. 
 The word only, or the word with the addition of sac- 
 raments, discipline, holy life, etc. But they all may 
 be referred to the word. 
 
 *Nota in Latin ; Y'''tofn(T;j.a in Greek. The Greeks (Aristotle) made 
 the p- of two sorts —the jyrdbahle {er/.oza) and the certain {rey./irjpia). 
 The question here is about the latter sort— about properties, not about 
 accidents. See Turretin, L. 18. Q. 12. Art. 2. 
 
48 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 The voice of God is the word ; the faith of men is 
 about the word ; their life and obedience is the fruit of 
 the word ; the order of the church is from the word ; 
 the sacraments are the seals and appendices of the 
 word, or a visible word. The word is i^exillimi, scep- 
 truin, hix, norma, et statera. 
 
 6. A church may possess these marks more or less 
 perfectly, but all must possess the fundamental doc- 
 trines of the gospel. Distinction between essentials 
 and non-essentials. These doctrines must not be 
 judged by the private opinions of doctors, but by the 
 formularies of the body; and the word must be so 
 preached, and the sacraments so administered, that the 
 tendency of the whole shall be to gather in and more 
 or less completely build up the elect of God. 
 
 7. Proofs that the icord is a mark of a true church : 
 (1), From Scripture: John x. 27. The sheep hear 
 
 Christ's voice; and those who make a credible pro- 
 fession of hearing it are to be judged in charity to be 
 his. John viii. 81, 32. " If ye abide in my words then 
 are ye my disciples indeed," c^-c. — xiv. 23. Wherever 
 Christ dwells with the Father, there is his house and 
 temple, but he dwells with those who keep his word. 
 Ergo, Matthew xviii. 20 ; Acts ii. 42. Further, as the 
 science of contraries is one, the mark by which the 
 false is discriminated from the true is a mark by which 
 the true may be discriminated from the false. But 
 this is by the doctrine they teach. Isa. viii. 20 ; Deut. 
 xiii. 12. Illustrate here the distinction of essentials 
 and non-essentials. The criterion of old was the doc- 
 trine of God's unity, (Deut. xiii.) ; under the gospel 
 the doctrine concerning Christ. 1 John iv. 11, <fec. The 
 sin of false teachers in both cases is idolatry, for God 
 in Christ is the God of the New Testament. See also 
 Gal. i. 8, 1 Tim. iii. 15, Eph. ii. 19, 20, and thus even 
 to the end, Eph. iv. 11, 12, 13. Hence the removal of 
 the candlestick is the removal of the church. Rev. 
 ii. 5. 
 
The Notes or Marks of a True Church. 49 
 
 (2), From the Fathers : Tertulhan, Chrysostom, Je- 
 rome, Ambrose, Augustme, and even Vincent of Lirens, 
 Bellarmine, and other Roman Catholic writers ; nay, 
 " the Catholic doctrine " itself is fonnded upon it. See 
 Turretin, iii. pp. 78, ff. 
 
 8. But it is objected — 
 
 1. To make the Word the mark of the church, is to 
 make the less conspicuous the mark of the more. An- 
 swer. The difficulty only exists under the Roman 
 Catholic view of the relation of the two, the relation 
 of the church and Scriptures. 
 
 2. Doctrine cannot be the mark of the church, be- 
 cause doctrine is either controverted or not. Uncon- 
 troverted doctrine cannot be, because all agree upon 
 it. It can be, therefore, no mark of distinction, rather 
 is it a mark of communion. Controverted doctrine 
 cannot be, because siih jicdice lis est, and the decision 
 can only be made by the church, which must therefore, 
 have been determined to be a church previously, and 
 upon independent grounds. Answer: This, again, is 
 a difficulty mainly on the Popish view — denial of right 
 of private judgment; for then, what is controverted 
 may be determined by what is agreed. The affirma- 
 tive articles may be the rule by which we may decide 
 the negative, as the rectiun. est index sui et ohliqui. 
 Illustrate this by the fact of the apostles citing the Old 
 Testament (and see Acts xvii. 11). The Papists re- 
 ceive the same Scriptures that we do, and as truth is 
 one, they are bound to show that what they hold be- 
 side the teaching of Scripture is in harmony with 
 Scripture. Particularly illustrated by the doctrine of 
 a mediator, sacrifice and intercession. Again : Answer 
 by the argument ad hoiainem. The notes which the 
 Papists lay down are controverted. Ergo, no notes. 
 
 3. The judgment of man is fallible. If, then, human 
 reason judges what is true doctrine, it errs. Answer: 
 (<2), That fallible reason does not always err in fact; 
 if otherwise, we should never know anything. (^), Even 
 
50 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 if we accept the decision of an infallible clinrcli, we ac- 
 cept it with a fallible reason ; therefore we err. Why 
 should the infallible statements of Scripture become 
 fallible when passing into the fallible medium of the 
 human mind, any more than the statements of an in- 
 fallible church, especially considering that Scriptures 
 are so much plainer than the bulls of Popes ? 
 
 4. The common people cannot understand Scripture, 
 and therefore cannot know whether a church has the 
 true mark or not. Answer: (a), They can understand 
 Scripture as easily as the decrees of the church, (h), 
 The contents of Scripture are two-fold, natural and 
 supernatural. In regard to this last, all men stand on 
 the same level: none can understand without the 
 Spirit ; with the Spirit, all can. And the doctrine which 
 constitutes the notes of a church belong to this class — 
 the doctrine of salvation. At any rate, the common 
 people are better judges of those notes than of those 
 which the papists lay down. 
 
 5. Making the Word a note is making the for/n a 
 note ; but the forms of things are recondite, whereas a 
 note must be conspicuous. Answer: This is true of 
 sensihle objects, but not of intellectual, in which last, 
 forms are the most conspicuous, and the form is the 
 best note, because ^' dat esse ret'' 
 
 6. But if the form is the being of the thing, then to 
 make the form a note is to explain the thing by the 
 thing itself, idem per idem. Answer: This is done 
 in every definition, a definition being only the state- 
 ment of the genus and the specific difference, which 
 together constitute the formal nature of a thing. 
 
 7. Every man knows the church before he knows 
 the Scriptures ; i. e., the thing before the note. Answer : 
 It is not true that he knows the church, as a true 
 church, before he knows the Scriptures ; and this is the 
 knowledge in question. See Turretin, L. 18, q. 12, vol. 
 iii. (Carter's ed.), p. 74, ff. 
 
Apostolical Succession. 51 
 
 The Pretended Notes of Kome. 
 
 [See Turretin, L, i8, q. 13.] 
 
 Among the notes of the church mentioned by Bel- 
 larmine and discussed by Turretin, the chief is that of 
 " succession," or as it is commonly termed, " apostolic 
 succession." A full refutation of the Papal doctrine 
 on this subject may be found in an article in the 
 Southern Preshyterian Bevievj for July, 1872. The fol- 
 lowing is that article : 
 
 Apostolical Succession. 
 
 All branches of the Christian church hold to an 
 apostolical succession in some sense; for without 
 it there is no ground upon which they can claim, with 
 the slightest color of plausibility, a divine sanction for. 
 their existence. Presbyterians, for example, hold that 
 they have the doctrine, the polity, the worship, which 
 were taught and ordained by the apostles. They hold 
 that the succession is to be determined, not by history 
 or tradition, but by a direct appeal to writings which 
 are not only more ancient than the writings of the 
 Fathers^ but have, according to the confessions of 
 these Fathers themselves, a divine authority — the 
 writings of the apostles. The body which now holds 
 the doctrine of justification without the works of the 
 law, 'w>^ pro tanto, a truer successor of the church to 
 which the Epistle to the Romans was addressed, than 
 the church now at Rome which denies that doctrine 
 and curses all who hold it.^ The body which is now 
 governed by a presbytery is a truer successor of the 
 church of Ephesus, which was also governed by a pres- 
 bytery in the days of Paul, than a church of the present 
 day which is governed by a prelate, an ofiicer of which 
 
 ^ 3ee QerJiard, Loc. Theolog. Loc. 23, Chap. 11, § 5, § cxc. 
 
52 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 the apostolic records know nothing. All this is true, 
 whatever the intervening history may he.^ 
 
 We need not say that this is not the sense in which 
 the term is nsed in this article. It is of the apostol- 
 ical succession as held by the papists and their " apists " 
 that we propose to treat, and especially of the doctrine 
 as held by the papists, which alone can claim the 
 merit of being intelligible or consistent. The doctrine 
 as held by their imitators, as we may take occasion to 
 show, is mere moonshine, having no meaning, because 
 separated from the system of doctrine and worship of 
 which it forms a part, and because destitute, upon its 
 own principles, of any true historical basis. 
 
 The fundamental principle of the apostolical succes- 
 sion is thus stated by the Council of Trent : " Sacrifice 
 and priesthood have been so joined together by the 
 ordination of God, that both have existed under every 
 dispensation. Since, therefore, the Catholic Church, 
 under the New Testament, has received, by institution 
 of the Lord, the holy, visible sacrifice of the Eucharist, 
 it ought also to be confessed that there is in it a new, 
 visible and external priesthood. Further, that this 
 priesthood was instituted by the same Lord our 
 Saviour, and that to the apostles and their successors 
 in the priesthood he gave the power of consecrating, 
 offering and administering his body and blood, as also 
 of remitting and retaining sins, Holy Writ shows, and 
 the tradition of the Catholic Church has always 
 taught." t 
 
 * There is still another sense in which the term may be used. There 
 has been such an order of men as Christian ministers, continuously 
 from the time of the apostles to this day. This is a very different 
 thing from the " apostolic succession " in the mouths of papists and 
 prelatists, which is the succession, in an unbroken line, of this or that 
 individual minister. "How ridiculous it would be thought," says 
 Archbishop Whately {Kingdom of Christ, Essay II., § 30), "if a man 
 laying claim to the throne of some country should attempt to establish 
 it without producing and proving his own pedigree, merely by showing 
 that that country had always been under hereditary regal government!" 
 
 t Concil. Trident. Canones et Decreta. Sess. 23, Chap. 1. 
 
Apostolical Succession. 53 
 
 Note, then, carefully, that among the papists, apos- 
 tolical succession means a succession of prusts"^ in 
 the proper sense of the word, sacei' dotes ^ ts(/e7(;, officers 
 whose business it is to offer true and proper expiatory 
 and propitiatory sacrifices. That this is the meaning 
 of the Council is not left to inference or conjecture. 
 It says that there has been a priesthood under every 
 dispensation of religion; it argues that the eucharist 
 is a sacrifice, and therefore there must be a priesthood 
 to offer it ; in the canon corresponding with this de- 
 cree, it curses all who say that the priesthood is " only 
 an office and a naked ministry for preaching the 
 gospel," and not a visible and external saceirlotkcm; 
 it derives this priesthood from Christ, as the Levitical 
 priesthood was derived from Aaron ; that is, from 
 Christ, not as the founder of the Christian Institute, 
 but as the first in order of priests under the new law, 
 as Aaron was the first in the order of priests under the 
 old ; and, in proof of this, referring to Heb. v. 4, 5, it 
 makes the apostles Christ's immediate successors as 
 priests, and the priests of Rome the successors of the 
 apostles as priests. 
 
 The difference between their priests and the minis- 
 ters of the gospel, is much Avider than between the 
 priests of the family of Aaron and the ordinary Levites 
 who were not of that family. It cannot be too care- 
 fully borne in mind, that the question of apostolical 
 succession is a question about the succession oi j^^^^^i^^ 
 not at all of ministers of the vjord. 
 
 Note, in the second place, that the apostolical suc- 
 cession involves a peculiar view of the sacraments. 
 The priests are not ministers of the word, and, of 
 course, a sacrament is not a verhum visihile, as Augus- 
 tine calls it ; not a sign of truths conveyed by the word, 
 and differing from the word (so far as it is a sign) only 
 in the kind of language employed as a vehicle. If this 
 
 * The English word priest is simply "presbyter writ short." 
 
54 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 view were allowed, the priests of the new law would be 
 no better than those of the old. Their sacrifices would 
 be only symbols and actually convey no grace. So 
 low a view of her priesthood Rome cannot tolerate. 
 "The power with which the Christian priesthood is 
 clothed," says the Catechism of the Council of Trent, 
 "is a heavenly power, raised above that of angels; it 
 has its source, not in the Levitical priesthood, but in 
 Christ the Lord, who was a priest, not according to 
 Aaron, but according to the order of Melchisedec." 
 So again the same Catechism: "Priests and bishops 
 are, as it were, the interpreters and heralds (inter- 
 nuncii) of God, commissioned in his name to teach 
 mankind the law of God and the precepts of a Chris- 
 tian life; they are the representatives of God upon 
 earth. It is impossible, therefore, to conceive a more 
 exalted dignity, or functions more sacred. Justly, 
 therefore, are they called, not only angels (Mai. ii. 7), 
 but gods (Ps. Ixxxii. 6),"" holding as they do the place 
 and power and authority of God on earth. But the 
 priesthoood, at all times an elevated office, transcends 
 in the new law all others in dignity. The power of 
 consecrating and offering the body and blood of our 
 Lord, and of remitting sins, with which the priesthood 
 of the new law is invested, is such as cannot be com- 
 prehended by the human mind, still less is it equalled 
 by, or assimilated to, anything on earth." 
 
 * Papists are not good iuterpreters. This passage has no reference at 
 all to the Levitical priests. It is "a brief and pregnant statement of 
 the responsibilities attached to the judicial office under the Mosaic dis- 
 pensation. " The judges are frequently called ' ' gods " in the law. (See 
 Exod. xxi. 6; xxii. 8, 9, in the Hebrew ^^o^ m. ) Hence vs. 6, ''■ Iham 
 said. Ye are gods. " Augustine (Enarratio in p. 81) regards Israel as a 
 whole as the subject of the Psalm, and vs. 6, as an address specially to 
 the elect, eos qui pnedestinati sunt in vitam oiternam. The authors of 
 the Catechism are unfortunate in citing a passage for the purpose of 
 glorifying the priesthood, in which the tone throughout is one of severe 
 rebuke, and in which these "gods" are told they shall " die like men." 
 Ou7' priesthood is one jvhich knows no change by reason of death — one 
 after the power of an endless life. (See 7th chapter of Hebrews, pas- 
 dm.) 
 
Apostolical Succession. 55 
 
 Every priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices ; 
 wherefoje these priests mnst have somewhat to offer. 
 The preaching of the word will not do, because any- 
 body who knows the plan of salvation may tell it to 
 his fellow-sinners. Singing, praying, and alms-giving 
 will not do, for a similar reason. The two sacraments 
 of the New Testament have been pitched upon because 
 they are symbolical ordinances; and the meaning of a 
 symbol is more easily perverted than the meaning of 
 words. The ordinance of baptism has been perverted, 
 as to its matter, by substituting a mixture of oil, spit- 
 tle, salt, and water, for the element of water (that is, an 
 element which defiles has been substituted for the ele- 
 ment that cleanses); it has been perverted, as to its 
 form, by ascribing a significance to it altogether dif- 
 ferent from that which the New Testament ascribes to 
 it ; and it has been perverted, as to its design, by mak- 
 ing it a physical cause of grace to the recipient in 
 every case in which no obstruction is opposed to its 
 operation. It is not the baptism of the New Testa- 
 ment at all, but a ceremony totally difiereut. It re- 
 quires, therefore, a different kind of administrator 
 from that minister of the word whose ofiice it is, by 
 the appointment of Christ, to administer Christian 
 baptism. 
 
 In like manner they have perverted the ordinance 
 of the supper. It is no longer a simple memorial of 
 the sacrifice of Christ, which was offered once for all, 
 but a true and proper offering of the bod}^, blood, and 
 divinity of Christ continually for the living and the 
 dead. The matter, form, and design of this sacrament 
 have all been so perverted, that its identity has been 
 lost. "We therefore confess," says the Tridentine Cat- 
 echism,^^" "that the sacrifice of the mass is one and the 
 
 * See the Cat. Trident, ou the Sacrament of the Eucharist. We quote, 
 for the most part, from the EngHsh translation made by Donovan, Pro- 
 fessor of the Koyal College, Mayuooth. Bait., 1833. So also the 
 Council itself (Sess. 22) iu its Canons, Canon 2. "If any shall say 
 5 
 
56 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 same sacrifice with that of the cross ; the victim is one 
 and the same, Christ Jesus, who offered himself, once 
 only, a bloody sacrifice on the altar of the cross. The 
 bloody and the nnbloody victim is still one and the 
 same, and the oblation of the cross is daily renewed in 
 the encharistic sacrifice, in obedience to the command 
 of our Lord, 'This do for a commemoration of me.' 
 The Priest is also the same, Christ our Lord : the min- 
 isters wdio offer this sacrifice consecrate the holy mys- 
 teries, not in their own person, but in the person of 
 Christ. This the w ords of consecration declare : the 
 priest does not say, ' This is the body of Christ,' but, 
 ' This is my body ; ' and thus invested with the charac- 
 ter of Christ, he changes the substance of the bread 
 and wine into the substance of his real body and blood. 
 That the holy sacrifice of the mass, therefore, is not 
 only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a com- 
 memoration of the sacrifice of the cross, but also. a sac- 
 rifice of propitiation, by which God is appeased and 
 rendered propitious, the pastor will teach as a dogma 
 defined by the unerring authority of a General Council 
 
 that <Jhrist in these words, 'Do this in commemoration of me,' did not 
 make the apostles priests, or that he did not ordain that they and other 
 priests should offer his own body and blood, let him be anathema." 
 Can. .3. "If any one say that the sacrifice of the mass is a sacrifice 
 only of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare connnemoration of the sac- 
 rifice performed iij^on the cross, and not also a propUidtovj; sacrifice : 
 or that it profits only him who receives it, and ought not to be offered 
 for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and 
 other necessities, let him be anathema." 
 
 Bossuet, in his Exposition de la Doctrine de VEgllse CatJwlique. which 
 was written for the purpose of conciliating the French Protestants, 
 softens the statement of the Coimci], or, at least, cites (in 13) the mild- 
 est language of Sess. 22, c. 1, and insists that the church in offering 
 Christ to God in this sacrameut, does the same thing which is done in 
 the Reformed Church, except that the one affirms and the other de- 
 nies the real j^resence. He denies that Rome pretends to offer any new 
 propitiation for the appeasing of God anew, as if he had not been suf- 
 ficiently appeased by the sacrifice of the cross; or that any supplement 
 is made to the price of our redemption, as if it were insufficient. He 
 represents all as being done in the sacrament in the way of intercession 
 and application. Yet he expressly holds the doctrine of Trent, and 
 what that is we have seen. 
 
Apostolical Succession. 57 
 
 of tlie clinrch." Tlie papists make a distinction, in- 
 deed, between the encliarist considered as a sacrament 
 and the sacrifice^' but the distinction is of no importance 
 in the present argument. 
 
 Further, the papists hold that all grace is conveyed 
 through the sacraments; that "by them all true right- 
 eousness begins, or being begun is increased, or hav- 
 ing been lost is restored."! They hold, also, that the 
 grace is always conferred upon the recipient of the 
 sacrament, where duly administered, unless the recipi- 
 ent places a bar or obstacle in the way ; and the Trent 
 Council curses all who say the contrary. J None, there- 
 fore, can be saved without baptism, § and all baptized bi- 
 faiits (since they can oppose no " bar") are regenerated. 
 As the sacraments can be administered (except in cer- 
 tain extreme cases) only by a priest, the priests have the 
 whole matter of salvation absolutely in their own hands. 
 
 * See tlie lioman Catechism on the Sacrament of the Eiicharist. It 
 says: "The difference between the eucharist as a sacrament and a sac- 
 rifice is very great, and is twofold. As a sacrament, it is perfected by 
 consecration; as a sacrifice, all its elficacy consists in its oblation. 
 When deposited in a tabernacle, or borne to the sick, it is therefore 
 not a sacrifice, but a sacrament. As a sacrament, it is also to the wor- 
 thy receiver a source of merit, and brings with it all those advantages 
 which we have already mentioned ; as a sacrifice, it is not only a soiirce 
 of merit, but also of satisfaction. As in his passion our Lord merited 
 and satisfied for us, so in the oblation of this sacrifice, which is a bond 
 of Christian unity. Christians merit the fruit of his passion, and satisfy 
 for sin." 
 
 t Condi. Trident., Decretmn de SacramenUs, Sess. 7, prmnium. 
 
 X Canon 6, of Sess. 7. In Canon 8 all are cursed who say that the 
 sacraments do not confer grace ex opere operato, but that faith alone 
 in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain the grace. 
 
 § Baptism is of great consequence in Kome, as it ought to be, seeing 
 they make it the sacrament of justification. But the glory of the 
 priesthood consists in the privilege of immolating Christ, and of judi- 
 cially absolving men from their sins. Baptism may be administered 
 even by a woman, by Jews, infidels, and heretics, in case of necessity, 
 provided they intend to do what the church does in that act of her 
 ministry. Gat. Trid. on the Sacrament of Baptism. But the eucharist, 
 the sacrifice of the mass, and judicial absolution, can be administered 
 only by a priest. Con. Trid. JSess. 14, chapter 6 ; Cat. on the Euchar- 
 ist, 12. 
 
58 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 The power of tlie priest to confer grace by the sacra- 
 ments is not impaired by his personal character, how- 
 ever fouL He may be living in "mortal" sin ; he may, 
 like the Pope Alexander Borgia, be mixing poison with 
 the wine which he is about to give his friend at his own 
 table ; nevertheless, he can confer the grace of God in 
 the sacraments ; and, in Can. 12, Sess. 7, the holy 
 Council curses all w^ho say the contrary. The sacra- 
 ments are everything ; the preaching of the word no- 
 thing, in this holy, catholic, apostolic church. 
 
 Again, as to the mode in which the priests, since the 
 time of the apos les, become their successors Rome holds 
 that it is by the sacrament of orders. The main points 
 of their doctrine are : («), That as Christ made the 
 apostles priests by imparting to them the Holy Ghost 
 and the power of judicial absolution (John xx. 22, 23), 
 so the apostles have transmitted to their successors, 
 the bishops of Rome, the same gifts ; which bishops, 
 in their turn, by imposition of hands, communicate the 
 priesthood to the lower order. (?>), That, as in the sac- 
 raments of baptism and confirmation an indelil)le char- 
 acter is imparted, so also in the sacrament of orders. 
 By this indelible character, he who has once become a 
 priest is always a priest ; he can never again become a 
 laic.''^ (t), That with this process the people have no- 
 thing at all to do. They have no voice at all in mak- 
 ing priests. Canon 7, Sess. 23 of Trent. The priest- 
 hood is a distinct caste. They perpetuate the church 
 as the apostles created it before them. 
 
 These points constitute the essence of the doctrine 
 of orders. The apostolical succession as held in Rome 
 is, therefore, summarily comprehended in the three as- 
 sertions: (a), That there is a true and proper priest- 
 hood on earth, under the Christian dispensation. (^), 
 That there is a true and proper sacrifice, to be continu- 
 ally offered, (c'). That the succession of priests is se- 
 cured by the sacrament of orders ; this last point, of 
 
 *SeeCon.Tricl. D. and C, Sess. 23, Can. 4. 
 
Apostolical Succession". 59 
 
 course, involving the assertion of tlie succession as a 
 fact in history. We propose to consider these in their 
 order. 
 
 I, As to the priesthood under the ''new law," as the 
 papists delight to call the gos])el, we remark : 
 
 1. That scarcely any truth is more clearly revealed 
 in the New 1'estament than that of the universal priest- 
 hood of believers, llie passages in which it is either 
 expressly asserted or taken for granted, are too nu- 
 merous to be cited. One or two will suffice : " Ye are 
 a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, 
 a peculiar people." 1 Pet. ii. 9; comp. vs. 5. The pa- 
 pist will of course say that this description of believers 
 under the gospel is identical with that of Israel under 
 the law (Ex. xix. 5,6); and that, as the general priestly 
 character of Israel was consistent, in point of fact, with 
 the existence of a special order of priests in the family 
 of Aaron ; so a special order of priests is by no means in- 
 compatible with the universal priesthood of believers 
 under the gospel. As an abstract proposition, this may 
 be conceded; but there is a very great difference be- 
 tween the two dispensations in point of fact. First, 
 there is no institution of a priesthood in the New Tes- 
 tament as there was in the Old. Second, there is no limi- 
 tation put upon the exercise of priestly functions or 
 privileges on the part of the priestly people under the 
 New Testament as there was under the Old. Let the 
 papists show us any chapters in the New Testament 
 corresponding with such as the Leviticus viii. in the 
 Old, and we will believe them. They have their "sol- 
 emn ceremonies" in 'the consecration of their priests ; 
 but they are ceremonies which the court of Rome, not 
 Jesus Christ, has ordained. If they say they observe 
 the rites ordained in Leviticus, then they confess that 
 their priesthood is after all the Aaronic, and not, as 
 they have been accustomed to boast, a priesthood after 
 the order of Melchisedec. Let them show us in the 
 New Testament any such stern prohibitions against the 
 
60 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 people intermeddling with priestly functions as there 
 are in the Old. So far from finding any such prohibi- 
 tions, we find no discrimination at all, in regard to 
 priestly character and function, betAA^een the ministry 
 and the people, or (to nse the language of Rome) be- 
 tween the clergy and the laity. It is the duty and privi- 
 lege of all alike to oifer spirHual sacrifices acceptable 
 to God through Jesus Christ. The writer of the Ejjis- 
 tle to the Jlehreics exhorts his brethren, without any 
 note of distinction, to do what the high priest alone 
 could do, and that only once a year, under the law — 
 "to draAv near with a true heart unto God." He bases 
 this exhortation upon the fact that they have "bold- 
 ness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a 
 new and living way which he hath consecrated for them, 
 through the veil, that is to say, his flesh ; and upon the 
 fact that they have a High Priest over the house of 
 God." Heb. X. 19-22. 
 
 2. The apostles are nowhere called priests, or rep- 
 resented as performing priestly functions. Considering 
 the extent to which the institutions and technical lan- 
 guage of the Old Testament moulded the forms of rep- 
 resentation in the New, this fact is very noteworthy. 
 The apostles do sometimes use the sacerdotal and sacri- 
 cial language of the Old Testament to describe their 
 Avork, but it is always under conditions Avhich show, 
 beyond doubt, that they are speaking figuratively. 
 Thus Paul (Rora. xv. 16) speaks of himself as " the min- 
 ister (As!T0'j(fy6u) of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, minis- 
 tering {Izno'joyo'r^za) the gospel of God, that the offer- 
 ing up {-(lorrd'oua) of the Gentiles might be acceptable, 
 being sanctified {fjycaafdw^) by the HoW Ghost." ^ Here 
 observe, (a). That while the word As^Touoyou has no 
 
 • The argumeut here is all the stronger, because, as Whately says 
 (Cautions for the Times, p. 40), "Paul is actually seai'ching for some- 
 thing in his own office, to parallel the function? of a priest" — and 
 this is all that he can find. How differently would a Papal priest, noic 
 writing to the church of Rome, express himself ! 
 
Apostolical Succession. 61 
 
 strictly sacerdotal sense, being used for any public 
 functionary (as for instance, in this very epistle, chap- 
 ter xiii. 6, of the civil magistrate ; comp. vs. 4, didxouo^)^ 
 yet we concede that there may be a reference to its sa- 
 cerdotal use in the Septuagint. (See Deut. x. 8 ; xvii. 
 12 ; Joel i. 9 ; comp. Hebrew x. 11). {7j), That the second 
 word, which is undoubtedly sacerdotal, is explained 
 by the nature of the offering which is made to God, to 
 wit, the Gentiles, not the mass. If the Gentiles are a 
 sacrifi.ce in the strict and literal sense of the term, then, 
 of course, Paul is a priest, in the same sense. But the 
 first will not be asserted, we apprehend, even by a pa- 
 pist. The truth is, Paul's statement amounts to this : 
 " I am indeed a priest, but my priestly functions are 
 exercised in preaching the glad tidings to the Gentiles, 
 and in making an offering to God of those who are, 
 through the word, sanctified by the Holy Ghost." If 
 the priesthood of Rome were of this kind, no objection 
 could be made to it. But it is altogether different. Its 
 office is to offer a propitiatory sacrifice for the living 
 and the dead. 
 
 We have said that the cqjostles use sacrificial lan- 
 guage in describing their work. But Paul, we believe, 
 is the only one of the apostles who does ; and he only 
 in the instance cited, unless Rom. xii. 1, Phil. ii. 17, 2 
 Tim. iv. 6, be considered instances. Peter, the " first 
 pope," never uses it, so far as we have been able to 
 find, in special application to the ministry. His style 
 is, " We will give ourselves to the ministry (our/Mvia) of 
 the word and to prayer." Acts vi. 4. " The elders who 
 are among you I exhort, who am your fellow-elder 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, performing the office of bishops in it), not by con- 
 straint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a 
 ready mind ; neither as being lords over God's heri- 
 
62 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 tage, ^ but being ensamples to the flock." 1 Pet. v. 1-3. 
 How strange would sucli words sound from the mouth 
 of his pretended successors! It is too plain that the 
 ministry of the apostles was not the same as the min- 
 istry of the papal priesthood ; and that if the papal 
 ministers are true and proper priests, they possess a 
 dignity to which the apostles, with Peter at their head, 
 did not dream of aspiring. It is hardly necessary to say 
 that we hold with the apostles. 
 
 3. Not only do the apostles say that all believers are 
 priests, and claim no special priestly character for 
 themselves, but a special argument is made by one of 
 them to sliOAv that there can be no true and proper 
 priests on earth since the ottering of Jesus Christ and 
 his passing into the heavens. The doctrine of Rome 
 makes utter nonsense of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 and particularly of the 7th chapter. The papists say 
 that their priesthood is of the order of Melchisedec ; 
 and yet the main feature of the priesthood of Melchis- 
 edec, according to the apostle, is that it admits of 7W 
 succession. "They truly (the Levitical priests) were 
 many priests, because they were not suffered to con- 
 tinue b}' reason of death ; but this man, because he 
 continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood." 
 Heb. vii. 23, 24. But why quote particular verses? 
 Almost ever}^ verse in this chapter is a dagger which 
 goes to the heart of the papal theory. Nothing but 
 the most audacious effrontery could venture to main- 
 tain such a tlieor}^ in the face of such an argument. 
 The papal priesthood is simply an insult, impudent 
 and shameless, to Christ, w^ho alone possesses a priest- 
 hood after the order of Melchisedec. It is not only 
 destitute of even the shadow of evidence, but is a di- 
 
 *This is the only instance in which the word z/^^y^c is used of j^cr- 
 sons in the New Testament : and yet it is the word from which the 
 word cler(]y comes. According to this passage, the clergy, or inherit- 
 ance of God, is the laity, or flock, which is in danger of being lorded 
 over. See Camj)beirs Lect. on Eccl. History, L. 9. This is worthy of 
 being noted, because the distinction of clergy and laity came in with 
 the notion of a sacerdotal ministry in the church. 
 
Apostolical Succession. 63 
 
 rect contradiction to the teaching of the Scriptures ; 
 and being the corner-stone of the apostolical succes- 
 sion, the whole structure tumbles into ruins, or, rather, 
 is proved to be "the baseless fabric of a vision." 
 
 II. As to the next element involved in this doctrine, 
 the power of the priesthood to offer a true and proper 
 sacrifice, it need not detain us so long. For, 
 
 1. If there be no proper priesthood on earth, there can 
 of course be no proper offering of sacrifice. Priesthood 
 and sacrifice go together ; together they stand or fall. 
 
 2. The only true and proper sacrifice which the pa- 
 pal priests pretend to offer is that of the mass; and 
 this is a pure invention of men, instigated no doubt 
 by the devil, that restless plotter against the glory of 
 Christ and the salvation of his church. 
 
 It would be out of place in this discussion to enter 
 into an elaborate arojument against the sacrifice of the 
 mass. It will be sufficient to say, (a), That the silence - 
 of the Scriptures seals its condemnation. It is alto- 
 gether incredible that nothing shoald be said about 
 any sacrifice in the eucharist, if that ordinance were 
 a sacrifice, and especially if it had occupied the 
 place in the religion of the apostles which it occupies 
 in the religion of Rome — if it had been considered a 
 fundamental point and necessary to the proper observ- 
 ance of Christian worship. The apostles give line upon 
 line and precept upon precept in regard to things which 
 the papists themselves would confess to be of very in- 
 ferior importance, and yet say nothing about this. This 
 silence is the more remarkable upon the papal theory, 
 because the doctrine of the mass is, by their own con- 
 fession, hard to be believed, indeed plainly contradicted 
 even by the testimony of the senses, and therefore lia- 
 ble to the strongest assaults of Satan. Further, how 
 can these Judaizers account for the fact that, while in 
 the old law. there is constant mention of priests and 
 sacrifices, and most minute details as to both, we find 
 nothing corresponding in the new? it is indeed an 
 
64 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 awful wystery, since the apostles have not even at- 
 tempted to throw any light upon it. 
 
 Bnt not too fast. Tlie papists pretend that the}^ do 
 find in the New Testament a sacrificial character as- 
 cribed to the eucharist. For example, 1 Cor. x. 21 ; 
 Heb. xiii. 10. Now, as to the first passage, it is snfii- 
 cient to remark that Panl does not compare the table 
 of the eucharist with the altiw of the Gentiles, but the 
 Lord's table with the tahle of demons. The table of 
 demons is not the altar of the Gentiles upon which 
 they sacrificed to their idols, but the tahle upon which, 
 after the sacrifice had been ofiered, the meats were 
 spread for a feast in honor of the idol. And even if 
 the comparison had been one between the Lord's table 
 and altars, the conclusion would not follow which papal 
 logic seeks to draw; for the apostle is not concerned 
 about the reason and nature of altar or sacrifice, but 
 only about the communion or participation of the wor- 
 shippers with it. He aims to show that the Corinthi- 
 ans could not Avith a good conscience be present at 
 these feasts in the idol-temples, because they had been 
 made partakers of the Lord's supper, and so had com- 
 munion with Christ and professed his religion, as those 
 who ate of the ancient victims under the law were made 
 "partakers of the altar," that is, professed the Jewish 
 religion.^ 
 
 As to Heb. xiii. 10, we remark that nothing is said 
 here about the eucharist ; that the only sacrifices men- 
 tioned in 'the context as connected Avith this altar are 
 praise emd ahns-giving (vs. 15, 16); that the altar is 
 said to be Christ himself in vs. 15 ; t and in vs. 9 we 
 have a solemn warning against just such a religion as 
 Eome teaches — a religion of meats and not of grace. 
 
 * See Turretiu, L. 19, Q. 29. 0pp. 3, p. 456, Carter's Ed 
 t So Aquinas: "This altar is either the cross of Christ, or Christ 
 himself, in whom and by whom we offer our praj-ers to God." Bel- 
 larmine, though not very scrupulons about the arguments he uses, 
 does not urge this place, because many Catholics understand by altav 
 here, Christ and the cross. See Turret, ut supra. 
 
Apostolical Succession. 65 
 
 {b), The only other argument we shall mention 
 against the mass is that of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 The argument is of the same sort with that respecting 
 the priesthood. As the perfection of the priesthood of 
 Christ admits of no succession of mortal priests, so 
 the perfection of his sacrifice admits of no repeated 
 sacrifices. Let us quote one passage only from the 
 Hebrews: "Nor yet that Christ should offer himself 
 often', as the high priest entereth into the holy place 
 every year with the blood of others ; for then must he 
 often have suffered since the foundation of the world ; 
 but now once in the end of the world hath he 
 appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 
 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after 
 this the judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear 
 the sins of many; and unto them that look for him 
 shall he appear the second time, without sin unto sal- 
 vation. For the law, having a shadow of good things 
 to come, . . . can never, with those sacrifices which 
 they offered year by 3^ear continually, make the com- 
 ers 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." Heb. ix. 25-28; x. 
 1-3. This sword of the Spirit effectually cuts the 
 throat of the sacrifice of the mass. With respect both 
 to the priesthood and the sacrifice, the papists have 
 done the very thing against which the whole Epistle 
 to the Hebrews is a warning. They have apostatized 
 from the gospel, and have gone back to Judaism. 
 
 Having thus disposed of the second element of the 
 doctrine of succession, we may tarry, before proceed- 
 ing to the next, to say a word or two in reference to 
 the doctrine of sacramental grace in all its forms. 
 First : The whole idea of the papists and their apists, 
 that salvation is conveyed through the sacraments 
 rather than through the word, is utterly foreign to the 
 
66 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 thinking and language of the New Testament, which 
 gives this prominence to the word and not to the sac- 
 raments. Take an example or two out of very many. 
 Paul says to the Corinthians (1 Epistle i. 14-17), " I 
 thank God I baptized none of you but Crispus and 
 Gains, lest any should say tliat I had baptized in my 
 own name. . . . For Christ sent me not to haptize, hut 
 to preach the gospel'' So Peter: "Being born again, 
 not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, hxj the 
 icord of God, which liveth and abideth for ever; . . . 
 and this is the word wliicli by the gospel is preached 
 unto you." 1 Peter i. 23-25. And even where the 
 sacrament is spoken of as the means of regeneration, 
 it is almost always coupled with the word, or, if not, 
 sometliing is added in order to guard against the error 
 tliat there is an}' efficacy in it ex ojjere operato. Thus 
 in Epli. V. 26, Paul speaks of the cliurch as sanctified 
 and cleansed "with the washing of water hy the word.'' 
 "Go ... preach the gospel. ... He tliat believeth 
 and is baptized shall l>e saved." Mark xvi. So Peter, 
 in speaking of baptism as saving us, takes care to say 
 that he is not speaking of the outward ordinance, but 
 the answer of a £:ood conscience toward God. 1 Peter 
 iii. 21. 
 
 The idea of the apostles was that the trord was the 
 charter of salvation, and conveyed everything that was 
 conveyed; that the sacraments were a species of sym- 
 bolical word, and j;?'6> tanto performed the same office 
 as the word written or spoken; and that in addition 
 to being signs or symbolical words, the sacraments 
 Avere seals of the word as charter, ratifying the cove- 
 nant contained in the word, and possessing no value 
 whatever if detached from the word. The doctrine of 
 Kome, that by the sacraments all grace begins, and 
 when begun is increased, or when lost is restored, has 
 not the shadow of a foundation in the Scriptures, or 
 in common sense. 
 
 Second : That there is no grace given except through 
 
Apostolical Succession. 67 
 
 the sacraments, is a doctrine still more monstrous ; 
 flatly contradicting many passages of the Scriptures. 
 See, for example, the case of Peter in Acts x. 47, where 
 the "first pope" argues from the fact that these hea- 
 then had received the Holy Ghost, that no man could 
 forbid them to be baptized. And then, be it observed, 
 he does not baptize them himself, but commands them 
 to be baptized. No more than his beloved brother 
 Paul, does Peter seem to have been anxious about the 
 rite of baptism, provided only it was done decently 
 and in order."" But the papists and their imitators 
 
 * "No passage can be produced from the New Testament in which 
 administration of the sacraments is, bj' a divine law, restricted to the 
 ai)0stles and their delegates, or the grace of these ordinances made de- 
 pendent upon the persons of the administrators. See Acts ii 41 ; viii. 
 yb; ix. 18. (Ananias, for all we know, was a layman.) The two sac- 
 raments have, in the lapse of time, experienced a very different fate. 
 By the Donatist controversy the principle was established, that baptism, 
 even when administered by those not in the communion with the 
 church, if only the word and the element had been present, was so 
 far valid as that it was not to be repeated in the case of those who, 
 having been baptized in schism, became reconciled to the charcli. It 
 was argued by Augustine, most conclusively, that the sacrament is 
 Christ's, not his who administers it; and derives its virtue from the 
 sacred name in which it is administered. This was in effect discon- 
 necting the validity of the ordinance from the person of the adminis- 
 trator; for though it was still maintained that the recipient, so long as 
 he continued in a state of schism, derived no benetit from his baptism, 
 still the ordinance itself was pronounced valid, and, as such, was not 
 to be repeated. . . . The eucharist, on the contrary, has always been 
 most jealously guarded from the profanation of lay hands. Yet if 
 there is any difference in the Scriptures, as regards this point, between 
 the two sacraments, baptism is the one which has more the appearance 
 of being restricted. (Matt, xxviii. 19.) But it is characteristic of the 
 church system to be most peremptory and exclusive in its decisions 
 where the Scriptures supply the slenderest foundation for them. " See 
 Litton's Church of Christ, p. 635. 
 
 The validity of the sacraments, therefore, does not require them to 
 be administered by certain officers; but the great law of "decencj^ 
 and order " makes it necessary that the church should appoint certain 
 persons to this office ; and the ministers of the word, for obvious rea- 
 sons, are the persons whom the church has appointed. This is the com- 
 mon doctrine of the Eeformed theologians. See, for instance, Tur- 
 retin. Be Necess. Secess. Nostra ab Eccl. Rom., Disp. 8, 18, (Vol. 
 IV., p. 190 of Carter's Ed., N. Y., 1848). Turretin is inconsistent 
 with himself. See his Theolog. Elemcli., L. 19., Q. 14. He admits 
 6 
 
68 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 must make much of it, or their a^Dostolical succession 
 is nothing worth. Hence they must " deny the validity 
 of all baptism but their own, and in defiance of decency, 
 charity, and common sense, refuse to inter an infant 
 who has not passed under their own patent process of 
 regeneration. The consequence is that they throw 
 doubt (and many of them do not scruple to avow it) 
 on the final state of the myriads of unbaptized infants. 
 Whether they are, as some of the Fathers believed, 
 neither happy nor miserable — consigned to a state of 
 joyless apathy, or condemned to eternal suftering — we 
 are all, it seems, in the dark. We may hope the best, 
 but that is all the comfort that can be given us. To a 
 Christian contemplating this world of sorrow, it has 
 ever been one of the most delightful sources of comso- 
 lation, that the decree which involved even infancy in 
 the sentence of death, has converted a great part of 
 the primeval curse into a blessing, and has peopled 
 heaven with myriads of immortals, who, after one brief 
 pang of unremembered sorrow, have laid down forever 
 the burdens of humanity. It has been the dear belief 
 of the Christian mother, that the provisions of the 
 great spiritual economy are extended to the infant 
 whom she brought forth in sorrow, and whom she com- 
 mitted to the dust with a sorrow still deeper; that it 
 will assuredly welcome her at the gates of paradise, 
 arrayed in celestial beauty and radiant with a cherub's 
 smile. But all these gloriously sustaining hopes must 
 be overcast in order to keep the mystical power of re- 
 generation exclusively in the hands of the Episcopal 
 clergy. All charity, all decency, all humanity, as well 
 
 that some of the Fathers approved it, in Q. 13. In case of necessity, 
 the general calling of Christians and the law of charity take the place 
 of any particular calling of officers, and the law of decency and order. 
 Even the papists admit the same as to the sacrament of baptism, though 
 upon the false ground of the absolute necessity of this ordinance to salva- 
 tion. See Campbell's Lect on Bed. History, L. IV. (specially pp. 
 58-72) London, Tegg, 1840, for quotations from the Fathers on the 
 matter of authority to administer the sacraments. 
 
Apostolical Succession. 69 
 
 as all common sense, are to be ontraged, rather than 
 that the power of conferring some inconceivable non- 
 entity should be abandoned." ^ 
 
 Third: This doctrine in its extreme form is the 
 merest paganism, and resembles much more the ma- 
 gical rites and mummeries of people sunk in brutish, 
 heathenish ignorance, than that "reasonable service" 
 which God requires of his worshippers. It is a system 
 of forms which does not compel men to recognize a 
 God, any more than the laws of nature compel such a 
 recognition. It is a system whose tendency is directly 
 to infidelity and atheism. It supposes that God de- 
 parts from his usual method of working by the laws of 
 nature to accomplish effects which can be discerned 
 neither by sense nor reason. The mystic regeneration, 
 so far as can be known, leaves the person regenerated 
 in no respect changed. He is neither wiser nor better 
 than before; just as capable of committing mortal sin,. 
 and in as great danger of eternal damnation, as if the 
 priest's hands had not applied the magic mixture of 
 water, oil, spittle, and salt. It has not even the plausi- 
 bility of the juggler's tricks ; for the juggler rq^pears to 
 work effects which are extraordinary. What evidence 
 can miracles afford to a man Avho believes the doctrine 
 of transubstantiation ? Miracles appeal to the senses. 
 This is the differentia by Avhich they are discriminated 
 from every other immediate act of God upon the crea- 
 ture. But in transubstantiation we are required to be- 
 lieve a miracle which contradicts the senses. How 
 then can a miracle ever authenticate a divine revela- 
 tion ? If the reality of the change in the substance of 
 the bread and wine is ascertained to us by the words, 
 " This is my body," the question may be asked, how 
 are we to know that these words were ever spoken or 
 written ? It will not do to appeal to the testimony of 
 eye or ear, for transubstantiation pronounces the testi- 
 
 * Edinburgh Rem6U\ for April, 1843, p. 274, Amer. Ed. 
 
70 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 mony of the senses untrustworthy. If God were to im- 
 press the reahty of the fact upon the mind directly, 
 still the revelation could never go beyond the mind 
 that received it. It could never be authenticated to the 
 minds of other men. So that the doctrine of sacra- 
 mental grace is either nothing at all, a pure imposture, 
 or its legitimate consequence is absolute pyrrhonism. 
 It is substantially the philosophy of Hume under a re- 
 ligious guise. 
 
 III. We proceed now to the last point involved in 
 the papal doctrine of succession. It might seem su- 
 perfluous to argue the question any further. If there 
 was no priesthood instituted by Christ, if the apostles 
 were not priests, then of course there can be no suc- 
 cession of priests. Kemove the facts of a priesthood 
 and a sacrifice (in the sense before explained, the pa- 
 pal sense) in the apostolic age, you remove the very 
 foundation of the apostolical succession, and the whole 
 structure tumbles into ruins. This, we venture to think, 
 has been very effectually done, if the Scriptures are to 
 be the rule of judgment. But we shall undertake ex 
 ccbundanti, as the logicians say, to prove that, even if the 
 apostles were priests, they have had no successors, or at 
 least that there are none who can know and prove 
 themselves to be such, which amounts to the same 
 thing. De noii apparenUhas et de non exidentibus eadem 
 est 7rUio. 
 
 1. It is a principle clearly laid down in the Scrip- 
 tures, that no one may presume to undertake sacer- 
 dotal functions without a divine call or commission. 
 " No man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that 
 is called of God, as was Aaron." Heb. v. 4.'"' Every 
 
 * It is to be regretted that these words should generally be quoted by 
 Protestant writers in proof of the necessity of a divine call to the or- 
 dinary ofdcers in the church. Such a call is indeed necessary, but 
 not a direct and immediate call, such as the call of Aaron, and of 
 Christ, to their respective orders of priesthood. This sacerdotal call 
 is immediate, without the intervention of the church, and in the 
 Hebrews (chap, v.) the writer uses the words in application only to 
 
Apostolical Succession. 71 
 
 attempt on the part of unauthorized persons to invade 
 the priest's office among the Jews was visited with se- 
 vere penalties. For this offence Korah and his com- 
 pany were destroyed, and Uzziah struck with leprosy. 
 The papists of course apply this principle to their pre- 
 tended priesthood, a fortiori, since the Christian 
 priesthood as much excels the Levitical in dignity, as 
 the new law is superior to the old. So Christ, the 
 founder of the new priesthood, having been called of 
 God as was Aaron, called his successors, the apostles, 
 and the apostles their successors, the bishops, trans- 
 mitting to them, along with the authority of priests, the 
 ordinary sacerdotal grace which they themselves had 
 received from Christ. The bishops of the apostolic 
 age have in their turn handed down the same grace to 
 their successors, to the present time, by consecration 
 or ordination.^^" 
 
 2. The power thus transmitted is twofold — ^a power 
 of order, and a powxr of jurisdiction. The power of 
 order is the power of immolating and offering Christ in 
 the eucharist, as before explained and refuted. The 
 power of jurisdiction is the power of judicial absolu- 
 tion from guilt. * The apostles received the first powder 
 at the institution of the supper ; the last, when Christ 
 breathed on them after his resurrection, and said, 
 "Keceive ye the Holy Ghost," etc. John xx. 22, 23. 
 Cone. Trid. Sess. 14, c. 1. See Litton on the Church 
 of Christ, pp. 531-2. 
 
 3. The external instrument of transmission is the 
 sacrament of orders, the administration of which be- 
 longs to the bishop alone. The visible sign of the 
 sacrament is the laying on of hands. The inward 
 
 Christ and Aaron. Christ's priesthood admitted of no succession, and 
 the words admit of no further application since his inauguration into 
 office. In the case of the Aaronic priesthood, they were true of all his 
 successors, because the succession was determined by birth. Of this 
 more hereafter. 
 
 * See Litton on tlie Church of Christ, p. 530, et seq. 
 
72 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 effect is twofold : first, the impressing upon a soul of 
 spiritual characte?' or stamp, which is indelible, so that 
 he who is once made a priest can never return to the 
 condition of a layman ; and second, grace, not sancti- 
 fying, but ministerial (greitia gratis datct^^ for the valid 
 performance of sacerdotal functions. Cone. Trid. Sess. 
 23, Can. 4. Litton, p. 532. 
 
 This is a clear and consistent theory. If no sacra- 
 ments and no absolution, then no church. If no law- 
 ful priesthood, then no sacraments, at least no eucha- 
 rist and no absolution. If no successors of the apos- 
 tles, then no lawful priesthood. If not in communion 
 with the bishop of Rome, no successors of the apostles. 
 Hence, beyond the pale of Rome, no covenanted 
 grace. 
 
 This tremendous doctrine (for if it be true, it is tre- 
 mendously true, and if false, it is a tremendous lie) we 
 jDropose to examine in the light of the Scriptures, of 
 the papist's own principles, and of history. The re- 
 sult of this examination will show that ^q factoi such 
 a succession is altogether incredible, and that It is the 
 height of audacit}" for any Roman priest of the present 
 day to affirm that he knows himself to be a true priest. 
 The examination will be confined to the last of the 
 above mentioned points, as the others have been 
 sufficiently discussed in the preceding part of this 
 article. 
 
 1. The Scriptures make no mention anywhere of the 
 consecration of any church officers, as such. All be- 
 lievers are priests, and are consecrated to the worship 
 and service of God by the indwelling of the Holy 
 
 * " (r. (J. d." the extraordinary gifts or charisms, bestowed for the 
 edification of the whole church, opposed to '' (jratia gratum facieus" 
 the gifts bestowed upon any one for his own salvation, faith, hope, 
 &c. An unhappy terminolocjy of the schoolmen, so far as it implies 
 that all charisms are not gratuitously given. If the phrases are used 
 at all, the first must describe the sovereign benemlence of Grod as exhib- 
 ited in all the charisms ; the second, the effect of this benevolence in 
 making us " accepted " (^rrates) in Christ. See Turretin, L. III., Q. 
 20, \ 8, of Carter's Ed. Vol. 1, p. 219. 
 
Apostolical Succession. 73 
 
 Ghost, in any calling Avliich the sovereign will of God 
 may appoint for them. No word signifying consecra- 
 tion is used of the appointment of church officers, as 
 such. We shall not waste time in proving a negative. 
 We defy papists and prelatists to produce a single 
 example. 
 
 2. The Scriptures make no mention of any ceremony 
 of consecration to be used by church officers in con- 
 secrating their successors. The papists will hardly 
 insist on the imposition of hands, since the first instance 
 of that we meet with in the New Testament in connec- 
 tion with the ordination of church officers is in Acts 
 vi., the case of the deacons. This was a case in 
 which the hands of the apostles were laid on officers 
 whom the people had elected ; and what a horror the 
 papists have of the people's electing their own officers 
 everybody knows. Besides, the imposition of hands 
 was so common among the Jews that nobody pretends 
 that it always meant consecration ; and the papists 
 themselves use it in cases where it is designed to have 
 no such meaning. It would seem certain, at least, 
 that they attach no great importance to this ceremony 
 in the sacrament of confirmation, though it be one of 
 the three sacraments in which an indelible character is 
 imparted. The Tridentine Catechism gives minute 
 directions for the celebration of this sacrament : the 
 unction of the forehead, the sign of the cross, the kiss 
 of peace, and even the slap on the cheek, but says not 
 a word about the imposition of hands. This is all the 
 more strange, because the catechism refers to Acts 
 viii. 14-17, in proof that the bishop alone has the 
 power to administer this sacrament ; and yet in that 
 jDassage it is expressly said that " the apostles laid 
 their hands on them and tliev received the Holy 
 Ghost."- 
 
 * The Episcopal Church is here ahttle more consistent. It not only 
 alleges the example of the apostles, but follows it. Of course we do 
 not admit that Acts viii. 14-17 has anything to do with " conlirmation, " 
 either sacrament or mere ceremony. 
 
74 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 3. The Scriptures make no mention of an indelible 
 character in orders, any more than in baptism and con- 
 firmation. That the papal body attaches some conse- 
 quence to it would seem to be the case, from the fact 
 that the Trent Council curses everybody who ventures 
 to deny it. Sess. 23, Can. 4. Certain we are that an}^ 
 pious and intelligent man might read the New Testa- 
 ment (and for that matter the Old too) without ever 
 thinking of any indelible character.^' Still, not think- 
 ing about it is a different thing from denying it. Let 
 us therefore examine Gabriel Biel, who flourished less 
 than a century before the Trent Council, and was a 
 great light in the Church of Rome. He expended a 
 great deal of thought and of research upon this mys- 
 tery, and his conclusion is thus summed up by Chem- 
 nitz : t " That the word character, in this sense, is found 
 neither in the Scriptures, nor in the ancient ecclesias- 
 tical writers ; that it is not found in the ' Master of the 
 Sentences' himself (Lombard); that as to the thing 
 itself, neither the authority of the Fathers nor reason 
 compels us to posit any such character; that the pas- 
 sages adduced from Dionysius, Augustine, Damas- 
 cenus, and Lombard in favor of the ' character,' are to 
 be expounded rather of the sacrament of baptism 
 itself, or of the sacramental form, than of any im]3ress 
 or stamp made in fact upon the soul ; that all the effects 
 ascribed to the character may be explained as well 
 without the character as with it; that the sacraments 
 themselves work these effects without the character; 
 that the things attributed to the character are found in 
 
 * We beg pardon ; the Roman character is referred to in several 
 places of tlie Revelation. See xiii 16-17 ; xiv. 9, 11 ; xv. 2 ; xvi. 2, 
 et al. The word is ydpayiia. Heb. i. 3 is the only place in which the 
 word yafxiy-rif) occurs. 
 
 t Examen Concilii Tridentini, Sess, 7, p 28. This great work is a 
 storehouse of argument and history against the leading dogmas of 
 Rome. See also Fra Paolo's Hist. G. of Trent, (Courayer French 
 Trans.) Vol. I. pp. 438-'9, B. 2, § 86. 
 
Apostolical Succession. 75 
 
 the eucliarist, and in other sacraments, which are not sup- 
 posed to imprint it ; that the chief reason which weighed 
 with the schoolmen for positing the character has httle 
 force ; that the nnreiterableness of some of the sacra- 
 ments does not depend upon the character, but upon 
 the nature of these sacraments and the divine institu- 
 tion ; that it is less clear what the character is, than 
 that baptism is not to be reiterated ; that the sole au- 
 thority for it is a passage in the writings of Pope In- 
 nocent III. (A. D. 1198-1216) ; that the passage is sus- 
 ceptible of another interpretation : that a theologian 
 ought not to la}^ down anything to be believed which 
 is not necessary ex fide, et cet.'' So far this great 
 champion of Rome. It would appear, then, to use the 
 language of the Edinhargli He view, that this character 
 is "a nonentity inscribed with a very formidable 
 name — a very substantial shadow." " As to the iihi of 
 the character," says Dr. Campbell, "there was no less 
 variety of sentiments — some placing it in the essence 
 of the soul, others in the understanding ; some in the 
 will, and others onore plausibly in the imagination; 
 others even in the hand and tongue ; but by the gen- 
 eral voice the body was excluded. So that the whole 
 of what they agreed in amounts to this : that in the 
 unreiterable sacraments, as they call them, something, 
 they know not what, is imprinted, they know not how, 
 on something in the soul of the recipient, they know 
 not ichere, which never can be delected." And yet 
 we are adjudged to the everlasting pains of hell for 
 not believing it. We are willing to share the damna- 
 toin of Gabriel if he has been damned for not believing 
 this. 
 
 But what was the motive for postulating this myste- 
 rious nonenity and the transmission of sacerdotal 
 grace ? In answer, we quote the words of Litton (in 
 the Ch. of Christ, pp. 534-537) : " Christianity [accord- 
 ing to Rome], being the new law of Christ, must pre- 
 sent the same general characteristics which its prede- 
 
76 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 cessor, the law of Moses, did. Now every legal system 
 of religion being necessarily of an artificial and arbi- 
 trary character in its appointments, inasmuch as it in- 
 tended to Avork from without inwards, and to produce 
 the disposition which it does not find present, a law 
 from without will regulate in detail all matters con- 
 nected with divine worship, and especialh^ will deter- 
 mine the functions and persons of the sacerdotal order. 
 The permanency of the external mould in which the 
 worshipper is to be fashioned to religion being a prin- 
 cipal object in every such system, the institution of the 
 priestly order will be positive rather than natural : it 
 will come from without, not spring from within. Moral 
 qualifications for the ministerial ofiice — such as Avis- 
 dom, or knowledge, or personal piety — Avill, under such 
 a system, occupy a subordinate place, or rather, may 
 be altogether dispensed with ; the great object being 
 to make provision for a visil)le succession of sacerdotal 
 persons, Avho, Avhatever they may be inAvardly, shall at 
 least possess an official sanctity. Besides, it is obvious 
 that no one can guarantee the transmission of moral 
 endoAvments, natural or spiritual. This object, the an- 
 cient systems of religion— the Jewish among the num- 
 ber — aimed at securing, and did in fact secure, by in- 
 corporating in themselves the principle of caste ; that 
 is, by attaching the priestly function to a certain tribe 
 or family, separated for the purpose from the rest of 
 the nation, and making it pass from father to son in 
 the Avay of natural descent, irrespectively of moral 
 qualifications. By this means the perpetual existence 
 of a visible priesthood Avas secured; the only contin- 
 gency, and that not a probable one, which could de- 
 stroy the succession, being the extinction of the sacer- 
 dotal tribe or family. An hereditary priesthood, the 
 basis of the sacerdotal character being not the fitness 
 of the individual, bat the consecration of the caste, 
 is the natural accompaniment of every system of re- 
 ligion Avhich aims at moulding men, by means of laAV 
 
Apostolical Succession. 77 
 
 and discipline, into a specific type of religions senti- 
 ment. 
 
 "The Jewish priesthood was instituted on the prin- 
 ciple just mentioned. The tribe of Levi was set apart 
 to the ministry of the tabernacle, and out of it the family 
 of Aaron to sacerdotal functions; and nothing more 
 was necessary to qualify men for the priesthood than 
 the legitimacy of birth and investiture with the sacred 
 garments. It is obvious, that if anything analogous to 
 this was to reappear under the Christian dispensation, 
 it must undergo considerable modifications to render it 
 less strikingly inconsistent Avith the general principles 
 of the gospel ; it must put on a more spiritual form, 
 and one capable of greater expansiveness. Particu- 
 larly in one point a change was indispensable : a priest- 
 hood propagating itself by natural descent would mani- 
 festly be unfitted for the purposes of a religion, the pro- 
 fessed aim of which is not, like Judaism, to be a train- 
 ing school for one nation only, but to embrace all na- 
 tions within its pale. The transmission therefore must 
 be independent of race or tribe. It is in fact by thus 
 modifying its aspect that Komanism is enabled to in- 
 troduce the ministry of the law into the gospel. The 
 principle of caste is retained ; but it appears under a 
 new form better suited to Christianit}^ The powers 
 which belonged to the sacred office are transmitted 
 only in one line, and in that line they are transmitted 
 independently of any moral qualification on the part of 
 the recipient : only instead of priests by natural, we 
 have priests by spiritual descent, the existing body of 
 bishops possessing the power, in and by the sacra- 
 ment of orders, of spiritually^ generating pastors for the 
 church. As of old, so now, the legitimacy of the min- 
 isterial commission depends exclusively upon the legiti- 
 macy of the external succession, for the want of which 
 no fulness of natural and spiritual endowment can com- 
 pensate. Yet we are not to suppose that no internal 
 grace accompanies the transmission of orders ; that a 
 
78 ECCLESIOLGY. 
 
 priest becomes a priest solely by the visible impo- 
 sition of hands. Some concession must, as regards this 
 point, be made to the general spirit of Christianity, 
 and therefore it is added, that by the sacrament of or- 
 ders, working like all the others ex opere ojMrato, grace 
 is conferred; not, however, sanctifying grace, but the 
 mystical grace of priesthood, grace for the valid per- 
 formance of holy functions, which may exist equally 
 in those who have saving faith in Christ, and in those 
 who have not. Thus a degree of inwardness is im- 
 parted to what otherwise would be as purely external 
 a matter as the succession of Eleazer to Aaron. Fi- 
 nally, as the ancient priests were always priests, no 
 one having it in his power to reverse his natural birth, 
 so the spiritual stamp or impressed character, which is 
 a consequence of ordination, forever distinguishes him 
 who receives it from his brethren in Christ." 
 
 The papal idea of ordination, as thus described, re- 
 ceives no sanction from the word of God ; none from 
 the Old Testament, much less from the New. Under 
 the Old Testament the call of God determined the 
 Avhole matter without the will of man. According to 
 the papists, the will of man determines everything ; for 
 the ^^ intention'' "^ of the officiating bishop or priest de- 
 termines the question, whether the grace belonging to 
 an}^ sacrament shall be actuall}^ conferred or not. The 
 external forms may be strictly canonical ; but who can 
 tell, whether the licentious, cock-fighting, gambling- 
 priest, intends to do the act which the church intends? 
 The notorious want of reverence in papal priests — and 
 the nearer Rome the more notorious the want of rev- 
 erence — makes it very probable that in thousands of 
 instances of apparent baptism, or confirmation, or 
 ordination, the sacrament was a practical jest: meant 
 nothing and did nothing. The current of spiritual 
 electricity met with an obstinate non-conductor, was 
 
 * Concil. Trident, Sess. 7, Can. 11; and Chemnitz's Examen. 
 
Apostolical Succession. 79 
 
 arrested and dissipated. Under the Old Testament, tlie 
 extraordinary providence which was a leading feature 
 of that dispensation, secured the family of Aaron from 
 extinction ; and the genealogical registers secured the 
 people from the imposture of pretenders. In Rome 
 no man can be sure that his priest is not an imposter 
 or intruder. 
 
 Under the Old Testament there Avas no transmission 
 of sacerdotal grace; and although the right of any 
 man to be a priest was easily ascertained, no man's 
 spiritual relations or spiritual state was made to de- 
 pend upon the doings of the priest. The utmost wrong 
 that could be done him was external, affecting his out- 
 ward relations to the church. But these cruel reli- 
 gion-mongers boast that one grand difference between 
 the sacraments of the law and theirs, is, that the latter 
 confer the grace which the former only signify!^ If, 
 therefore, a poor soul goes to a priest who is no priest; 
 or if a true priest does not happen (through ignorance, 
 or malice, or drunkenness, or the spirit of jesting) to 
 intend to do what the church intends, the salvation of 
 that soul is put in extreme jeopardy! How different 
 this hideous and cruel abomination from the merciful 
 spirit of the gospel, which says, "Believe in the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." Blessed be 
 God, who brought our fathers out of this " pitchy clojid 
 of infernal darkness" into the sunlight of divine truth, 
 where we can " hear the bird of morning sing." Right- 
 eous will be our doom if we allow ourselves to be "re- 
 involved" in that cloud again. 
 
 When we compare this doctrine of sacerdotal grace 
 with the teachings of the New Testament, the contra- 
 
 * The Tridentine Catechism says that "the sacraments of the old law 
 were instituted as signs only of those things which were to be accom- 
 plished by the sacraments of the new law." (On the Sacraments.) 
 Let it be remembered that Rome holds that the sacraments not only 
 confer grace, but that nothing can confer it without them, that they 
 are necessary to salvation ; and the statements of the text are f ullj' sus- 
 tained and justified. 
 7 
 
80 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 diction becomes glaring. First'. Neither the term or- 
 ders nor the term ordination ^' occurs in the New Testa- 
 ment. It is a little remarkable that a sacrament should 
 have been instituted without a name and without a re- 
 cord. We find there neither name nor thing. " The 
 word ordination is of all ecclesiastical terms the most 
 purely secular in derivation. The word ordo, from 
 which the Latin verb ordinare is derived, was the tech- 
 nical term for the senate or council to wdiich, in the 
 colonies and municipal towns of the Roman empire, 
 the administration of local affairs was committed, and 
 the members of which were called Decurwnes. The 
 corl-elative, therefore, to the ordo was not the laity as 
 distinguished from the priesthood, but i\\e plebs or pri- 
 vate citizens as distinguished from the magistracy. 
 And in fact, the word ordinare is never used by the 
 classical writers to signify consecration to a sacred of- 
 fice. From the state it passed into the church, whence 
 the frequent use in the early Latin fathers of the word 
 2)lehs, to denote the Christian people or laity, in contrast 
 with the clergy. It is reasonable to suppose that when 
 first introduced its ecclesiastical corresponded to its 
 civil meaning, and that to be ordained, or to be in- 
 vested with ' holy orders,' signified merely to be chosen 
 a member of the governing body or presbytery in a 
 
 * It is hardly necessary to say that we do not refer to the English 
 words ordain or ordination, or to the idea of ordination in the general 
 sense of appointing, constituting {see Titus i. 5) ; but to the ceremony of set- 
 ting apart a man to an ofi&ce or a work. The word ordain occurs again in 
 Acts xiv. 23 in our version, but there the Greek is diiferent, yetjiorovelv^ 
 a verb which afterwards became a technical one in the Greek 
 church to exjDress ordination. But in the only other place where it 
 occurs in the New Testament, 2 Cor. viii. 19, it is rendered by our 
 translators "chosen." Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 3; and this is a meaning, 
 and apparently the chief meaning, assigned to it by Suidas, Hesychius, 
 and Suicer. See Suicer's Thesaurus under the word. No doubt it 
 came to be used of the act of ordaining because the election of officers 
 preceded their ordination— election and ordination constitutiog vo- 
 cation to office. So in the same way yztfioOtaia signified blessing 
 [znAoyia) on account of the benediction which accompanied the lay- 
 ing on of hands in certain cases. See Suicer suh mrh. 
 
Apostolical Succession. 81 
 
 Christian society ; no reference being intended to a 
 specific grade of religious standing supposed to be 
 thereby acquired. To transfer the notions which in 
 later times became connected with 'ordination' into 
 the apostolic age, or the sacred narrative, is the 
 ready way to fall into serious errors of scriptural 
 interpretation." ^ 
 
 Second : This account of the origin of the word falls 
 in with the view of ordination as given in the New 
 Testament. In every free commonwealth citizens are 
 elevated to office because they have, or are supposed 
 to have, a larger measure of the endowments which 
 qualify for office than the bod}^ of their fellow-citizens. 
 They are not elevated to a caste or rank because they 
 possess gifts which have been altogether denied to their 
 fellow-citizens ; nor are they selected out of the mass 
 as persons upon whom certain gifts are to he conferred 
 in order to qualify them for office. t They are not sub- 
 jected to a manipulation by which any indelible char- 
 acter is to be imprinted, or any political grace im- 
 parted. They are simply put into office, with or without 
 solemn ceremonies, by the will of the body in which 
 all political power resides, and to which all the politi- 
 cal gifts and capacities of its members belong. The 
 power resides in the body as to its heing ; in the offi- 
 cers as to its exei'cise.X In the human body the power 
 
 * See Litton's GhuTcli of Christ, p. 567, foot-note. Similar confusion 
 and error have resulted from the like use of the terms heresy and 
 schism^ the scriptural terms differing very widely in signification from 
 the ecclesiastical. The Church of Eome, for example, has been re- 
 markably free from the ecclesiastical sin of schism ; no community has 
 been more guilty of the sin of schism in the scri]Dtural sense. How 
 fatal has been the force and imposture of wo7'ds/ 
 
 t Hence Paul lays down in the pastoral epistles (1 Tim. iii. and Titus 
 i. ) the qualifications (the gifts; which are to guide the electors and the 
 ordainers. The gifts, therefore, already exist before the ordination, and 
 of course cannot be imparted by ordination. This one fact is fatal to 
 the whole theory of orders as held by papists — and their apists. 
 
 X This distinction was expressed in the schools by the terms in primo 
 acta, or quoad esse, and in actu secundo, or quoad operari. 
 
82 EccLESioLoaY. 
 
 of vision may be said to belong, as to its heing, to the 
 body, but as to its actual exercise, to the eye. The body 
 is the principiuni quod, the eye is the princtpimn quo. 
 The body sees, bnt sees by the eye. The life of the 
 body is in every part and organ^ and the life of the 
 body controls the life in every part. The eye sees 
 by the life of the body, and sees under the control 
 of the life of the body, and for the good of the body. 
 The eye represents the body quoad seeing; is in, not 
 over, the body for that purpose. So the commonwealth 
 makes and administers the laws by the organs insti- 
 tuted for that purpose. Its life is in the legislature, in 
 the judiciary, in the executive, for the discharge of 
 their respective functions. The civil officers in these 
 various departments are hi the commonwealth, not over 
 it ; they represent the commonwealth quoad these vari- 
 ous functions, and the functions being performed by 
 the life of the commonwealth are performed for its in- 
 terests. Further, in every such commonwealth there 
 are solemn ceremonies by which the fact of such re- 
 presentation is formally recognized and published ; 
 and when the officer ceases to hold the office and re- 
 linquishes its duties, he ceases to be a representative, 
 and falls back into the mass. 
 
 Now, this is an exact account of what occurs in the 
 church, nmtato nomine, if only we allow for the differ- 
 ence between a free commonwealth which makes a 
 constitution for itself and a free commonwealth which 
 has its constitution made for it by Christ.* It is in 
 substance the view given by Paul in 1 Cor. xii., where 
 
 *Tlie difference liere signalized maj" be made plain by an illustra- 
 tion. The constitution of a free commonwealth is "ordained" and 
 established by the ^' sovereign people'" assembled in convention. The 
 election of persons to till the offices created and defined by the consti- 
 tution belongs to the pjeopjle in a very different sense, in the sense of 
 "constituents." Hence an officer holding the office created by the 
 constitution, or the sovereign people, is responsible to the people in 
 this sense, and not in the sense of his constituency. The old doctrine, 
 therefore, of "instructions" was inconsistent with the very nature of 
 
Apostolical Succession. 83 
 
 his avowed object is to state the relations of gifts in 
 the church to the offices and functions discharged in 
 it. He presents the same view also in Rom. xii. The 
 gifts are given to the church as a body; the life is 
 hers, tlie life of the Holy Ghost ; these gifts are given 
 to be manifested and exercised for the profit of the 
 whole body. The movement is from iv'itJiln outwardly ; 
 the organism effloresces in apostles, prophets, evangel- 
 ists, pastors, teachers, deacons, etc. Compare Eph. 
 iv. 4-16, in which exquisite description of the gifts and 
 calling of the church, the introduction of the idea of 
 priestly caste would be felt to be an intolerable imper- 
 tinence.^ It is plain that the gifts and offices and offi- 
 cers are all given to the church by her glorious Bride- 
 groom; that in the oider of nature, and even of time, 
 she exists before them. She is the end, and tlie}^ are 
 the means. The powers of teaching, ruling, distribut- 
 
 a representative, as Burke told the electors of Bristol. Now, the con- 
 stitutiou of the church comes in no sense from the church. There is 
 no sovereignty but in Christ her head. He ordains and establishes 
 her constitution ; creates her offices ; and her officers, though elected 
 and "ordained" by the church, are not responsible to those who elected 
 them, but to the Head, and to those courts which he has appointed 
 to govern. The rulers in the church are rulers in her, not over her, 
 as Paul hints to the elders at Ephesus. Acts xx. 28 ; in the Greek iu 
 c w, not f'^. The eye is in the bodj^ for seeing, not ove7' it. It is in 
 a hig^t place, much higher than the foot, 'but still it is in the body, as 
 the foot is, and both eye and foot have identically the same life. In 
 Rome, the priesthood is over the body, and has a life of its own, dif- 
 ferent from the life of the laity (or people of God), as the life of a 
 shepherd is different from the life of the sheep whom he governs and 
 shears. We may add, that it follows from the view given above, that 
 both election and ordination, while they express the judgment of the 
 church, express the judgment of the church that Christ, the Head, 
 has called the persons elected and ordained, by giving them the gif-ts 
 of his Spirit. 
 
 * "All office-bearers, and especiall}^ all such as are ordinary and per- 
 petual, are given by Christ to his church ; and the church is not in any 
 conceivable sense given to them. The personal ministry of Christ was 
 surely not utterly barren. He had disciples before he had apostles ; he 
 had many, perhaps multitudes of followers, before the descent of the 
 Holy Ghost had fully anointed the apostles for their office and work ; 
 and we are told that after his resurrection, and before his ascent into 
 
84 ECCLESIOLOGY 
 
 ing, are her powers ; the gifts necessary for the exercise 
 of these powers are her gifts ; the officers through Avhom 
 she exercises them are her officers; they are her eyes 
 and ears and hands and feet. The life is the same in 
 all : there is one spirit as well as one hody. There is 
 no room here for the distinction of clergy and laity (if 
 those terms mean nothing more than the distinction 
 between office-bearers and private members) ; every 
 laic is a clergyman, because he belongs to the inherit- 
 ance of God; and every clergyman is a laic, because 
 he belongs to the people of God. The simple state- 
 ment of Paul is an overwhelming refutation of the pu- 
 trid figment of sacerdotal orders and sacerdotal grace. 
 The officers of the church are simply her representa- 
 tives and organs quoad teaching, ruling, distributing, 
 etc.; and "ordination" is simply a solemn ceremony 
 by which the fact is recognized and authenticated. 
 
 lieaven, He was seen of above tive hundred brethren at once. 1 
 Cor. XV. 6. And of the vast crowds that followed him, and gladly 
 heard him who spake as never man spake, who shall presume to say 
 that multitudes did not believe on him ? To those already united witli 
 him h^ faith, and to his elect throughout the earth and throughout all 
 generations, he gave, after he had singly triumphed over death and 
 hell, the inestimable gift of a living and permanent ministr3\ But he 
 had a church in the world before there was either apostle, or prophet, 
 or evangelist, or pastor, or tercher; and he will have a church around 
 him throughout eternal ages, after all his saints are gathered and per- 
 fected, and whose oracles, ordinances, and ministry shall all have ful- 
 filled their work His bride was equally his undefiled, his only one. 
 before any ordinance was established, or any oracle given, or any 
 ministry constituted, as she is now that we enjoy all these proofs of 
 his care and love ; and if there had never been an office-bearer of the 
 race of Adam given as a servant to minister unto her— if angels had 
 been her only ministers forever, or the divine Spirit had disdained cdl 
 secondary agencies, or were now to reject the whole body of sinful 
 men, who are nothing but as he enables them — still that spotless bride 
 would be the Lamb's wife by a covenant reaching from the depths of 
 eternity, steadfast as the oath of God can make it, and sacred by the 
 bio )d of Jesus with which it is sealed. No, no; there is no lordship, 
 no headship in Christ's church but that of Christ himself ; there are 
 but servants in the church for Christ's sake ; and their Master's rule 
 is this : ' Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant ; 
 he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.' " — R. J. Breck- 
 eiiridgc's Sermon on E%tli. iv. 8. 
 
Apostolical Succession. 85 
 
 Here is no grace transmitted from man to man in a 
 line of priests ove7' the church and ahove it; the propa- 
 gation of a life separate and independent from that of 
 the laity; but the very same grace, gifts, and life in 
 the officers and in the body.^ 
 
 As Christ is the head of the church, is the author of 
 its constitution, and rules in it by his Spirit, no mem- 
 ber of the church can be made an officer except by a 
 call from him, any more than that member could be a 
 member except by his calling. It is Christ who con- 
 fers the gifts which qualify for office, and this is done 
 by the Holy Ghost who dwells in the whole church. 
 It is Christ who creates the office and defines its func- 
 tions and prescribes the qualifications for it. And yet, 
 according to the will of the same Lord and Head, the 
 call to be an officer is not complete without the action 
 of the church, any more than the call to be a member 
 is complete without the action of the church. Hence 
 vocation is both inward and outward ; and the outward 
 consists of election t and ordination. Election is the 
 
 * Since writing the above I have met with a passage in F. W. Krum- 
 macher's autobiography (pages 159-168; which expresses the above 
 views. See particnlarb' pages IGi-'S. 
 
 fThat the people in the ancient chiirch had the right of electing 
 their bishops is so notorious that we are not aware of its being seriously 
 denied by any respectable writer. Hooker {Gh. Polity, B. 7, c. 14)^ 
 after conceding the fact, goes on to vindicate the Church of England 
 in denying this right to her j)eople, upon the ground that changes of 
 this sort must occur in the social development of a people, and appeals 
 to the ciml Imtory of Ronu\ and the changes that took place first in the 
 republic and afterwards in the empire!. What is this but virtually 
 asserting that the church is a natural institution like the state, and 
 that its life is merely natural ? Such a doctrine is natural in the min- 
 ister of a church which was created by the state and is governed by it ; 
 but will be rejected with horror by every one who believes that Christ 
 is the only King in his church, and that her constitution comes from 
 him. The truth is, the dogma of apostolical succession is utterly in- 
 compatible with any election of ministers by the people ; and one or 
 the other must be abandoned. If anybody doubts that bishops were 
 elected by the suffrages of the people in the ancient church, he may 
 have his doubts fully removed by consulting Suicer's Thesaurus Ecde- 
 siasticus, under the words ^ E-ld/.or.o'^^ yetportrAu)^ and yj'.ponrAa. 
 Down to the time of Nicolaus II. , who was made pontiff in 1058, the 
 
86 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 act of the body ; ordination the act of the rulers already 
 existing, who have themselves been chosen in like 
 manner; but both election and ordination are acts of 
 the church, making the j^erson chosen and ordained 
 her representative or organ as to the particular func- 
 tions to be performed. Election and ordination are 
 therefore simply modes in which the divine calling is 
 manifested and ascertained. The Spirit of Christ 
 dwells in the man called, in the congregation electing, 
 in the court ordaining; and when the presence and 
 working of the Spirit is manifested in all these modes, 
 the calling is as complete, and as completely authenti- 
 cated as the present imperfect condition of the church 
 will allow. Ordination imparts no authority, it only 
 recognizes and authenticates it. The solemn ceremo- 
 nies used in the inauguration of a president of the 
 United States do not make him president (that has 
 been already done), but only recognize and authenti- 
 cate the fact. It is not necessary that the oath of 
 office should be administered by the outgoing presi- 
 dent (upon the principle of like begetting like) ; it is 
 sufficient that it be administered by an accredited 
 organ and representative of the commonwealth. 
 
 If this be a just view of the nature of ordination, it 
 follows that ordination is not unreiterable. The occa- 
 sions for a reiteration of the ceremony ma}^ be, and 
 commonly will be, very rare, but there is nothing in 
 the nature of the thing to hinder its being reiterated. 
 Paul and Barnabas were separated for the special work 
 
 people of Rome still took part in electing the bishop of Rome. Nico- 
 lans ordered that the cardinal bishops and the cardinal presbyters 
 should elect the pontiff ; yet without infringing the estabhshed rights 
 of the Roman [German] emperors in this business. At the same time 
 he did not exclude the rest of the clergy, nor the citizens and people 
 from all part in the election; for he required that the assent of all 
 these should be asked and obtained. It was not until the reign of 
 Alexander III., more than a century afterwards, that the election of 
 the pope was given exclusively to the college of cardinals. MosJieim, 
 Vol II. p 233. So long did this relic of the primitive doctrine linger 
 after the ministry had been converted into a priesthood ! 
 
Apostolical Succession. 87 
 
 to which the Holy Ghost had called them, by prayer 
 and fasting, and the laying on of the hands of the 
 Presbytery at Antioch. And yet Barnabas had been a 
 distinguished teacher before in that very church, and 
 Saul had been made "a chosen vessel to bear the 
 name of Christ before kings, and the Gentiles, and the 
 people of Israel," some time, according to some chro- 
 nologers many years, before. If it be said that this 
 was not a case of " ordination," of setting apart to an 
 office, but only of setting apart to a special work ; we 
 answer, show us an instance of any separation to an 
 office as contradistinguished from a work in the New 
 Testament. If John xx. 22, 23, be adduced as an in- 
 stance, we answer that this was an ordination by the 
 Lord himself, and not by the church. It is true that 
 Rome directs the bishop in the consecration of a priest 
 to say, "Receive the Holy Ghost;" and the Episcopal 
 church imitates Rome in one of its forms in the " or- 
 daining of priests" (at the same time mercifully pro- 
 posing another form for men whose consciences are too 
 tender to allow them to use the first) ; but this is done 
 without any warrant from Christ, and, as it appears 
 to us, is near akin to blasphemy. We hold that the 
 ordination of the apostles was extraordinary, as their 
 office was extraordinary ; and yet here is a case of the 
 greatest of all the apostles having the hands of the or- 
 dinary teachers in Antioch laid upon him. He takes 
 his place along with Barnabas, Stephen the deacon, 
 Timothy the evangelist or bishop, or legate a latere, 
 or whatever he was ; Barnabas the teacher ; Saul the 
 apostle ; all alike had hands laid on them, and were 
 commended to the Lord for the v:joTh which he had 
 for them to do. And if any of these illustrious men 
 had quit their work and gone to money-making, and 
 then returned to their work again, there could be no 
 good reason why the hands of the Presbytery should 
 not have been laid upon tliem again. Or if Timothy 
 had become a pastor of a congregation, there was no 
 
88 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 reason why he should not have been commended to the 
 Lord to that new work, by prayer, fasting, and the im- 
 position of hands. These things constitute the cere- 
 monies of ordination ; and Saul and Barnabas, who had 
 been preaching for years, had these things done to 
 them. Call it ordination or anything you please, it was 
 a solemn act of obedience to the Holy Ghost, recogniz- 
 ing his sovereign will in the choice of these men for a 
 particular ecclesiastical work of preaching and ruling. 
 And if there be anything more in " ordination" than 
 this, we have been unable to find it. 
 
 Again, according to Eome, the bishop alone has the 
 power to communicate this mysterious sacerdotal grace 
 in orders. Now the New Testament knows nothing of 
 the bishop as different in rank or order from the pres- 
 byter or priest. The papal bishop is a pure invention 
 of man or— the devil. The sacrament of orders there- 
 fore falls to the ground, being founded on the bishop. 
 
 Once more. There is no instance in the New Testa- 
 ment, in which the act of ordaining was performed by 
 one man. The college of apostles ordained the dea- 
 cons ; the prophets and teachers laid hands on Bar- 
 nabas and Saul; the Presbytery laid hands on Timo- 
 thy. No doubt the apostles and evangelists did some- 
 times appoint or ordain elders, acting singly, when 
 there was no existing presbytery to do the act. But 
 the record makes it very clear that they preferred the 
 other method where it was practicable ; just as in 
 other acts of government, the apostles, though compe- 
 tent to act each one by himself, preferred, when prac- 
 ticable, to act jointly, or as an assembly. They did 
 this, no doubt, to indicate the mode in which Christ 
 would have his church to be governed in all time, "by 
 the common counsel of the presbyters," to use Jerome's 
 expression. 
 
 The papists sometimes condescend to quote the 
 Scriptures in proof of their peculiar doctrines. Their 
 quotations generally have as little to do in fact 
 
Apostolical Succession. 89 
 
 with their doctrines as the passage cited by a simple 
 monk in proof of the scripturalness of the two orders 
 of clergy, the regular and the secular, — "the oxen were 
 ploughing and the asses feeding beside them." But 
 they find a passage (2 Tim. i. 6) which looks as if it 
 might support their doctrine of ordination ; for here 
 is ordination by one man, and the imparting of a gift 
 by the imposition of his hands. Upon this passage 
 we observe, (a), That if this was a case of ordination, 
 then it was either the same with that mentioned in 1 
 Tim. iv. 14, or a different one. If it wgis a differe)it 
 case, then Timothy was ordained at least tioiee ; and 
 what becomes of the indelible character, and the doc- 
 trine of the unreiterability of ordination ? If it was 
 the sa')ne case, then what becomes of ordination by 
 bishops alone (for the ordination here was by presby- 
 ters)? Or if the Presbytery consisted of prelates, 
 what becomes of the plenary authority of the apostle- 
 Paul? Was not his ordination sufficient to make 
 Timothy a presbyter,. or an evangelist, or even a pre- 
 latical bishop ? If it is said that Paul condescended 
 to be a bishop for the nonce ; we answer that he might 
 have condescended still further (as his brother Peter 
 did, 1 Pet. V. 1), to be a fellow-presbyter with his 
 brethren, and act for and with them in the presbytery 
 in laying hands on Timothy. This, we have little 
 doubt, is what actually occurred. (/>), The gift that 
 Timothy received by the laying on of the hands of 
 Paul and the presbyter}^ was the gift described by Paul 
 in Eph. iii. 7, 8, as having been given to himself (per- 
 haps by the laying on of the hands of the layman 
 Ananias, Acts ix. 17-20). That it was no indelible 
 character is evident from the fact that Timothy is ex- 
 horted to " stir it up " ; Paul uses a word which implies 
 that the gift had descended like fire from heaven ; but 
 that it was to be kept from going out, and to be in- 
 creased by Timothy's care. It was a gift which mani- 
 fested itself in "reading, exhortation, teaching" (see 
 
90 EcCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 1 Tim. iv. 13) ; was capable of being improved by 
 these exercises, as well as by the " meditation " which 
 was needful to perform them (vs. 15) ; and a gift in 
 which " his profiting might appear nnto all." None of 
 these things can be affirmed of the sacerdotal grace of 
 the papist. It exists alike in the laziest and most dil- 
 igent, in the vilest and the purest, in a Leo the Great 
 and a Leo the Tenth. Whatever, therefore, this mys- 
 tic grace may be, it is certainly a different thing from 
 Paul's gift, or Timothy's. The " character " in Paul 
 or Timothy would certainly have been "deleted" by a 
 tenth or hundredth part of the wickedness which failed 
 to delete it in John XXII. , or Alexander YI. 
 
 Having thus said what we proposed to say upon the 
 papal doctrine of succession in the light of the Scrip- 
 tures, we proceed to consider it in the light of history 
 and of the conditions of the doctrine itself. These 
 two views of the subject we combine, as the history 
 will show that the doctrine as stated by the papists 
 cuts its own throat, and if that we are to believe it, we 
 must first abnegate our own reason. There is good 
 reason why these people do not like an appeal to 
 reason. We are very apt to be against that which we 
 feel to be against us. 
 
 1. There is no such doctrine of succession as that 
 of the Trent Council to be found in the first three cen- 
 turies of the Church : we mean a doctrine involving a 
 priesthood perpetuated by a process independent of 
 the Christian people. Even the high-churchman 
 Cjprian, in the middle of the third century, whose ex-- 
 travagant language concerning the priesthood and the 
 episcopate, prelatists quote much oftener and with 
 vastly more relish than they ever quote Peter or Paul, 
 did not venture to deny the right of the people to have 
 something to say in the creation of bishops and priests. 
 The succession of the early fathers was a succession of 
 doctrine, not of persons,"^ except so far as persons were 
 
 * See Gerhard's Loc. Theology, Loc. 23, Chap. XL Sec. 5, cxcii., 
 
Apostolical Succession. 91 
 
 involved in the doctrinal succession. They seem to 
 have been led to assert sncli a succession by a claim 
 of this sort made by the heretics, who, finding the 
 writings of the apostles against them, pretended to 
 have a tradition of the apostles in their favor. Thus 
 TertuUian, in his book De 2yrce8cr'qjt(0}iihuii adversus 
 hcereticos, urges the true succession against the false.'" 
 *' Let them parade the origins of their churches, let them 
 unroll the series of their bishops, so coming down by 
 succession from the beginning, that the first bisiiop had 
 some one of the apostles, or a disciple of the apostles, 
 as his ordainer and predecessor. Let the heretics in- 
 vent a figment of this sort, yet it will profit them no- 
 thing ; for their very doctrine will convict them, when 
 compared with the doctrine of the apostles, by its di- 
 versity and contrariety; for as the apostles did not 
 teach contrary to one another, so apostolic men would 
 not have taught contrary to the apostles." Tertullian's 
 idea of the succession was not at all that of a priest- 
 hood whose function it w^as to offer sacrifice and pro- 
 nounce authoritative absolution ; but the succession of 
 men in certain churcJies which, having been founded 
 by the apostles or by their disciples, were called 
 "sedes apostolicae," or sees of the apostles, and were 
 supposed to have a prescriptive right to say what the 
 apostolical teaching really was. 
 
 This was indeed a very unsafe rule. It was not the 
 rule given in the Scriptures. Tlie spirits ought to have 
 been tried by the Holy Spirit speaking in his word, 
 and specially by the great fundamental doctrines of the 
 word, as prescribed by John in his First Epistle, chap, 
 iv. ; but this rule was not deemed sufficiently easy, and 
 yet it seems easy enough. " Who>soever transgresseth, 
 and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath no God. 
 If there come any unto you, and hring not this doctrine, 
 
 Vol. XI. p. 297, ff. Note particularly the quotations from the Fathers 
 in cxciii. and ff. 
 
 * TertuUian, deprees. adv. haeretic. apud. Turretin, L. 18, Q. 13. 
 8 
 
92 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 receive liim not into your bouse, neither bid him God- 
 speed." (2 John ix. 10.) But men were wiser than 
 God, and in order to extinguish heresy and prevent 
 schism, invented the CathoHc doctrine and made com- 
 munion with the bishop the mark of orthodoxy. But 
 in the whole business the truth was the thing aimed 
 at, not sacramental grace or sacramental salvation. 
 They inverted the proper order, and instead of judging 
 the man or the church by the faith, they judged the 
 faith by the man or the church. The results of this 
 inversion have been deplorable; but these ancient 
 worthies ought to be acquitted of the sin and silliness 
 involved in the modern doctrine of the succession. 
 
 That this view of the position of the ancient church 
 is the true one, is evident from the Donatist contro- 
 versy. It is well known that there was no difference be- 
 tween the Donatists and " the church," either in faith 
 or order. Both were orthodox ; both were episcopal. 
 There was no question made hy the church, whether 
 the Donatist communion was a church, a part of the 
 church visible on earth. Members coming to the church 
 from the Donatists were not re-baptized; biit more 
 than this, ministers coming from them to the church 
 were not reordained. Not only was this the case in the 
 early stages of the great controversy, but even as late 
 as the conference at Carthage, just one century from 
 the death of Mensurius, which was the original occa- 
 sion of the strife, the Catholics offered to acknowledge 
 the bishops of the Donatists. Even the Synod of Eome 
 offered to hold communion with them.^^ The Catholic 
 
 * See these positions fully established by Claude in his Defence of 
 the Reformation, p. 3, chap. 4. Chillingworth takes the same view of 
 this controversy. He quotes from an epistle of Augustine these words : 
 " You (the Donatists) are with us in baptism, in the creed, and the 
 other sacraments" ; and again: ''Thou hast proved to me that thou 
 hast faith ; prove to me likewise that thou hast charity." Parallel to 
 which words are those of Optatus : "Amongst us and you is one ec- 
 clesiastical conversation, common lessons, the same faith, thB same 
 sacraments. " Where, by the way, we may observe, that in the judg- 
 
Apostolical Succession. 93 
 
 Church in fact stood on the defensive in this whole war, 
 
 as any man can see by simply glancing over the writ- 
 ings of Augustine against the Donatists / it was simply 
 defending its own right to be a church against a nar- 
 row-minded and fanatical sect which claimed to be the 
 only church in the world ; it was occupying exactly the 
 position in reference to the Donatists which ice now oc- 
 cupy towards Rome and its imitators. The Catholics 
 of that day had sense and charity enough not to follow 
 the example of the Donatists, and unchurch all other 
 communions but their own. It is very evident that they 
 did not have, or did not know that they had, the apos- 
 tolical succession. Otherwise, the argument would 
 have been short, sharp and decisive. In that case the 
 church which had defied the power of the Roman em- 
 perors for three hundred years, might have been saved 
 the disgrace of invoking the authority of the emperors to 
 decide the controversy by arbitration and by the sword. 
 
 ment of these fathers, even Donatists, though heretics and schismat- 
 ics, gave true ordination, the true sacrament of matrimony, the sacra- 
 mental absolution, confirmation, the true sacrament of the eucharist, 
 true extreme unction ; or else (choose yen whether) some of these were 
 not then esteemed sacraments. But for ordination, whether he 
 (Augustine) held it a sacrament or no, certainly he held that it re- 
 mained with them entire ; for so he says in express terms in his book 
 against Parmenianus's Epistle. Which doctrine, if you can reconcile 
 with the present doctrine of the Eoman church, eris mihi magnus 
 Apollo." (Ghillingworth's Works, p. 506, 507of Phila. Ed., 1840.) 
 
 The learned Witsius (De Schism. Donatistarum, Chap. 7) says that he 
 had read, "nonsine magno tcedio,'" the Breviculwn of Augustine and 
 the Acts of the Conference of Carthage (A. D. 411), and gives this as 
 the main question disputed between the two hundred and eighty-six 
 Catholic bishops and the two hundred and seventy-nine Donatist 
 bishops assembled at the conference (held, be it remembered, a 
 century after the breaking out of the schism), viz.: "Whether the 
 church which held communion with C^ecilian, the Traditor, had 
 not thereby lost the dignity and privileges of a church ? The contro- 
 versy, therefore, was two-fold : 1, First, of fact ; whether C. was a 
 traditor, and on that account unworthy of the episcopate ? 2, Second, 
 of late ; whether a church is so vitiated by an admixture of the wicked, 
 as to cease to be a church?" This is a very different question from 
 that which would have been discussed, if they had been disputing 
 about the succession. It was indeed the same question which was af- 
 terwards debated between the Anabaptists and their antagonists, both 
 Romanist and Protestant. 
 
94 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 2. The papists are. in the habit of imposing upon 
 people, by saying that the salvation of Protestants, like 
 their faith, rests upon fallible and uncertain grounds, 
 and that certainty can be found only within their 
 pale. Now, not to say that this assertion comes with a 
 bad grace from a community which teaches in its creed 
 that no man can be certain of his salvation in this life ; 
 it has been shown, over and over again, that their own 
 doctrine of the priesthood and the sacraments makes it 
 impossible for an}^ man to know that he has ever been 
 truly absolved from his sins ; and this because of the 
 uncertainty of the succession as a fact. That the sac- 
 rament of penance has ever been duly administered to 
 him, depends upon the minister's being a true priest. 
 " That such or such man is a priest," says Chillingworth, 
 " not himself, much less uny other, can have any possi- 
 ble certainty ; for it depends upon a great many con- 
 tingent and uncertain supposals. He that will pretend 
 to be certain of it, must undertake to know for certain 
 all these things that follow : 
 
 '^ I^rrst, that he was baptized with due matter. 
 Secondly^ with the due form of words, which he can- 
 not know, unless he were both present and attentive. 
 Thirdly, he must know that he was baptized with due 
 intention," and that is, that the minister of his baptism 
 was not a secret Jew, nor a Moor, nor an atheist (of all 
 which kinds, I fear, experience gives you a just cause 
 to fear that Italy and Spain have priests not a few), 
 but a Christian, in heart as well as profession (other- 
 wise, believingthe sacrament to be nothing, in giving 
 it he could intend to give nothing), nor a Samosatanian, 
 nor an Arian, but one that w^as capable of having due 
 intention, from which they that believe not the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity are excluded by you. And lastly, 
 that he was neither drunk nor distracted at the admin- 
 istration of the sacrajnent, nor, out of negligence or 
 
 * See tlie speech in the Council of Trent, of Catharine, bishop of Mi- 
 nori, in F. Paolo's Hist. (Courayer's French Trans. ), Vol. I. pp. 441-'2. 
 
Apostolical Succession. 95 
 
 malice, omitted liis intention. Fourthly, lie must un- 
 dertake to know that the bishop which ordained him 
 priest ordained him completely, with due matter, form, 
 and intention ; and, consequently, that he again was 
 neither Jew, Moor, nor atheist, nor liable to any such 
 exception as is inconsistent with due intention of giving 
 the sacrament of orders. Fifthly, he must undertake to 
 know that the bishop which made him priest was a 
 priest himself ; for your rule is nihil d<d quod noii 
 hahet ; and, consequently, that there were again none of 
 the former nullities in his baptism, which might make 
 him incapable of ordination, nor any invalidity in his 
 ordination, but a true priest, to ordain him again, the 
 requisite matter and form and due intention all con- 
 curring. Lastly, he must pretend to know the same of 
 him that made him priest, and him that made him 
 priest even until he comes to the very fountain of 
 priesthood. For, take any one in the Avhole train and 
 succession of ordainers, and suppose him, by reason 
 of any defect, only a supposed and not a true priest, 
 then, according to your doctrine, he could not give a 
 true, but only a supposed priesthood ; and they that re- 
 ceive it of him, and again they that derive it from 
 them, can give no better than they received ; receiving 
 nothing but a name and shadow, can give nothing but 
 a name and shadow ; and so from age to age, from gen- 
 eration to generation, being equivocal fathers beget 
 only equivocal sons; no principle in geometry being 
 more certain than this, that the unsuppliable defect of 
 any necessary antecedent, must needs cause a nullity 
 of all those consequences which depend upon it. In 
 fine, to know this one thing, you must first know ten 
 thousand others, whereof not any one is a thing that 
 can be known, there being no necessity that it should 
 be true, which necessity alone can qualify any thing to 
 be an object of science, but only, at the best, a high 
 degree of probability that it is so. But then, that of 
 ten thousand probables no one should be false ; that 
 
96 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 of ten thousand requisites, whereof any one may fail, 
 not one should be wanting ; this to me is extremely im- 
 probable, and even cousin-german to impossible. So 
 that the assurance hereof is like a machine composed 
 of an innumerable multitude, of pieces, of which it is 
 strangely unlikely, but some will be out of order, and 
 yet if any one be so, the whole fabric of necessity falls 
 to the ground ; and he that shall put them together, 
 and maturely consider all the possible ways of lapsing 
 and nullifying a priesthood in the church of Rome, I 
 believe will be very inclinable to think, that it is a hun- 
 dred to one, that amongst a hundred seeming priests, 
 there is not one true one — nay, that it is not a thing 
 very improbable, that amongst those many millions 
 which make up the Roman hierarchy, there are not 
 twenty true." (ChillingwortJi s Woi'k^, p. 130-'2; Hook- 
 er, Phila., 1840.) 
 
 "Whether," says Macaulay in his review of Glad- 
 stone's ''Church and State'" {Mhcellanies, Yol. III. p. 
 300), "a clergyman be reallj^ a successor of the apos- 
 tles depends on an immense number of such contin- 
 gencies as these: Whether under King Ethelwolf, a 
 stupid priest might not, while baptizing several scores 
 of Danish prisoners, who had just made their option be- 
 tween the font and the gallows, inadvertently omit to per- 
 form the rite on one of these graceless proselytes? — 
 whether, in the seventh century, an impostor, who had 
 never received consecration, might not have passed him- 
 self off as a bishop on a rude tribe of Scots ? — whether 
 a lad of twelve did reall}^, by a ceremony huddled over 
 Avhen he was too drunk to know what he was about, 
 convey the episcopal character to a lad of ten?" 
 
 Mr. Gladstone proposes to remove doubts which 
 may arise from the historic difficulties against the doc- 
 trine of succession, by nothing else than mathematical 
 evidence. "By a novel application of the theory of 
 ratios and proportion, he endeavors to show that, on 
 the least favorable computation, the chances for the 
 
Apostolical Succession. 97 
 
 true consecration of any bishop are 8,000 to 1. . . . 
 Be it so ; this only diminishes the probability that, in 
 any given case, the suspicion of invalidity is un- 
 founded. What is wanted is a criterion which shall 
 distinguish the genuine orders from the i-purious. Alas ! 
 who knows but he may be the unhappy eighth-thou- 
 sandth ? According to this theory, no man in the 
 Roman or Anglican communion has a right to say that 
 he is commissioned to preach the gospel, but only 
 that he has seven thousand nine hundred and ninety- 
 nine eight-thousandth parts of certainty that he is! 
 A felicitous mode of expression, it must be confessed. 
 What would be the fraction for expressing the ratio of 
 probability, on the supposition that simony, heresy, or 
 infidelity, can invalidate holy orders is, considering the 
 history of the middle ages, far beyond our arithmetic."" 
 "We can imagine," says the same lively writer, "the 
 perplexity of a presbyter thus cast in doubt as to- 
 whether or not he has ever had the invaluable ' gift ' 
 of apostolical succession conferred upon him. As that 
 gift is neither tangible nor visible, the subject neither 
 of experience nor consciousness, as it cannot be 
 known by any 'effects' produced by it, he may 
 imagine — unhappy man! — that he has been 'regener- 
 ating' infants by baptism, when he has been simply 
 sprinkling them with water. ' What is the matter ? ' 
 the spectator of his distractions might ask. 'What 
 have you lost ? ' ' Lost ! ' would be the reply, ' I fear 
 I have lost my apostolical succession ; or rather, my 
 misery is, that I do not know and cannot tell whether 
 I ever had it to lose.' It is of no use here to suggest 
 the usual questions, ' When did you see it last ? When 
 were you last conscious of possessing it? What a pe- 
 culiar property is that of which, though so invaluable, 
 nay, on which the whole efficacy of the Christian min- 
 istry depends, a man has no positive evidence to show 
 whether he ever had it or not ! which, if ever conferred, 
 
 * Edinburgh Bemew, for April, 1843,^P. 271. Amer. Keprint. 
 
98 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 was conferred without his knowledge; and which, if it 
 could be taken away, would still leave him ignorant, 
 not onl}' when, where, and how the theft was com- 
 mitted, but whether it had ever been committed or not! 
 The sympathizing friend might probably remind him, 
 that as he was not sure he had eA^er had it, so perhaps 
 he still had it without knowing it. ^Perhaps !' he 
 would reply, 'but it is certainty I want.' 'Well,' it 
 might be said, 'Mr. Gladstone assures you, that, on 
 the most moderate computation, your chances nre as 
 8,000 to 1 that you have it.' 'Pish!' the distracted 
 man would exclaim, 'What does Mr. Gladstone know 
 about the matter? ' And truh' to thttt query we know 
 not well what answer the friend could make." 
 
 It thus appears that there is no historical evidence 
 for the succession ; and that no man can be certain 
 that he is a presbyter or priest upon this theory. This 
 baseless theory is that upon which wretched men, tra- 
 velling to the bar of God and the retributions of eter- 
 nity, are invited to rest their hope of salvation, instead 
 of resting it upon Jesus Christ, the Saviour of sinners, 
 freely offered to them in the gospel! Blessed is he 
 who can say, in spite of all the cavilling of Pharisees, 
 cavilling about the uncanonical method of his salva- 
 tion : " One thing I know, that whereas I was blind, 
 noAv I see!" Blessed is he who gets his healing di- 
 rectly from the Great Physician, without the manipu- 
 lations of those who sit, or imagine that they sit, in 
 Moses' seat! No Avonder that the world is infidel when 
 sxicJi a doctrine, without CA-idence and against all evi- 
 dence, is preached to them. A man must denude him- 
 self of his rational nature before he can believe it. 
 
 The doctrine AA^as invented, not for the glorifying of 
 Christ, but for the glorifying of the clergy. Great is 
 the contrast between the apostles and their pretended 
 successors. "The former are intent, almost exclusiA^ely 
 intent, on those great themes which render the gospel 
 'glad tidings;' the latter, almost as exclusively, in 
 
Apostolical Succession. 99 
 
 magnifying their office. The former absolutely forget 
 themselves in their flocks ; the latter well nigh forget 
 their flocks in themselves. The former, if they touch 
 on the clerical office at all, are principally intent on its 
 spiritual qualifications and duties; the latter, on its 
 prerogatives and powers. To hear these men talk, 
 one would imagine that, by a similar 'jazsnou rrffOTspov, 
 with that of the simple-minded monk who 'devoutly 
 thanked God that in his wisdom he had always placed 
 large rivers near large towns,' they supposed the church 
 of Christ to be created for the sole use of the clergy ; 
 and the doctrine of ' apostolical succession ' to be the 
 Jl?ial cause of Christianity." — EdhiTmrgli Review, April, 
 1843, page 292. 
 
 The whole system to which this doctrine belongs is 
 a substitute for Christianity, whose chief glory is its 
 spiritual and moral character. It substitutes "for a 
 worship founded on intelhgent faith, a devotion which* 
 . is a species of mechanism, and rites which operate as 
 by magic. The doctrine of apostolical succession itself 
 is^ neither more nor less respectable than that of the 
 hereditary sanctity of the Brahminical caste ; while the 
 prayer-mills of the Tartars aflbrd a fair illustration 
 of the doctrine of sacramental efficacy." It is sheer 
 heathenism. 
 
 What is Christianity if it be not a method of salva- 
 tion through Jesus Christ, to be received through faith ? 
 Justification by faith alone is its fundamental arti- 
 cle; the ''articuliis staatis cmt cadentis ecdeske.'" What 
 is heathenism but the attempt to appease an angry 
 God by human works, or by human ordinances effica- 
 cious ex opere operato f The system to which the apos- 
 tolical succession belongs can never consist with 
 the doctrine of justification by faith alone in Jesus 
 Christ. The preaching of this latter doctrine led Luther 
 necessarily to a rejection of the papal theory of the 
 church and the priesthood; and it was because the 
 papal priests saw that their craft was in danger from 
 
100 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 the preacliing of this doctrine that thej set themselves 
 so resokitelj to overthrow it. If a sinner can lay hold 
 on Christ freely offered to him in the gospel, and ob- 
 tain the forgiveness of sins and acceptance with God ; 
 if he can have immediate access to Christ, the great 
 High Priest over the house of God, and can "draw 
 near with a true heart in full assurance of faith," what 
 need for an earthly priesthood and its sacramental 
 magic ? Ilhic illce lacrymce. The priests had no tears 
 to shed over the damage done to holiness by the doc- 
 trine of the reformers. They would have been " croco- 
 dile tears," indeed, if shed by such men, men who had 
 become notorious and infamous all over Europe for 
 their immorality.^^ No! they knew that their power 
 over men's souls, bodies, and estates was gone, if this 
 doctrine came to be believed. 
 
 We add something on the doctrine of succession as 
 held by some in the church of England, and in the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in America. 1. If these 
 peoj^le have any "succession," they have derived it 
 from the Church of Rome; and as the succession in 
 Rome has been shown to be a grand imposture, from 
 the Scriptures, reason and history, and Rome, could 
 give no better orders than she had herself — of course 
 the succession in the Church of England is an impos- 
 ture also. 2. The imposture is not grand in the last 
 case, for the simple reason that all that makes the fig- 
 
 * As to the moral complexion of papal couucils, and especially of tlie 
 Council of Trent, the following words of a nervous writer, who was a 
 perfect master of the papal history, cannot be considered too strong : 
 "Beleaguered by strumpets, beset with fiddlers and buffoons, cursing 
 God's truth, and leaving tracks strewed with bastards and dead men's 
 bones! ^o^^ councils ; and above all, that of Trent! Which, by the 
 amazing wrath of God, cursed with judicial blindness and seared con- 
 sciences, did gather into one vast monument those scattered proofs 
 which covered the long track of ages, and those errors and corruptions 
 bred in the slime and filth of the whole apostasy; and reared them up, 
 with patient and laborious vice, through eighteen years of God's long- 
 suffering, the final landmark, the last limit of his endurance with this 
 great, bloody, and drunken Babylon. " — Spirit of the Nineteenth Cen- 
 tury, 1842, page 254. 
 
Apostolical Succession. 101 
 
 ment worth asserting or defending has been given up, 
 to wit, the priestly character and the sacrifice. It is 
 the play of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet left out. 
 Without the assertion of some sacramental virtue im- 
 parted by the bishop's hands to the presbyter, and 
 some sacramental virtue imparted by the priests' ma- 
 nipulations to the laity, the pretence to the apostolical 
 succession is of all pretences the emptiest and the 
 silliest. Hence we find that a revival of zeal for this 
 dogma is generally followed very soon by the doctrine 
 of sacramental grace. There is a necessarj^ connection 
 between the two, and they cannot long be separated. 
 
 3. We may be excused from believing the doctrine as 
 held by Anglicans and their American imitators, so 
 long as they show so little faith in it themselves. If 
 they believed it, they could not help seeing that they 
 are what Rome pronounces them to be, schismatics^ 
 and in no better condition than us poor ." Dissenters." ' 
 Let them show their faith by their works, and we 
 shall be more disposed to consider their pretensions. 
 
 4. The advocates of this dogma in the Church of Eng- 
 land would do well to prove that the church they be- 
 long to is a church at all. According to Rome, a 
 bishop who is made so by the appointment of the chnl 
 magutrate has a very doubtful claim to the title. In 
 the thoroughly Erastian establishment of England, the 
 whole constitution of the church is the work of the 
 state, and the people even pray by " Act of Parlia- 
 ment." The sacramental virtue, which makes bishops 
 and priests, comes at the suggestion, at least, of the 
 civil ministry. This accounts for the total absence of 
 discipline in that church. It is exceedingly difficult, 
 if not impossible, to get rid of a bishop who avows 
 himself an infidel. It is not a very broad caricature 
 of the "Comedy of Convocation," to represent that 
 venerable body as debating the question, Avhether a 
 member of the Church of England may deny the ex- 
 istence of God without losing his standing as a mem- 
 
102 EcCLESrOLOGY. 
 
 ber. 5. This doctrine is not tauglit in the formularies 
 of the Church of England; nor is it held by very many 
 of her best ministers and her highest ornaments. Chil- 
 lingworth certainly did not hold it, and yet he had for 
 his " God-father," no less a man than William Laud, 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, by whose influence, in 
 great measure, the strayed son was brought back from 
 the fold of Kome into the Church of England again. 
 Bishop Butler, we imagine, did not hold it. It wo aid 
 have been odd, indeed, if such a thinker as the author 
 of the "Analogy " had believed such a conglomeration 
 of absurdities ; more especially as he had been baptized 
 and brought up in a Presbyterian fold. Archbishop 
 Whately not only did not believe it, but showed clearly, 
 in his Esnays on the Kingdom, of Christ, that the thing 
 is absurd. " There is not," says he, " in all Christen- 
 dom a minister who is able to trace up, with any ap- 
 proach to certainty his own spiritual pedigree." The 
 fathers and founders of the Church of England did 
 not believe it, as has been proved against the writers 
 of the Oxford Tracts.* How could men believe it, who 
 had so clear a view of the ordy priesthood and the 
 only sacrifice of Christ? — men, who were asking the 
 advice, continually, of Calvin and other Presbyterians 
 of the Continent ? No ! the really great men of the 
 Anglican Church, whose woi^th was real and conspic- 
 ux)us, had no need of insisting upon a sacramental 
 virtue Avhich is invisible, intangible, inoperative, mani- 
 festing itself to no power of perception, either of the 
 body or mind; which, if a man has, he is none the 
 better; which, if he has not, he is none the worse. t 
 
 *See in the Presbyterian Bevietc for January, 1886, testimonies and 
 references to to show that, down to the time of Charles I. and Laud, 
 Presbyterian ordination was considered valid in the church of Eng- 
 land. (Pp. 119-'20 of the above number of the Bemew.) 
 
 tSee Princeton Beviein for 1842, pp. 139, et seq. 
 
Is THE Church of Kome a True Church ? 103 
 
 Is the Church of Rome a True Church of Christ? 
 
 [Turretin, L. 18, q. 14 ; Thorn^Yelrs Writings, III. pp. 283 ff. ; Conf. of 
 Faith, Chapter XXV.] 
 
 1. State of tlie question : Not whether the church of 
 Rome of the apostle's time, nor of the second, third, or 
 fourth century, but the church of Rome since the 
 Trent Council, is a church of Christ. Nor is it about the 
 church of Rome generally considered, as contradistin- 
 guished from Mohammedanism, Judaism, Paganism, but 
 particularly as subject to the pope as the head thereof. 
 
 2. Proofs that it is not a church of Christ : (1), From 
 the design of the visible church, which is to glorify 
 God in the ingathering and upbuilding of the elect. 
 Any church whose constitution is such, or ^vhose ad- 
 ministration is such that the tendency, on the whole, is 
 not to save men, but to destroy them, is not a church 
 of Christ. This is conceded virtually by Rome her- 
 self, in insisting, as she does, that there is no possi- 
 bility of salvation out of her communion, because she 
 is the only true church. Is, then, the prevailing ten- 
 dency of Rome and her ordinances a tendency to sal- 
 vation ? I say prevailing tendency. Men may be con- 
 verted within her pale, no doubt ; and men may be 
 converted in an infidel club, or in a theatre, or in a cir- 
 cle of boon companions ; but in spite of the tenden- 
 cies, as is evident from the fact that, as soon as they 
 are born again, the atmosphere of such society" becomes 
 stifling to their new life, and they quit it as soon as 
 possible. " Come out of her, my people," etc. Now, 
 that the tendency of Rome is not saving, but damning, 
 is evident from the fact that she has not " the minis- 
 try, oracles, and ordinances" which God has given to 
 the church visible for this end. Of these in their order : 
 
 («), Ministry. Contrast the hierarchy with the offi- 
 cers of the apostolic church. The people disfranchised 
 and ground to pieces by the great iron wheel. The 
 names they have retained, those of bishop, presbyter, 
 9 
 
104 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 and deacon, but how totally diiferent the nature of the 
 offices. Neither bishop nor presbyter is a preacher of 
 the gospel, but a priest ; and, when consecrated, the 
 priest has given to him, not a Bible as the symbol of 
 his office, but the cup and paten, with authority to 
 offer sacrifice, and that, too, sacrifice of the body and 
 blood of the Son of God, for the sins of the living and 
 the dead : thus exercising an office totally different 
 from that of the minister of the word, whose commision 
 was, " Go ye into all the world and preach the glad tid- 
 ings," etc. The minister is no priest in the literal sense, 
 for Christ is the only priest ; he is not the only priest 
 in the tropical sense, for all God's people are priests, 
 a royal priesthood. The Roman priesthood, therefore, 
 is at once the denial of the priesthood, both of Christ 
 and of his people. The bishops are no spiritual rulers, 
 chosen of God, through the voice of the people, and 
 administering the law of Christ, but the tools of a des- 
 potism which consults only the demands of the lusts of 
 power and gold, and using heaven and hell as the 
 sanctions of their anti-christian tyranny. To crown 
 all, the pope is antichrist, setting himself in the place 
 of Christ (and therefore against him), as prophet, priest 
 and king, and head over all things to the body, the 
 church — lording it over God's heritage, instead of be- 
 ing a helper of their joy. Even the ambitious Pontiff", 
 Gregory I., in the close of the sixth century, pro- 
 nounced the claim to be universal bishop blasphem- 
 ous, infamous and a mark of antichrist. 
 
 (b). Grades. This includes not only the Rule of 
 Faith, but the authorized and current interpretation of 
 the rule. Under this head observe, («), That she has 
 added to the rule Avhich God has given ; (Z*), That in the 
 interpretation of the rule, she makes the part which 
 God has gi^^en bend to the part she herself has added ; 
 thus acting in contradiction to the example of the apos- 
 tles who, when adding to the rules of the Old Testament 
 under their commission from God as inspired, still 
 
Is THE Church of Rome a True Church ? 105 
 
 quote everywhere the Old Testament, to show that 
 then- teaching was in harmony with the Old Testament 
 — that their religion was not new, but as old as the 
 garden of Eden ; (c), That she denies the rule to her 
 members, upon the pretence that the church alone has 
 the right to interpret ; thereby practically denying faith 
 and repentance to the people, and damning them; 
 thereby shutting out the Holy Ghost, and usurping his 
 office as the infallible witness of Christ. Rome decrees 
 that God shall not speak to men except through the 
 atheists, adulterers and murderers that sit in the seat 
 on the Seven Hills, and claiming to be gods and wor- 
 shipped as gods; (d), T^hat the creed thus derived, 
 from the infallible interpretation of the church, is not 
 a saving creed. Not that it formally denies all the fun- 
 damejital doctrines of the gospel, but teaches so much 
 of error, and such kind of error, as to make the creed, 
 as a whole, poison and not food. The sum of the 
 teachings of Scripture, concerning the plan of salva- 
 tion, is contained in 1 John v. 8 — the three-fold record 
 of the Spirit, the Avater and the blood. The two last 
 are emblematical of the two great divisions of the Re- 
 deemer's work — a change of state and a change of char- 
 acter — justification and sanctification. The Spirit's tes- 
 timony being the mode by which these blessings be- 
 come the property of the sinner. As to the blood, it 
 can be shown that Rome is fundamentally heretical. 
 Paul teaches that no creed which teaches salvation by 
 works can be a saving one. But Rome teaches such a 
 creed, resolving our justifying righteousness into per- 
 sonal holiness, damning the doctrine of imputation, 
 audaciously proclaiming the of figment of human 
 merit, both of congruity and condignity, making 
 Christ only the remote and ultimate cause of pardon 
 and acceptance. As to the water, she makes holiness 
 impossible by 'denying the blood. Pardon is essential 
 to holiness, and Rome, in denying the possibility of 
 pardon, denies the possibility of holiness. She is also 
 
106 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 aiitinoinian, expunging one of the commandments of 
 the decalogue, and making a hypocritical will-worship 
 to take the place of holy obedience. 8he is an idola- 
 trous church. As to the Spirit, she is a Pelagian, or, at 
 the very best, a semi-Pelagian. 
 
 (c), Ordinances. The most of her ordinances are of 
 her own invention ; but even of those which God has or- 
 dained, she has changed utterly their nature and their 
 use, so that they are no longer the ordinances of God. 
 Baptism, the Lord's supper, ordination, are changed 
 materially and formally. As to the use, her notion of 
 the efficacy of the sacraments denies the agency of the 
 Spirit, and makes them causes or hmos of grace instead 
 of means. So that no sinner believing the creed of 
 Rome and obeying the laws of Rome, can possibly be 
 saved. She is, therefore, no church of Christ. 
 
 The Nature and Extent of Church Power. 
 
 1. The church may be considered either as to its 
 essence or being, or as to its power and order, when 
 it is organized. As to its essence or being, its constit- 
 uent parts are its niatter ^LH^forin. 
 
 'A. By the matter of the church is meant the persons 
 of which the church consists, with their qualifications ; 
 by i\\Q fo7in, the relation among these persons, as or- 
 ganized into one body. 
 
 '6. The matter of the church has been fully consid- 
 ered in the preceding lectures, together with some 
 things belonging to i\\e forra. We come now to treat 
 of the other questions connected with the form ; and, 
 first, as to church power — p)^^^^^^^^' 
 
 4. The nature of church power must be considered 
 before the consideration of the several modes in which 
 it is exercised, because everything connected with these 
 modes, offices, officers, courts, &c., is found in the grant 
 of power to the church itself, and the institution of a 
 polity and rule therein by Jesus Christ, her only Head 
 and King. 
 
Nature and Extek+t of Church Power. 107 
 
 5. This power comes from Clirist alone. The gov- 
 ernment of the church is upon his shoulders, to order 
 it (his kingdom), and to establish it with judgment and 
 justice forever. All power is given to him. in heaven 
 and earth, by the Father, and he is the head of the 
 church, which is his body, and head over all things 
 else for the sake of his body. (See Westminster As- 
 semhlys Form of Government, Preface ; and our Form 
 of Govermnent, Chap. II., Sec. 1, Art. 1 ; Isaiah ix. 6, 7 ; 
 Matthew xxviii. 18-20; Eph. i. 20-23, compared with 
 Eph. iv. 8-11, and Psalm Ixviii. 18.) 
 
 6. This power, therefore, in the church is only 
 "ministerial and declarative," that is, the power of a 
 minister or a servant to declare and execute the law 
 of the Master, Christ, as revealed in his word, the 
 statute-book of his kingdom, the Scriptures contained 
 in the Old and New Testaments. No officer or court 
 of the church has any legislative power. "Christ alone 
 is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from 
 the doctrine and commandments of men which are in 
 anything contrary to the word, or beside it, in matters 
 of faith and worship." {Confession of Faith, Chap. XX. 
 Sec. 2.) Slavery to Christ alone is the true and only 
 freedom of the human soul. 
 
 7. This statement is opposed to the theories of, 1st, 
 Papists; 2nd, Erastians; 3rd, Latitudinarians. 
 
 8. The papists, by their claim of infallibility for the 
 church as the interj)7'eter of the Scriptures, as well as 
 by the claim to tnaA'e scripture (apocrypha and tradi- 
 tion), make the power of the church magisterial instead 
 of ministerial, and legislative instead of declarative. 
 Hence the brutal disregard, in that cliurch, of the lib- 
 erty of Christ's people. Antichrist has usurped the 
 prophetic and regal as woll as the priestly offices of 
 the church's head. Hence the name Antichrist, in the 
 place of, and therefore against, Christ. 
 
 9. The Erastians deliver the church into the hands 
 of the civil magistrate, some of them admitting one of 
 
108 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 the keys to belong to the church (the key of doctrine) ; 
 others, more consistently, denying to the church the 
 power of both keys, and so destroying the autonomy 
 of the church altogether. This is to be considered 
 more fully hereafter. {Con. of Faith, Chap. XXIII.) 
 
 10. The Latitudinarians (I use the word for want of 
 a better) hold a discretionary power in the church, lim- 
 ited only by the prohibitions of the word ; whatever is 
 not prohibited, or contradicted by what is commanded, 
 is lawful, is a matter of Christian liberty, and the 
 church has power to order or not according to her 
 yiews of expediency. This theory is held, or rather 
 practically carried out, in various degrees. Some, as 
 Archbishoj) Whately {Kingdom of Christ), contend 
 that ecclesiastical power is ordained of God in the 
 sense in which the civil is ordained. (Kom. xiii. 1, 2.) 
 The "powers that be" are said to be "ordained of 
 God," because God has so constituted man that he 
 cannot live except in society, and society cannot be 
 maintained except by an organization, more or less 
 complete, and a government of some sort. Now, men 
 of different races and different histories require differ- 
 ent forms of government. The government must be 
 the organic product, the outgrowth, the fruit of the 
 people's history; and as, consequently, it is mere po- 
 litical quackery to prescribe the same civil constitution 
 for all nations alike ; so, in the societ}^ of the church, 
 there must be a government, and the government must 
 be determined by the character and circumstances of 
 the people ; and as no form of ecclesiastical polity is 
 forbidden in the New Testament, the church is free to 
 adopt any that suits her. 
 
 Others (see Hodge's Church Polity, pages 121 ft'.), 
 afraid to go so far, contend that general principles 
 are laid down in Scripture, but details are left to 
 the discretion and wisdom of the church. This is 
 obviously a very unsatisfactory rule. What are " gen- 
 eral principles"? General princij)les may be either 
 
Nature and Extent of Church Power. 109 
 
 "regulative" or "constitutive." Regulative principles 
 define only ends to be aimed at, or conditions to be 
 observed ; constitutive determine tlie concrete form in 
 which those ends are to be realized. Regulative ex- 
 press the sjnrit, constitutive, ^^forra of a government. 
 It is a regulative principle, for example, that all gov- 
 ernments should be administered for the good of the 
 governed ; it is a constitutive principle that the govern- 
 ment should be lodged in the hands of such and such 
 officers, and dispensed by such and such courts. Reg- 
 ulative principles define nothing as to the mode of their 
 own exemplification ; constitutive principles determine 
 the elements of an actual polity. {Thorniceirs Worlds, 
 IV., page 252.) 
 
 Now, if Dr. Hodge's general principles are regula- 
 tive only, then he is as much of a latitudinarian as 
 Whately. If they are constitutive, he is as much a 
 " strict-constructionist " as Dr. Thorn well. He uses art 
 illustration which in one part Avould seem to indicate 
 tiiat his general principles are constitutive ; but in the 
 other, regulative. "There are fixed laws," he says, 
 "assigned by God, according to which all healthful 
 development and action of the external church are de- 
 termined. But, as within the limits of the laws which 
 control the development of the human body there is 
 endless diversity among different races, adapting them 
 to different climes and modes of living, so also in the 
 church. It is not tied down to one particular mode of 
 organization and action at all times, and under all cir- 
 cumstances." Now, the two parts of his illustration 
 do not hold together. The organization of the human 
 body is the same in all races, climes, and ages. Dif- 
 ferences of complexion, stature, conformation, et cetera, 
 there doubtless are; but the organization is the same. 
 And this is the kind of unity and uniformity we claim 
 for the church as a divine institute. Hodge elsewhere 
 seems to acknowledge something like constitutive prin- 
 ciples revealed in Scripture. He makes the three dis- 
 
110 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 tinctive features of Presbyterianism to be : 1st, The 
 parity of the ministry; 2nd, The right of the people 
 to take part in the government; 3rd, The unity of the 
 church. I do not acknowledge these to be distinctive 
 principles of Presbyterianism ; but they look some- 
 thing like constitutive principles. We shall see here- 
 after that the second of these principles is no principle 
 of Presbyterianism at all, much less a distinctive one. 
 
 In regard to this latitudinarian theory, I observe : 
 
 1st. That it differs little in effect from the Papal and 
 Erastian. It makes man, and not God, to determine 
 the whole matter. 
 
 2d. It is contrary to the Protestant doctrine of the 
 sufficiency of the Scriptures as a rule of faith and 
 practice. See C. of F., Ch. I. Sec. 6; "the whole coun- 
 sel of God," &c. It implies that in regard to a large 
 sphere of human duty, and that too, concerning so 
 high a matter as the government of the kingdom of 
 Christ, men are left to walk in the light of their own 
 eyes. 
 
 3d. It is contrary to the liberty of the peoj^le of God. 
 Dr. Hodge and others speak of strict Presbyterians as 
 if they were bringing the church under the yoke of 
 bondage by insisting upon a "Thus saith tlie Lord" 
 for everything. We answer, that the liberty of the be- 
 liever does not consist in doing what he pleases, but 
 inl)eing the slave of Christ. "Be ye not the slaves of 
 men'' is the apostle's command. And the assumption 
 of this wide discretion by the church has been the 
 great cause of the tj'ranny which has been exercised by 
 church rulers over the poor sheep of Christ. Liberty, 
 in the mouths of those who have the power in their 
 hands, means doing what they please, serving their own 
 lust of dominion, and lording it over the weak and de- 
 fenceless. Witness the Pharisees, Papists, Anglicans, 
 and the free democracies. Liberty is a mere word to 
 juggle with, except in the sphere of the Spirit and in 
 union with Christ. Where the largest discretionary 
 
Nature and Extent of Church Power. Ill 
 
 power lias been claimed and exercised in the nominal 
 church of God, there have the people groaned under 
 the hardest bondage ; for it is the discretionary power 
 of the rulers to impose burdens upon the people. 
 First prelacy, then popery, with the aid of the " Cath- 
 olic doctrine," grew out of the notion that the consti- 
 tution of the church in the apostolic age did not suit 
 the church in its more advanced stage, and that a form 
 corresponding with the organization of the empire 
 would suit the people better, and not being condemned 
 by the Word, it might be lawfully established. Hence, 
 as there were prefects, ex-archs, et cet., in the civil, 
 so there ought to be patriarchs, metropolitans, etc., in 
 the ecclesiastical organization. And as the civil pyra- 
 mid was capped with an emperor, so the ecclesiastical 
 with a pope. But what became of the liberties of the 
 people? So also in England — contest between Puri- 
 tans and Anglicans. The liberty of the monarch, or 
 the parliament, or the church, to convert the adiapliora 
 into laws, was only the liberty to destroy the liberty 
 of those whom God hath made free. The "judicious 
 Hooker" laid the egg which was hatched by the impe- 
 rious Laud. Another instance, sadder than all to us, 
 is the history of the Old Scliool Presbyterian Church 
 of the North, which set up its deliverances on "doc- 
 trine, loyalty, and freedom," as terms of communion 
 in the church. The Avord of God, and that word only, 
 is the safe-guard of freedom. 
 
 4th. It is founded upon a false analogy between a 
 natural, social and civil, or political development, and 
 a supernatural, social, and ecclesiastical development. 
 In the sphere of man's natural life, it is undoubtedly 
 true, as has been already suggested, that the form of 
 civil polity must be determined by the character, cir- 
 cumstances, or, in a word, by tlie history of a people ; 
 must be the friiit of the past, and not an arbitrary 
 theory or utopian constitution, founded upon abstract 
 notions of what is best. And, consequently, since the 
 
112 . ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 life of every people is its own, and different from that 
 of every other people, the government must be differ- 
 ent. A striking proof of this is to be found in the 
 present condition of this country, where two sections 
 of a country have had such different developments 
 that one must be held, by main force, as a conquered 
 province, hecaiise it adhered to the constitution of the 
 country, and the other has forsaken and subverted the 
 constitution. But the case is very different with the 
 church, for the simple reason that her life is not nat- 
 ural, but supernatural ; she does not gix^w into a free 
 commonwealth, but is free-honi, not of blood, nor of 
 the will of man, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God. 
 She is composed of all kindreds and tongues, and peo- 
 ples and nations. All the members, whether subjects 
 of a monarchy, or citizens of a republic, are spiritually 
 and ecclesiastically free: "For where the spirit of the 
 Lord is, there is liberty." Hence, in the early church, 
 the subjects of a Nero, or Caligula, or Domitian were, 
 at the same time, members of a free commonwealth. 
 In the state the soul makes for itself a body, an exter- 
 nal organism, through which it may act ; in the church 
 the soul, as in the old creation, has a body made for 
 it by God, its creator. The polity of the church, there- 
 fore, like the body of man, ought to be everywhere the 
 same organism essentially. It confirms this view, that 
 the church changed its external organization only after 
 she had become corrupt and had lost her internal and 
 spiritual freedom. After she had become w^orldly in 
 spirit, she became subject to like changes with the 
 world, and this liability to change became the more 
 marked Avlien she became identified with the Avorld 
 through her union with the state under Constantine 
 and his successors. In the middle ages the nominal 
 church had become almost natural and earthly in her 
 life, and, of course, lost her freedom altogether. For 
 a great portion of her history her true life has been 
 maintained in small bodies of witnesses, whom she 
 
Nature and Extent of Church Power. 113 
 
 disowned and persecuted. And so in the Northern 
 States of this country, she identified herself with the 
 civil power, and exhibited more of the spirit of the 
 harlot upon the scarlet-colored beast, than of the 
 spirit of the spouse of Christ. 
 
 5th. It is contrary to the j^lain teachings of God's 
 word and of our constitution, in regard to the nature 
 of church power. According to those standards all 
 church power is " ministerial and declarative." The 
 officers of the church are, collectively, a ministry, and 
 each officer is a minister or servant. Christ himself 
 condescended to be a minister, and in that memorable 
 rebuke which he administered to the ambition of his 
 disciples, he informs them that the power which they 
 are to exercise in the church is unlike that of civil 
 rulers, even of those civil rulers whose administra- 
 tion has entitled them to the denomination of 
 "benefactors"; for it is a power of service, of obe- 
 dience to him for the sake of his church, and not a 
 power of lordship or dominion. The only honor in 
 the church is the honor of hard work for the 
 church. The power of a preacher is the power of a 
 minister or servant to declare his Master's will, both in 
 reference to the credenda and agenda in preaching. 
 The power of a ruling elder is the power to do the like 
 in ruling, and especially to aj^ply that will in the actual 
 exercise of discipline. A presbytery, whether congre- 
 gational, provincial or general, is a body of servants or 
 ministers to declare the law and find the facts and ren- 
 der a verdict, such as is authorized by the word of 
 Christ, who has established the court, created the 
 judges, and defined their functions. A deacon, as his 
 very name signifies, is a servant to do his master's 
 will in regard to the collection, custody and distribu- 
 tion of the revenues of his kingdom. 
 
 6th. Lastly, it is contrary to the nature of the be- 
 liever's life, which is a life of faith and of obedience, 
 implying a divine testimony and a divine command. If 
 
114 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 the clmrch officers, then, have power to make institu- 
 tions and create officers which God has not ordained, 
 then the people have the right to refuse obedience, 
 and there is a dead lock in the machinery. There is 
 no power to enforce obedience, for all church power is 
 moral and spiritual, and no man can be required to 
 promise or render obedience except in the Lord. 
 
 11. All church power then is simply "ministerial or 
 declarative." The Bible is a positive charter — a defi- 
 nite constitution — and what is not granted is, for that 
 reason, held to be forbidden. A constitution, from the 
 nature of the case, can only prescribe what vi ust he. If 
 it should attempt, explicitly, to forbid everything which 
 human ingenuity, malice, or audacity, might invent, 
 the world could scarcely contain the things that should 
 be written. The whole function of the church, there- 
 fore, is confined to interpretation and obedience of the 
 woi'd. All additions to the word, if not exj)U('ithj pro- 
 hibited, are at least prohibited hnplichly in the gen- 
 eral command that nothing he added. 
 
 12. The ministerial and declarative power of the 
 church has been distributed in the books into several 
 classes. For instance, in the Second Book of Disci- 
 pline of the Kirk of Scotland, Andrew Melville says : 
 " The whole policy of the Kirk consisteth in three 
 things, viz. : in doctrine, dh^cqyline and didrdyutioii" 
 where the alliteration is used for a mnemonic purpose. 
 "Discipline" is used in the wise sense of government 
 and "distribution " for everything pertaining to the of- 
 fice of deacon. Others (See Turretin, L. 18, Q. 29, 1l 
 5), divide church power into dogmatic and judicial, or 
 disciplinary, corresponding with the symbol of the 
 "keys" — the key of knowledge and the key of disci- 
 pline or government ; or where the figure is that of a 
 pastor or shepherd instead of a steward — the sUtff 
 "Beauty," and the staff "Bands." Zech. xi. 7.^ There 
 is a distribution of this power better still (see Turretin 
 ut supra) into dogmatic, diatactic and diacritic. The 
 
Nature and Extent of Church Power. 115 
 
 first relating to doctrine, the second to polity and ad- 
 ministration, the third to the judicial exercise of disci- 
 pline. Another distribution of the ^wtestas ecclesiastica 
 is inio potestas ordinis and ^^testas reghninis or juris- 
 dictioiiis. (Note the sense in which these terms are 
 used by papal writers, p. 49 supra. See Second Book 
 of Discipline, chapter I. ; also Gillespie's Assertion of 
 the Government of the Kirk of Scotland, in Presbyter ian 
 Armory, Yol. I. p. 12 ; of Gillespie's Treatise, Chap. II.) 
 This distinction signalizes the mode in which power is 
 exercised, whether by church officers severally, or 
 church officers jointly ; the potestas ordinis being a 
 several poAver ; the ])otestas regiininis, a, joint -power. 
 Teaching may be either. The preacher exercises the 
 power of order when he preaches the gospel ; a church 
 court exercises the power of government when it com- 
 poses or issues a creed, or when it testifies for the doc- 
 trine or precepts of Christ, and against errors and im- 
 moralities. It is teaching, and that jointly, the word 
 of Christ, either in regard to what we are to believe 
 concerning God or what God requires of us. The dog- 
 ?natic power, therefore, may be either jointly or sever- 
 ally exercised. The diattictic and the diacritic must be 
 e^erci^ed joi7itly, and, therefore, belong to the potestas 
 reghninis or jurisdictionis. The Westminster standards 
 are composed and arranged according to this division. 
 The Confession of Faith and the Catechisms belong to 
 the potestas dogmatica ; the Form of Government, the 
 Directory for Worship, and the Rules of Order mainly 
 to the potestas dvdactica\ the Canons of Discipline 
 mainly to the potestas diacritica. 
 
 13. Proof that this power belongs to the church. 
 1st, From the gift of the keys. Matthew xvi. 19, 20; 
 xviii. 18; John xx. 22, 23. 2d, From the nature of 
 society. This power constitutes the bands and joints 
 by which it is at once able to live and to act. 3d, 
 From the existence of offices in the church ; but office 
 implies powder. 4th, From the titles given to these 
 10 
 
116 ' ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 offices in 1 Tim. v. 17, 1 Thess. v. 12, Heb. xiii. 17, 
 Acts XX. 28, 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2 ; Tit. i. 7, 1 Cor. xii. 28. 
 5tli, From passages of Scripture in whicli the exercise 
 of this power is mentioned, such as 2 Cor. x. 8, also 
 as 1 Cor. ix. 4, 5, 6 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 10, where "power" 
 corresponds with potestas. Also 1 Cor. v. 3, 4, 5. 6th, 
 From the fact that a distinction was made, even in the 
 Old Testament, between the civil and the ecclesiastical 
 power; but of this more hereafter. 
 
 14. As to the diatactic power of the cliurch some- 
 thing must be said more particular^, for it is here that 
 the greatest controversies have arisen. How far does 
 this arranging, ordering power of the church extend? 
 
 According to the view we have taken of church 
 power, as " ministerial and declarative," this question 
 amounts to the same as the question, "How far, and 
 in what sense, has the church discretionary power over 
 details of order, worship, etc.?" We have seen that 
 there is no legislative power in the cliurch, properly so 
 called, but only a juclicial and administrative power. 
 The law is in the Bible and nowhere else, and Christ 
 is the onl}^ lawgiver. But all the details of the appli- 
 cation of the law^ are not given, and could not have 
 been given wdthout swelling the book to dimensions 
 utterly incompatible wdth its ready use as a rule. 
 Yoluminous as human law is, it cannot enter into min- 
 utiae, e. (/., Congress by law establishes the Depart- 
 ment of War, or of State, in the executive administra- 
 tion of the government; but it leaves the making of 
 "regulations" in circumstantial matters, or matters of 
 detail, to the head of the department or of a particular 
 bureau; and this officer, therefore, does not exercise 
 legislative power in making such "regulations," but a 
 diatactic power, the power of arranging and ordering 
 under the law. So in the church, the doctrine of the 
 church and its government and worsMp are laid down 
 in Scripture, and the declaration of this doctrine be- 
 longs to the potestas dogniatica. But there are " cir- 
 
Nature and Extent of Church Power. 117 
 
 cumstances in the worship of God and the government 
 of the church common to human actions and societies, 
 which are to be ordered by the hght of nature and 
 Christian prudence, according to the general rules of 
 the word, which are always to be observed." See C. 
 of F., Chap. I. Sec. 6, and 1 Cor. xi. 13, 11; xiv. 26-40. 
 The acts of church courts in reference to these " circum- 
 stances," are executive, or administrative, or diatactic 
 " regulations'' " Circumstances," in the sense of our 
 Confession, are those concomitants of an action, with- 
 out which it can either not be done at all, or cannot be 
 done with decency and decorum. Public worship, for 
 example, requires public assemblies, and in public as- 
 semblies people must agree upon a time and a place 
 for the meeting, and must appear in some costume and 
 assume some posture. Whether they shall shock com- 
 mon sentiment in their attire, or conform to common 
 practice; whether they shall stand, or sit, or lie, or 
 whether each shall be at liberty to determine his OAvn 
 attitude — these are circumstances. They are neces- 
 sary concomitants of the actions, and the church is at 
 liberty to regulate them. Parliamentary assemblies 
 cannot transact their business with decorum, efficiency 
 and dispatch without moderators, rules of order, com- 
 mittees, etc. ; and the parliamentary assembly, and, 
 tlierefore, the church, may appoint moderators, com- 
 mittees, etc. All the details in reference to the dis- 
 tribution of courts, the definition of a quorum, the 
 times of their meeting, the manner in which they shall 
 be opened, details which occupy so large a space in 
 our Book of Order, are "circumstances" which the 
 church, in the exercise of her diatactic power, has 
 a perfect right to arrange. We must carefully dis- 
 tinguish between those circumstances which attend 
 "human actions" as such, i. e., without which the ac- 
 tions could not be, and those circumstances which, 
 though not essential, are added as appendages. These 
 last do not fall within the jurisdiction of the church. 
 
118 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 She has no right to appoint them. They are circum- 
 stances in the sense that they do not belong to the 
 substance of the act. They are not circumstances in the 
 sense that they so surround it {circurnstaiit) that they can- 
 not be separated from it. (See Turretin, L. 18, Q. 31, 
 specially t 3, p. 242-'3, of Yol. III. Carter's ed., 1847.) 
 
 A liturgy is a circumstance of this kind, as also bow- 
 ing at the name of Jesus, the sign of the cross in bap- 
 tism, instrumental music and clerical robes, et cet. 
 (See Owen's Discourse on Liturgies and ThornwelFs 
 Works, IV. p. 247.) With this view agrees Calvin. (See 
 Instit. B. 4, eh. 10, pp. 28-31.) The notion of Calvin 
 and our Confession is briefly this : In public worship, 
 indeed in all commanded external actions, there are 
 two elements, a fixed and a variable. The fixed ele- 
 ment, involving the essence or the thing, is beyond the 
 discretion of the church. The variable, involving only 
 the '' circumstances" of the action, its separable acci- 
 dents, may be changed, modified or altered, according 
 to the exigencies of the case. The rules of social in- 
 tercourse and of grave assemblies in different countries 
 vary. The church accommodates her arrangements so 
 as not to revolt the public sense of propriety. Where 
 people recline at the meals she would administer the 
 Lord's supper to communicants in a reclining attitude ; 
 w^here they sit she would change the mode. (Thorn- 
 'welVs Worhs, IV. pp. 246-7. See also Cunningham's 
 Reformers and Theologians of tJte Reforniation, p. 31, 
 " Of the views," &c., to the bottom of p. 32. Also 
 his essay on CJmrch Power, ch. 9, of his Church Prin- 
 ciples p. 235 and ff. Also Gillespie's Dispate against 
 the English Popish Ceremonies, pt. 3, ch. 7, in Presby- 
 terian. Armory, Vol. I. 
 
 Laivs bind the conscience per se or sirnpliciter. Regu- 
 lations bind it secundum quid, i. e., indirectly and 
 mediately in case of scandal and contempt. In the 
 first, we regard the authority of God alone; in the 
 second, Ave regard the good of our neighbors. In the 
 
The Power Ecclesiastical and Civil. 119 
 
 first, the auctoritas inandantis\ in the second, the man- 
 dati causa (the avoiding of offence.) See Tarretin^ L. 
 18, Q. 31, Vol. III., p. 255, Carter's ed, 
 
 XIII. 
 
 The Power Ecclesiastical Contrasted with the 
 Power Civil. Relation of the Church to the 
 State. 
 We may obtain a still clearer view of the nature and 
 extent of church power (the topic of the last lecture), 
 by comparing it with the civil power, and considering 
 the relations of the two organizations to which these 
 powers belong. In addition to this reason for a care- 
 ful consideration of this topic, the history of this 
 country furnishes a very weighty one. The providence 
 of God has, in the loudest tones, recalled the attention 
 of the church to its own nature, as constituted and de- ' 
 fined by himself, to the nature and functions of the 
 state (which is also his ordinance) and to the relations 
 between the two. 
 
 1. The fundamental relations implied in the distinc- 
 tion between the power civil and the power ecclesias- 
 tical have been recognized, more or less clearlj^, from 
 the beginning of the history of our race. These rela- 
 tions are that of man to man in a state of society, on 
 the one hand, and, on the other hand, that of man to 
 God, the Creator, the Moral Governor, the Judge and 
 Sovereign Proprietor of man. They have been desig- 
 nated by different names, and have been the objects of 
 divers kinds of legislation, according to the diversities 
 of age and country ; but whether known by this name 
 or that; whether, in practice, partially separated or 
 totally confounded, the relations themselves have been, 
 and could not but be, apprehended. The relation of 
 man to God would be developed in the operations of 
 conscience arraigning the offender before an invisible 
 tribunal, and pointing him to a coming retribution ; 
 
120 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 the relation of man to man would force itself upon the 
 notice by the necessities of every day's existence. Yet 
 it cannot be denied that in reference to few objects of 
 human thought have attempts at articulate exposition 
 been more unsuccessful than in reference to this; or 
 that the wisdom' of the wisest men has still more sig- 
 nally failed, by any kind of political machinery, to re- 
 alize perfectly the theories which make the most plau- 
 sible approximation to the truth. The sources and 
 occasions of this failure will be better understood by a 
 rapid historical review. 
 
 2. It is not strange that these relations should have 
 been confounded, since, in the beginning, they existed 
 together in the bosom of the family. The family is 
 the social unit under the constitution of God, and not 
 the individual, as an infidel socialistic philosophy as- 
 serts. It is the germ out of which grows the great tree 
 of organized society, with its far-reaching and mul- 
 tiplied ramifications. In this germ the rudimental 
 forms of both church and state existed; but they 
 existed after the manner of all organic rudimental 
 forms, so undeveloped and so mingled that their differ- 
 ences could not be perceived. The head of the family 
 was both king and priest, governing and ordering his 
 household in regard to the things of this life, and in- 
 structing and leading them in the knowledge and wor- 
 ship of God. The child grew up with a reverence for 
 his father as the disposer of all his affairs, the director, 
 the authoritative director of all his thoughts and acts 
 in every part of the sphere of his natural life, in all his 
 spiritual, as in all his temporal relations. The father 
 prescribed the faith and duty of his children in rela- 
 tion to God, as well as their duty to himself and to the 
 other members of the family. In a word, he was the 
 representative of God in all things to his household. 
 When the child grew up, he did not pass, as he does 
 now, from a government of this sort into an organized 
 political or ecclesiastical community, into a church or 
 
The Power Ecclesiastical and Civil. 121 
 
 state, for there was then neither church nor state m 
 the modern sense of these terms ; but became himself 
 the head of another family, and was invested with 
 powers like those which his father before him had 
 possessed, both temporal and spiritual. 
 
 3. This state of society, in which it would have been 
 next to impossible to decide the question still mooted, 
 whether the fifth commandment belongs to the first or 
 second table of the law, continued in the line of Abra- 
 ham, Isaac and Jacob, down to the organization of the 
 nation of Israel, when the distinction between the civil 
 or temporal power and the ecclesiastical begins to be 
 visibly developed. Before proceeding to consider this, 
 however, let us look for a moment at the history of 
 other lines. 
 
 4. The patriarclial or family constitution of society 
 seems to have been lost, and political communities to 
 have been formed, sooner in these lines. The poster- 
 ity of Cain seem to have made more prog^'ess, in the 
 modern or popular sense of the word, than the poster- 
 ity of Seth. In the organization of society, as well as 
 in invention and use of the mechanical and fine arts, 
 they seem to have been greatly in the advance. We 
 are told in Genesis iv. 17, that Cain himself, after he 
 w^ent out from the presence of the Lord, "builded a 
 city.'' He and his family, therefore, may be regarded 
 as the founders of the state, and of that complex mate- 
 rial and w^orldly civilization which the state embodies 
 and represents. They were the sons of 7nen, acknow- 
 ledging nothing higher than human wisdom and human 
 power, and bending all their energies to the one end 
 of concentrating the forces of humanity, and of secur- 
 ing in this way a worldly summum honuni, an all-com- 
 prehending good, which might compensate for the loss 
 of the favor and communion of God, which tliey had 
 deliberately repudiated. They thus prepared the way 
 for the Babel-builders and for heathenism, which is a 
 worship of nature and its forces, and particularly of 
 
122 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 the wisdom and power of the highest part of nature, 
 man. It is wortiiy of note that over against this or- 
 ganization of society, and continuation of its forces 
 in the line of the apostate Cain (the sons of men), oc- 
 curs the record of something like the organization of 
 the true worshippers of God in the line of Enos : " Then 
 began men to call themselves by the name of Jehovah"* 
 (Genesis iv. 2(3) ; that is, began to call themselves the 
 children or peo|)le of God. But the time had not yet 
 fully come for the organization of the church visible 
 in correspondence with the state. The church thus 
 formed united itself with the state; the sons of God 
 intermarried with the daughters of men, and the pro- 
 geny which resulted from that union was so gigantic 
 and monstrous in its wickedness, so "violent," so re- 
 gardless of everything but va^YQ force, that God swept 
 the earth with the besom of destruction, and reduced 
 the race to its original dimensions of a single family. 
 
 5. After the flood, appears Noah as a new federal 
 head of the human race, and as the king and priest of 
 his household, and the development begins again. But 
 with the like results. The spirit of the beastly serpent 
 shows itself in the builders of "Babel" (a name which, 
 from that time forward, becomes a symbol of the power 
 of man in opposition to the power of God, and, there- 
 fore, of man as abdicating the dignity of his nature 
 and becoming a "beast"), who renew the experiment 
 of their forerunners, the posterity of Cain, the experi- 
 ment of living without God by combining the individ- 
 ual forces of man. (See Genesis xi. 1, 4.) They built 
 a city and a tow^er, to make themselves a name. Tliey 
 became worshippers of men instead of God; not man 
 as an individual, weak and mortal, but associated man. 
 And though God confounded the ])roject of the city 
 and tower, yet Mmrod, "the mighty hunter before the 
 Lord " (that is, in the very face and in defiance of the 
 
 * The renderiiig iu the margin of E. V. 
 
The Power Ecclesiastical and Civil. 123 
 
 Lord ; compare Genesis vi. 11 ; xiii. 13 ; 2 Clironicles 
 xxviii. 22 ; Psa. lii. 7), the mighty hunter of mankind, 
 appears upon the stage as the founder of the kingdom 
 of Babylon, or Assyria (Genesis x. 9, (fee), the first of 
 those beastly kingdoms, the series of which Daniel 
 gives us in his vision (Daniel, vii.), from a point of 
 view of a worshipper of God, and which Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, from his point of view, saw as a splendid hu- 
 man image, representing the dominion and glory of 
 man. 
 
 6. Here, then, we have the state in a colossal form, 
 and from the circumstances of its origin we can expect 
 nothing but an identification of the civil and the spir- 
 itual relations of mankind. If we read carefully the 
 first seven chapters of the prophec}^ of Daniel, we can- 
 not fail to see that the great subject is the contest be- 
 tween the supremacy of God and the supremacy of 
 man ; between the supremacy of God in man and the 
 supremacy of man without God and against God. This 
 is the real " conflict of ages," revealed in the garden 
 of Eden (Genesis iii. 15), and ending in the triumph 
 of the "Saviour of man," as recorded in the closing 
 chapters of the Apocalypse. "The seed of the wo- 
 man " (the " Saviour of man," God-man), and the " seed 
 of the serpent," the beast, these are the parties which 
 divide the world and convulse it. These are the par- 
 ties which are contending for the mastery upon the 
 territory of the United States. Nebuchadnezzar re- 
 fused to listen to anything from the God of heaven, 
 who ruled among the inhabitants of the earth, until he 
 became a beast of the field. See the remarkable nar- 
 rative in Daniel, ch. iv. Taught by this acted symbol, 
 he acknowledged that his view of his empire as su- 
 preme, and as demanding the homage of the heart as 
 well as the external obedience of the subject, was false, 
 and that there was a God in heaven, who ruled su- 
 preme, and was, therefore, alone entitled to be w^or- 
 shipped. He became wiser than some rulers now are. 
 
124 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 7. We need not trace the history of apostate man 
 any further at present. In all heathen governments 
 the result is the same. The state, the world, is zor.av. 
 Keligion is obedience to the powers that be, and this 
 obedience, whether rendered to an oriental or an occi- 
 dental despot, or to a Grecian or Roman democracy 
 or republic, is the whole of religion, because there is 
 no higher God than man in "humanit}'," or than man 
 chooses to allow to be worshipped. 
 
 8. We return now to the line of the chosen seed, and 
 to the institute of Moses. What was the relation of the 
 ecclesiastical and civil power in the nation of Israel? I 
 answer, that they were not entirely separated nor en- 
 tirely confounded. They were in that relation to each 
 other which we might have anticipated from the pecti- 
 liar calling of the Jewish nation, and from their posi- 
 tion with respect to the other nations of the world. We 
 are expressly told in Ex. xix. 5, 6, that the Hebrews 
 were called to be a ^^ peculiar treasure unto God above 
 all people, and a kingdom of priests and a At>/?/ nation." 
 If this language means anything, it means that the Is- 
 raelitish nation should differ from all other nations in 
 this, that it should be a holy, consecrated nation — a 
 nation of worshippers of the true God, in cover' ant 
 with God, ruled by his word, and his word only, arid 
 not by the light of their own reason. When other na- 
 tions, therefore, call themselves Christians, and as na- 
 tions make covenants with God and consecrate them- 
 selves to his service as worshippers, they usurp privi- 
 leges which God has made peculiar to Israel. Any na- 
 tion which boasts that it is a " kingdom of priests," is 
 pro tanto in rel)ellion against God. Israel was not, in 
 this respect, a model or pattern for civil communities, 
 but a type of the church of God under the gospel. The 
 relation it sustained to God is the relation that the 
 spiritual body of Christ sustains to him. The alli- 
 ances which it was forbidden to form with other na- 
 tions were types of the alliances which the church is 
 
The Powee Ecclesiastical and Civil. 125 
 
 forbidden to form with civil governments ; and the dis- 
 astrous results of those alliances, the slavery, degrada- 
 tion and misery of Israel, were types of the slavery, 
 degradation and misery of the church's alliances with 
 powers foreign to herself in nature, origin, government 
 and destiny. God was the sovereign of Israel in the 
 sense of being their lawgiver, which he is of no other 
 nation. He was their husband, and the husband of 
 no other. Transgression in them was adultery as well 
 as treason. They were the inheritance of God, and he 
 was their inheritance. He was their landlord and they 
 were his tenants. Their taxes were acknowledgments 
 of his goodness and of his proprietorship in the land 
 and in its fruits. Nor was he an absent proprietor. 
 He dwelt among them. When they dwelt in tents, he 
 dwelt in a tent with them. When they lived in houses, 
 he dwelt in a house among them. They were his fami.- 
 ly, and he the father and head. None of these things 
 are true of any other nation, nor can they be. They 
 are all true of the Christian church, the body of Christ, 
 and eminently true of her as the substance of which 
 Israel w^as the shadows This being the case, there was 
 of necessity a commingling of the civil and the spirit- 
 ual. Hence, w^e find the kings (whom God gave to them 
 reluctantly, if we may use the expression, because it 
 sprang from a desire to be lihe other nations,) some- 
 times exercising powers ^^ circa sacra^' — about sacred 
 things. We are not, however, to consider the king as 
 taking the place of God, as his vicar in the theocracy. 
 In the provisions of the law concerning the king 
 (Deut. xvii. 14-20), w^e find no authority given to him to 
 intermeddle with the faith, government or worship of the 
 church. He is required to have a copy of the law, made 
 from the standard text in custody of the priests and Le- 
 vites, and to read it, and keep it, that his heart be not 
 lifted up above his brethren. When Uzziah undertook 
 to burn incense, a function belonging to the priest- 
 hood, he was smitten with leprosy, a punishment almost 
 
126 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 as severe as that inflicted upon Uzzah, a private man, 
 for taking hold of the ark of God when the oxen shook 
 it. 2 Chron. xxvi. 16-23; 2 Sam. vi. 6, 7. There was 
 no king-priest, no Melchisedek, in IsraeL See also 1 
 Sam. xiii. 9-14. David meditated building a temple, 
 and Solomon bnilt it. David Avas prevented from build- 
 ing and Solomon encouraged to build by a prophet 
 speaking in the name of God ; that is, by special direc- 
 tion, and not in the legal exercise of his royal func- 
 tions. It is further to be noted that both David and 
 Solomon were themselves prophets in a general sense, 
 and acted and wrote under inspiration. Further still, 
 they were eminent tj^pes of Christ as king — the one of 
 Christ as w^arring and conquering, the other of Christ 
 as a peacefully reigning king. But did not Hezekiah, 
 Josiah and other kings destroy idolatrous worship and 
 reform the nation ? Certainly ; they could not do 
 otherwise and be faithful to the constitution of the the- 
 ocracy, the fundamental principle of which was the 
 unity of God. And no civil magistrate can noiv afford 
 to dispense with religion altogether. The primary doc- 
 trines of natural religion, the being of a God and a 
 moral government, are implied in every oath of office 
 and in every oath of testimony. Hezekiah and Josiah 
 also ordered the keeping of the passover ; but this fes- 
 tival bore a national as well as a religious character. 
 Still it must be confessed that the kings of Israel ex- 
 ercised a power about sacred things, which we contend 
 that no king or government has a right now to exer- 
 cise. They were kings of "a 7.>(?6'?^//^/?' people, a holy 
 nation, a kingdom of priests." 
 
 Again, let it be considered that the rise of the royal 
 dignity in Israel was contemporary with the rise of the 
 prophetical office, both growing out of the typical 
 character of the nation. Considering the nation as a 
 moral person, having an organic life and a conscience, 
 the prophet and not the king, unless he was also a 
 prophet, was the exponent of that conscience — Ex. iv. 
 
The Power Ecclesiastical and Civil. 127 
 
 16. It was not accidental, but necessary, that when 
 God had, so to speak, given way to a visible king, he 
 should have the prophet as his representative and 
 month-piece. Otherwise, the whole constitution must 
 have been subverted. The king was subject to the 
 prophet, because the government was a theocracy, and 
 all civil and social arrangements were subordinate to 
 the religious, as the shell is subordinate to the kernel, 
 or the body to the soul. Judaism was a religious 
 state, as Paganism is a political religion, and, it may 
 be added, a political religion is Paganism and a re- 
 ligious state is Judaism. We find, moreover, that the 
 prophetic office rose in importance as the tendency to 
 apostasy, both in king and people, increased. As men 
 and as citizens, priests and prophets were under ob- 
 ligation to obey the king; but as priests and prophets, 
 they were subject to God alone, the head of the the- 
 ocracy ; a foreshadowing of the precise relations of the 
 office-bearers of the church under the gospel to the 
 civil power. 
 
 Upon the whole it is a very striking fact, that in an 
 oriental nation, and in a theocracy, public forms should 
 recognize, to so great an extent, the distinction and 
 separation between civil and sacred functions. See 
 2 Chron. xix. 8-11, especially vs. 11.) We find the 
 sacerdotal functions given to a separate order of offi- 
 cers, and the whole ministry of the tabernacle to a 
 particular tribe ; while the elders, the representatives 
 of the patriarchal system, seem to have continued the 
 exercise of civil functions. We do not pretend that 
 there was an entire separation of the secular and the 
 spiritual. It is possible that the synagogue, with its 
 mingled jurisdiction over civil and ecclesiastical affairs, 
 may even then have existed, as that jurisdiction was 
 based on the patriarchal principle upon which the 
 whole Hebrew commonwealth was organized. But we 
 assert that we have in the books of Moses what we 
 find nowhere else in the East, a class of high and hon- 
 11 
 
128 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 or able functions in the matter of divine worship with 
 which the highest officer in the state dared not inter- 
 meddle; and further, that where the two classes of 
 functions came together the spiritual was supreme. If 
 any argument, therefore, be drawn from Judaism in 
 support of the union of church and state, it is in favor 
 rather of the Ultramontane than of the Erastian the- 
 ory. In this respect, as we have seen. Paganism pre- 
 sents a strong contrast to Judaism in giving supremacy 
 to the civil power. But in both, as also in Maliome- 
 tanism, the two powers are so combined that their 
 history cannot be separately written. There is no his- 
 tory of the synagogue, or the mosque, or the pagan 
 temple, as there is of the church. See Gillespie's 
 Assertion of the Goverinent of the Kirh of Scotland, Pt. 
 II., ch. 7 (in Pres. Armory, Vol. I.), for some ingenious 
 arguments to prove that there was a separation of civil 
 and ecclesiastical courts among the Jews. Also Pt. I., 
 ch. 11. 
 
 9. We come now to the era at which the church Avas 
 to escape from the trammels of the Hebrew state and 
 to assume a separate and independent existence. This, 
 of course, could not be done without a struggle. But 
 to make the transition less abrupt and difficult, Christ 
 so ordered it that the old dispensation was allowed to 
 overlap the new for forty years, during Avhicli period 
 the church was gradually but rapidly obtaining a foot- 
 hold among the Gentiles and dissolving its connec- 
 tions with perverted and petrified Judaism, which as- 
 sumed, more and more, an attitude of bitter hostility 
 to it. The woman who gave birth to the man-child 
 was preparing for her flight into the Avilderness of the 
 pagan nations. The "Acts of the Apostles," after de- 
 scribing this process of loosening and transition, closes 
 with Paul at Eome, the great representative of the free 
 church of the Gentiles at the metropolis of heathen- 
 dom and of worldly power. 
 
 10. The first issue which was formally made between 
 
The Power Ecclesiastical and Civil. 129 
 
 tliis worldly power and tlie cliurcli was made by tlie 
 Emperor Domitian. The persecution under Nero (A. 
 D. 54-68) was partial and local, and it is by no means 
 clear that the Christians were not persecuted as 
 Jews ; but Domitian (A. D. 81-96) claimed to be 
 God, made statues of himself, to which he insisted 
 divine honors should be paid. He was the legiti- 
 mate successor of Nebuchadnezzar and of Nimrod. 
 It is his persecution of the church which con- 
 stitutes the historical basis or starting point of the 
 Apocalypse, as the persecution of the ancient church 
 by Nebuchadnezzar was the historical basis of the 
 prophecies of Daniel, the Apocalypse of the Old Tes- 
 tament. The question became again a practical one : 
 "Is there any god higher than the head of a world em- 
 pire ? is there any god in heaven who rules the gods on 
 earth, and is able to deliver his servants?" The "con- 
 flict of ages" is resumed between the seed of the ser- 
 pent and the seed of the woman, between man without 
 God and man with God. One of the sufferers in the 
 conflict on the side of the woman's seed is chosen (cir. 
 96 A. D.) to sketch its outlines and leading character- 
 istics, until it shall be ended in the victory of the Son 
 of man, and the final judgment upon "the whore," "the 
 beast," and "the false prophet," which are, respec- 
 tively, symbols of the church visible leaning upon the 
 strength of the civil power, and glorifying it instead 
 of Christ ; of that civil power usurping the preroga- 
 Jbives of Christ, and making war upon all who assert 
 the supremacy of Christ; and of the wisdom of the 
 world giving its support to the civil power as supreme, 
 as the all-disposing Lord and the all-comprehending 
 Good. (See Hobbes's [b. 1588, d. 1679] Zeviathan, a 
 happily-chosen name, in which this view of the civil 
 government is audaciously advocated.) If this view of 
 the symbols be correct, it seems that one of the great 
 lessons which this wondrous book was designed to im- 
 press upon the church was the certain pollution and 
 
130 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 misery resulting from tlie union of cliureli and state ; 
 the certain corruption of both, and the infliction of 
 mutual wrong and outrage; the certain supremacy of 
 the state over the adulterous church, and the final de- 
 struction of the adulterous church by the very power 
 upon which she leaned. Rev. xvii. The kings com- 
 mit fornication with her (vs. 2), and then, when God's 
 time comes for judgment, tliey burn her with fire. Ys. 
 16; Lev. xxi. 9. 
 
 11. It was God's mercy Avhicli exposed the Chris- 
 tian church, almost from the beginning of its existence 
 and for the first three hundred ^^ears of its career, to 
 the bitter persecution of the civil power. The line was 
 thus clearly drawn between Christ and Caesar, and it 
 was demonstrated that the church could live, not only 
 without alliance with the state, but in spite of all its 
 power and hate. The church was taught that the 
 world is enmity against God, and that any conformity 
 to it, or alliance with it, could only end in the corrup- 
 tion and slavery of the church, as the Israelites of old 
 were taught as to Egypt, Assyria, etc. 
 
 12. The seer in Patmos saw (Rev. xiii. 3) one of the 
 heads of the beast " as it were wounded to death, and 
 his deadly wound was healed." If the civil power is 
 symbolized as a beast, only so far as it is opposed to 
 the church of God, then the deadly wound signified its 
 dropping for a season its wonted appearance of hos- 
 tility to the cause and kingdom of God, to cease for a 
 time to act as a beast ; the which it could only do by^ 
 assuming either a truly religious or a professedly re- 
 ligious character. That this character was only pro- 
 fessedly religious seems to be indicated by the words 
 " as it were," and by the healing of the wound. This 
 characteristic is intended to apply, probably, to the 
 whole period of the seventh head. In the correspond- 
 ing passage in chap. xvii. 8, 11, the revealing angel 
 says to John : " The beast that thou sawest loas and is 
 7iot;'' and again he calls it "the beast that was, and is 
 not, and yet is;" and again, in vs. 11, "the beast that 
 
The Power Ecclesiastical and Civil. 181 
 
 was, and is not," is said to be the eighth and of the 
 seven. These expressions seem to indicate the para- 
 doxical character of the beast, a beast passing into the 
 form of the woman, or, in unsymboHcal language, the 
 world-power, which is essentially the enemy of God, 
 becoming or pretending to be Christian. The healing 
 of the deadly wound indicates the reassumption, or 
 the breaking forth again, of its hostility to the cause 
 and kingdom of Christ. Its profession of Christ's re- 
 ligion has not changed its nature. It is still possessed 
 of the spirit of a beast ; it shows itself to be a part of 
 the kingdom of darkness, of which the old serpent, the 
 dragon, the devil, Satan, is the head and prince (Rev. 
 xii. 9 ; xiii. 2, 4) ; the true successor of Cain, Nimrod, 
 Nebuchadnezzar, and the Edomite Herods. Whether 
 Nebuchadnezzar, or Cyrus, or Antiochus EpiphaneS, 
 or Domitian, or Constantine is the reigning monarch, 
 the spirit of the power is the same, the spirit of the 
 world, which is enmity against God. Hence all these 
 powers were seen by Nebuchadnezzar in one image; 
 and in Revelation xiii. John sees the first three beasts 
 of Daniel (chap, vii.) combined in the fourth and last. 
 (See Auberlen's Daniel and the Revelation^ and Fair- 
 bairn on Projjhecy.) 
 
 13. This deadly wound of the beast, this apparent 
 change in the character of the civil power in its rela- 
 tion to the church, took place, or was first exemplified, 
 in the conversion of Constantine the Great, and in his 
 patronage of the church in the 'first quarter of the 
 fourth century. The system of that emperor was only 
 a christianized paganism, as the result showed. Re- 
 ligion was still considered a part of the machinery of 
 the state. The only difference was that Christianity 
 was substituted for paganism, and the God of the 
 Christians for Jupiter and the whole herd of divinities 
 in the Pantheon. It was the old theory of the first 
 centuries of the Roman republic with a new applica- 
 tion. In primeval Rome everything was moulded by 
 
13^ ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 religion. Their lihri rituaJes (to the Eomans what the 
 Mosaic ritual was to the Hebrews), according to Festus 
 (See Legare s Essay on Roman Legislation) , "taught the 
 rites with which cities are to be founded and altars and 
 temples dedicated ; the holiness of the walls of towns ; 
 the law relating to their gates ; how tribes, wards and 
 centuries are to be distributed ; armies organized and 
 arrayed, and other like things relating to peace and 
 war. The same influence extended itself over the very 
 soil of the Eoman territory, and made it, in the tech- 
 nical language of their augury, one vast temple. It 
 was consecrated by the auspices ; it could become the 
 property only of one who had the auspices, that is, a 
 patrician, a Roman, properly so called ; once set apart 
 and conveyed away, it was irrevocably alienated, so 
 that sales of the domain were guaranteed by religion, 
 and it was sacreligious to establish a second colony on 
 the place dedicated to a first. The city, by its origi- 
 nal inauguration was also a temple; its gates and 
 walls were holy ; its pomoerium was unchangeable until 
 higher auspices had suspended those under which it 
 Avas first marked out. Every spot of ground might 
 become, by the different uses to which it was applied, 
 sacred {sacer), holy (sanctus), religious {religiosus). 
 The first agrimensor, says Niebuhr, was an augur, ac- 
 companied by Tuscan priests or their scholars. From 
 the foundation of the city the sacredness of the pro- 
 perty was shadowed forth in the god Terminus, and that 
 of contracts protected by an apotheosis of faith {fdes). 
 In short, the worthy Roman lived, moved and had his 
 being, as the Greek writers observe, in religion." How 
 striking the resemblance, in this description, of many 
 things to corresponding features in Judaism. The 
 grand difference is, that Judaism was a theocracy and 
 Romanism an anthropocracy. In the one there was a 
 real consecration to God; in the other a real conse- 
 cration only to the glory of man. But here we find 
 the germ of the Erastianism of Constantine. So far is 
 
The Power Ecclesiastical and Civil. 133 
 
 it from being true, that the union of the church and 
 the state was the work of Christian priests. It was the 
 work, remotely, of the "lawyer priests" of primeval 
 Eome, an oriental caste transmitted to the Romans 
 through Tuscany, at once by inheritance and by edu- 
 cation (See Legare ut siij).), and proximately of the 
 jurisconsults of Constantine. Subsequently the system 
 was reduced to a more formal shape, and hardened by 
 the lawyers of Theodosius (A. D. 379-'95) and Justinian, 
 (A. D. 527-'65.) ' 
 
 14. Its Pagan origin and character was soon be- 
 trayed. The church began to be moulded by the 
 state in government, worship, and even in faith. It is 
 necessary that the inferior should be moulded by the 
 superior. Hence the ecclesiastical hierarchy corres- 
 ponding with the civil hierarchy of the empire. Hence 
 the temples, altars, festivals, images, lustrations, sacri- 
 fices, incense ; in a word, the pomp and pageantry and 
 hollowness of the paganized Christian w^orship. (See 
 Middleton s Letter from liome, b. 1683, d. 1750.) Hence 
 the persecutions of the faithful who refused to recognize 
 this paganized Christianity as the religion of the crucified 
 Nazarene. The autonomy of the church disappeared, 
 and she became the slave of the civil power. The 
 nature of the beast passed into the woman and the 
 woman became the adulteress riding upon the beast. 
 
 15. In the coui'se of time a reaction came, and the 
 human mind, refusing to rest in the center of truth, 
 swung to the opposite extreme, still holding to the 
 union of the spiritual and the temporal, but asserting 
 the supremac}^ of the spiritual. The w^oman would not 
 only ride upon the beast and be carried by it, but 
 would govern and guide it according to her own will. 
 This change began with the polic}^ of the Carlovingian 
 line of monarchs (began 752 A. D.) and their am- 
 bitious attempts to revive the Roman empire in the 
 West. In order to secure the patronage and assistance 
 of the church, they conferred civil authority and terri- 
 
134 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 tory -Qpori ecclesiastics, and the pope himself became a 
 feudatory of Pepin (A. D. 752-'58), Charlemagne (A. D. 
 768-814), and their successors in the holy German Eoman 
 empire. And here did vaulting ambition overleap itself. 
 This very policy was the occasion of the wars between 
 the popes and the emperors, which kept the world in 
 an uproar during the middle ages; the church gain- 
 ing more and more power as a temporal and civil insti- 
 tute under the direction of Hildebrand (A. D. 1073- 
 1085) and Innocent III. (A. D. 1198-1216), and others, 
 reaching the summit of its audacitv under Boniface 
 VIII. (A. D. 1294-1303), and then gradually yielding 
 again to the temporal power. Thus the popery of 
 the middle ages became the Nemesis of the Erastian- 
 ism or Paganism of Constantihe, Theodosius and Jus- 
 tinian. But l)oth popes and emperors united in per- 
 secuting the witnesses of Christ's supremacy. 
 
 16. Then came the earthquake of the Reformation. 
 But this did not dissolve the union of church and state. 
 "Luther had some glimpses of the grand truth that the 
 S})iritual kingdom of Jesus Clirist is sometliing separ- 
 ate from and independent of the civil government or- 
 dained of God the Creator in tlie hands of CjTPsar ; but, 
 driven to shelter himself under the protection of the 
 monarch who was ambitious to rid himself of the au- 
 thority of the pope, yet ecpially jealous of such an 'nn- 
 perruinin inijyerio as a completely organized spiritual 
 government in the hands of the church, Luther was 
 obliged, as he thought, to sacrifice a part of the spir- 
 itual prerogatives of the church for protection against 
 the power of the pope." (Robinson's speech at Cin- 
 cinnati, November 8th, 1866.) Calvin had a much 
 clearer conception of the church's autonomy than Lu- 
 ther, and would allow no interference on the part of 
 the state with the discipline of the church. Yet he was 
 bred a lawyer; he had studied the Pandects, and al- 
 lowed the authority of Tribonian (A. D. 545) to obscure 
 the interpretation of that word of God, to which he ad- 
 
The Power Ecclesiastical and Civil. 135 
 
 lieretl with a tenacity and fidelity unsurpassed by man. 
 If Calvin had been a German instead of a Frenchman, 
 he probably wonld not have seen so much of the truth 
 as he did see, for Ultramontanism had the ascendency 
 in Germany. But even his imperial mind could not 
 emancipate itself from the thraldom of " the spirit of 
 the age." 
 
 17. His influence, however, is seen in the original 
 Puritan party of England, in the struggle for religious 
 and civil liberty in Holland and the other states of the 
 Netherlands, and especially in Scotland. The Reforma- 
 tion in Scotland from the first, more than any of the 
 movements of the sixteenth century, rested upon the 
 theory of the autonomy of the spiritual commonwealth, 
 and it seemed to be the special mission of its martyrs 
 to testify for " Christ's crown and covenant," against 
 the lofty claims of the temporal sovereign. But after 
 all the testimonies of its martyrs, and a hundred year^ 
 of suffering, the sed-uctive strategy of Carstairs^'" and 
 the political Protestantism of William and Marj^, and 
 the settlement of the Scottish kingdom under Queen 
 Anne, proved more powerful than the testimony of the 
 martyrs, and at last subjugated the Scottish, as well as 
 the English churches, under the yoke of Caesar, leaving 
 the piety and earnest love of the truth, which might 
 afterward be generated by her doctors, to fly off in se- 
 cession after secession till the present day." {liobinson 
 ut siipra. See also his lecture on The American Theory 
 of Church and State before the Maryland Institue, 
 Baltimore.) The fundamental defect in the position of 
 the Scotch church (a defect to which the Free Church, 
 notwithstanding its noble testimony, still clings), is the 
 doctrine that the state ought to support the church by 
 its revenues ; as if it were possible for the church, thus 
 supported by the state, to be independent. 
 
 *0n Carstairs, see Macauliy's History of England, III., p. 269, aud 
 Hetherington''s Hist of the Church of Scotland^ cliap. viii. (pp. 300 aud 
 304, Vol. V. of Carter's Ed., New York, 1844.) 
 
136 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 18. The Confession of the Westminster Assembly be- 
 ing composed under the influence of the Scotch com- 
 missioners and of Englishmen brought up in the Eras- 
 tian establishment, could not of course be expected to 
 teach the truth more purely, on this subject, than the 
 Scotch. Hence it was changed he/ore it ivas adopted 
 by the Presbyterian Church of the United States of 
 America (1788), as you have been informed in a previ- 
 ous lecture. 
 
 19. Such being the history of this subject in other 
 countries and ages, we come now to notice, very briefly, 
 its history in the United States. Most of the colo- 
 nists Avho came to this country, came of course with 
 the ideas of church and state which prevailed in the 
 lands from which they came. They had learned some- 
 thing from persecution, but they had much still to 
 learn. The New England Puritans established a sort of 
 theocracy, thus rushing to the other extreme from the 
 Erastian paganism from which they had suffered so 
 much ; the pulpit became the expounder of public 
 policy and of the law of the land ; and the church was 
 filled with hypocrites and pretenders to godliness. 
 Roger Williams and the Baptists suffering persecution 
 in Massachusetts, betook themselves, after the manner 
 of minorities when oppressed by majorities, to the 
 ramparts of sound principles, and founded the settle- 
 ment of Rhode Island (1635) in which they proclaimed 
 not only religious toleration, but religious liberty. The 
 Huguenots were quiet; the Dutch were liberal; the 
 Scotch and Scotch-Irish, who were the chief instru- 
 ments in moulding the Presbyterian Church in this 
 country, were the next, after Roger Williams, to pro- 
 claim the true theory of the relations of church and 
 and state. Waddell, " the blind preacher," William 
 Graham, Stanhope Smith, and the old Hanover Pres- 
 bytery in Virginia, on the ecclesiastical side, with 
 Thomas Jefferson on the civil side, who, first of all the 
 statesmen in history, caught the true idea, co-operated 
 
The Power Ecclesiastical and Civil. 137 
 
 in establishing what is sometimes called the Virginia 
 doctrine, which Mr. Stuart Eobinson (accommodating 
 the language of Melville) expresses thas : " There be 
 two republics in this nation, one the civil republic of 
 the United States, of which the man in the White House 
 is the head; the other the spiritual commonwealth, 
 of which Jesus Christ is the head, with which the man 
 in the White House has nothing to do, but to protect 
 the persons and property of its subjects, as that of 
 other citizens." (Cincinnati speech.) This is the theory 
 which was supposed to be the theory of the United 
 States, as well as of Virginia, up to the period of the 
 war. It was found, explicitly or im])licitly, in all the 
 constitutions and bills of rights of the States (with the 
 exception, j^erhaps, of North Carolina), and is recog- 
 nized by that provision of the constitution which pro- 
 hibits the passage of any law infringing upon the 
 rights of conscience. It is the clear teaching of' 
 the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church of 
 the United States of America, and, I suppose, was uni- 
 versally received by all other denominations, if not 
 expressly taught in their public formularies and sym- 
 bols. It is the Scotch theory, without the feature of 
 state support, and with the voluntary principle instead. 
 20. But the history of this country has demonstra- 
 ted tjiat a refined and exalted worldly civilization 
 makes no change in the heart of man ; that he is an 
 incorrigible sinner, and incurably disposed to walk in 
 the light of his own eyes; that the kingdom of Christ 
 is of no account to him, except so far as it can be made 
 to subserve his own lusts. We stand amazed, notwith- 
 standing the faithful warnings of prophets and apos- 
 tles, at the reappearance of the beast, and the revival 
 of the maxims of Koman civilians and mediaeval can- 
 onists in the nineteenth century, and in "the freest 
 and most enlightened nation of the globe." We are 
 confounded when we see the owls and bats of the dark 
 ages flying about in the blaze of this boasted period of 
 
138 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 illumination, and statesmen and cliurclimen, in an age 
 of boasted liberty, forging over again tlie chains and 
 fetters of the ages of slavery and blood. Saddest of 
 all, we see a clinrch which has been accustomed to 
 pride itself upon an ancestry martyred for Christ's 
 crown, voluntarily pulling down his ensign and running 
 up the ensign of Cresar; a church which has testified 
 "repentance" towards God and "faith towards the 
 Lord Jesus Christ," as the burden of its commission, 
 now drivelling about "loyalty and freedom," and out- 
 lawing men who are as good as themselves, for no 
 other cause than the holding of a theory of the govern- 
 ment which has been held by many of the best and 
 wisest Americans from the beginning. Once more, 
 then, the church is called to testif}' for he rights of 
 her only head and king, Jesus Christ, and for the 
 freedom and independence which he has conferred 
 upon herself as the purchase of his most precious 
 blood. Once more has she been compelled by the as- 
 saults of her adversaries to study her own nature and 
 to define her relation to that other ordinance of God, 
 the state. These relations we come now to consider 
 dogmatically, as we have already considered them 
 historically. 
 
 21. The church and the state agree in these three 
 points : 1st, That they are ordained of God ; 2nd, That 
 they are ordained for his glory; 3rd, That they are or- 
 dained for the good of mankind. 
 
 22. They differ in the following points : 1st, In the 
 aspects and relations in which God is contemplated 
 by them respectively as the source of power _; 2nd, In 
 the aspects in which man is contemplated by them re- 
 spectively as the ohject of power; 3rd, In the rule by 
 which they are to be respectively guided in the exer- 
 cise of power. Of these, in their order, we now pro- 
 ceed to treat more particularly. 
 
 23. First, as to the aspects and relations in which 
 God as the source ofj^otver is contemplated by church 
 
1*HE Power Ecclesiastical and Civil. 139 
 
 and state respectively. I observe that the state is the 
 ordinance of God, considered as Creator, and, there- 
 fore, the moral governor of mankind, while the chnrch 
 is an ordinance of God, considered as the Saviour and 
 Kestorer of mankind. We need not dwell upon this 
 point here, as the illustration and proof of it are ne- 
 cessarily involved in the proof and illustration of the 
 next, Avhich is second, as to the aspects and relations 
 in which church and state, respectively, contemplate 
 man as the ohject of -power, where it is to be noted, (a), 
 that the state is ordained for man as man, the church 
 for man as a sinner, under a dispensation of restora- 
 tion and salvation. The state is for the whole race of 
 man, the church consists of that portion of the race 
 which is really, or by credible profession, the media- 
 torial body of Christ. The state is a government of 
 natural justice; the church, a government of grace. 
 
 24. The state is ordained for man as man, and is 
 ordained to realize the idea of justice. TVe find it ex- 
 isting in the germ when the race consisted of one man 
 and one woman. The woman was in a state of sub- 
 ordination to the man. This subordination was not 
 the penal consequence of transgression, as is evident 
 from 1 Timothy ii. 11-14, where Paul argues that the 
 transgression was the consequence of the violation by 
 the woman of the order established by heaven, of 
 her ambitiously forsaking her condition of subordina- 
 tion, and acting as if she were the superior or the 
 equal of the man. If it should be asked, where was 
 the necessity or the propriety of an order implying 
 subordination in beings who w^ere created in the image 
 of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holi- 
 ness ? the answer is, that the propriety was founded 
 upon the diversity of capacity in intellect and other 
 endowments of human nature, which it pleased God 
 should exist in the man and the Avoman. If man had 
 not fallen, it would still have been his duty to bring 
 up his children in the knowledge of God, and to direct 
 12 
 
140 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 tliem in the way in which they should glorify God; 
 albeit these children, by the terms of the supposition, 
 would all have been holy and without inclination to 
 go astray; nay, more, in no danger at all of going 
 astray, as they would havd been confirmed in the pos- 
 session of eternal life by the covenant with their fa- 
 ther. In other words, if all creatures, because they 
 are creatures, need direction from God as to the mode 
 in which they are to glorify and enjoy him, why might 
 not this direction be given through the instrumentality 
 of others as well as immediately by God himself? 
 There is not only no absurdity in such an arrange- 
 ment, but there are traces of the wonderful wisdom 
 and goodness of the Creator in it. Society is not an 
 unison, but an exquisite harmony, a grand instrument 
 of various chords for the harping of hymns and halle- 
 lujahs to the God and Father of all. Even among the 
 unfallen angels, we have reason to believe, there are 
 thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers — order 
 in the form of a celestial hierarchy. Man having fallen, 
 however, and the love which constituted the very' spirit 
 and temper of his mind having given place to enmity, 
 something more than direction was now necessary. He 
 needed restraint ; his appetites must be bridled and co- 
 erced. The law of the two tables, which, in his state 
 of innocence and uprightness, had been written upon 
 his lieai't summarily, in the 2^<^''^itlve and 2)^"ece2)tive form 
 of loi'e, must now be written externally, in detail, upon 
 tablets of stone, and in a prohibitory form, " thou slialt 
 noV ; and in reference to the second table, which pre- 
 scribes the duties growing out of the relations of man 
 to man, it became necessary that overt acts of trans- 
 gression which were not only morally wrong, but in- 
 jurious to society, should not only be discountenanced 
 by prohibition, but restrained and prevented by pun- 
 ishment. Hence arose a government oi force. 
 
 25. The case, then, stands thus : In any condition 
 of our race, the social nature of man must have given 
 
The Powek Ecclesiastical and Civil. 141 
 
 rise to the secular power. In a state of innocence it 
 would have been simply a directing power, a constitu- 
 tion designed merely to carry out and fulfil, without 
 confusion, the blind instincts or impulses of love, love 
 of self and love of neighbor. In a fallen state, it has 
 become, of necessity, a restraining and punishing, as 
 well as a directing power. But in both conditions and 
 in both forms it is an ordinance of God, "the author of 
 the constitution and course of nature." It is the nat- 
 ure of man to exist in society, and society is necessary 
 to his existence. But society cannot exist without law 
 and order of some sort. Therefore government is as 
 necessary to man as society, and for this reason is as 
 natural to man as society. It may not be an original 
 endowment of man, but it is natural, and, if natural, 
 then the ordinance of God. The perception of dis- 
 tance by the eye is not an original endowment of man, 
 but the organ is so constituted by God, that, in the* 
 course of time, it necessarily acquires it, and it is, 
 therefore, natural to man, and therefore the ordinance 
 of God. Civil government, then, is a branch or de- 
 partment of the moral government of God, the Creator 
 and Ruler over man. God governs man by mechani- 
 cal laws, by chemical laws, by vital laws, and he gov- 
 erns him by civil laws. He who leaps from a precipice 
 or drinks a glass of poison, and dies, dies under a law 
 of God, which executes itself. He who murders his 
 brother, and dies on the gallows, dies under a law of 
 God, which is executed hy the hand of the civil magis- 
 trate, the minister of God. In all such cases death is 
 a penalty inflicted by God for a violation of a rule of 
 his government, physical or moral. 
 
 26. If this be a just view of the subject, civil gov- 
 ernment is a great moral institute, not a mere ex- 
 pedient of human wdsdom and sagacity for the pre- 
 vention of evil. It is this low, wretched, utilitarian 
 view which has contributed its full share to the crimes 
 and miseries of this country, in which the criminal 
 
142 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 law was fast becoming as pure an affair of expediency 
 as tlie civil. But tlie government of God, as Creator, 
 is a gove-rnment oi justice, and crime is punishable for 
 its ill-desert; and the civil magistrate, who is the min- 
 ister of God (Roman xiii.), while he has no right, from 
 any view of expediency, to inflict any punishment Avhich 
 justice does not sanction, is bound to inflict the pun- 
 ishment which justice requires and crime deserves. 
 This remark is needed for the sake of one important 
 inference, and that is, that every civil government on 
 earth is bound explicitly to recognize its responsibility 
 to God as the moral governor of mankind. It is per- 
 fectly monstrous that the power Avhich bears the sword 
 and exercises the awful prerogative of taking human 
 life, either in peace or war, should not acknowledge 
 itself to l)e the servant of the sovereign Lord of life 
 and death ; that the power which represents the majesty 
 of justice, should not recognize its responsibility to 
 him who is the eternal foundation and standard of all 
 righteousness. So much for civil government as the 
 ordinance of God. It regards man as man, and, there- 
 fore, regards all men. 
 
 27. The church, on the other hand, is the ordinance 
 of God, considered as the Saviour of men in the person 
 of Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son. It contem- 
 plates man, hot simply as man, nor as upright in his 
 original condition of innocence, nor simply as a fallen 
 creature, but as " the prisoner of hope," or more strictly 
 still, as "the heir of salvation," really or by credible 
 profession. It, therefore, does not contemplate all 
 men, but only those who enjoy a dispensation of grace, 
 or more strictly (as to its government) those who pro- 
 fess and call themselves Christians. 
 
 28. We note again, (b), that the state considers man 
 only as to his outward being. It protects the citizen 
 or the subject in his pei'son, his property, his liberty, 
 by punishing illegal assaults upon either. Its pun- 
 ishments affect the body and outward condition of the 
 
The Power Ecclesiastical and Civil. 143 
 
 transgressor. It compels obedience and punishes dis- 
 obedience by brute force. This is the sanction of its 
 law. Its symbol is the sword. It can have nothing 
 to do, therefore, with the faith of its subjects ; for faith 
 lies in the domain of the spirit, and cannot be com- 
 pelled. The state does not, and cannot, aim at holi- 
 ness, it aims only at social order. It has nothing to 
 do with the religion of the citizen, or the loyalty of the 
 heart, but only Avith his obedience to the laws, affecting 
 the body and the outward estate. It cannot require 
 the citizen to approve and love the laws, but only not 
 to violate them, 
 
 29. The church, on the other hand, moves in the 
 sphere of the spirit. It has nothing to do Avith the 
 bodies, the estates, the outward condition of mankind. 
 Its sanctions are not corporeal, involving the exercise 
 of brute force, but only moral and spiritual, appealing 
 to the judgment, the faith, the conscience of its mem- 
 bers. It knows nothing of the sword, the dungeon, 
 the lash, pecuniary fines, etc., etc., but onl}' of argument, 
 exhortation, admonition, censure, etc., etc. Its great 
 function is to teach, to convince, to persuade, " to bear 
 witness of the truth." Its triumphs are the triumphs 
 of love ; it drags no reluctant captives at the wheels of 
 its chariot; the design of its ordinances, oracles, min- 
 istry, is through the efficacious operation of the Holy 
 Ghost to bring its captives into hearty sympathy with 
 its king, and so to give them a share in the glory and 
 exultation of the triumphs of the king. Its symbol 
 is the "keys," by which it opens and shuts the king- 
 dom of heaven, according as men are believers or im- 
 penitent. Its only sword is the sword of the Spirit, 
 which is the word of God. Its discipline is not the 
 punishment of an avenging judge, asserting the un- 
 bending majesty of the law, but the discipline of a 
 tender mother, whose bowels yearn over the wa^^ward 
 child, and who inflicts no pain, except for the child's 
 reformation and salvation. The authority of his king- 
 
144 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 clom is spiritual. His sword is a sword " coming out 
 of his mouth'' His voice, is " Son, give me thy heart " ; 
 " Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"; and 
 by the power of his Spirit, he sweetly constrains those 
 whom he chooses for members of his kingdom to call 
 him "Lord." He makes them willing in the day of 
 his power. They are his, or profess to be his ; have, 
 or make a credible profession of having, the great law 
 of love written upon their hearts, and, therefore, need 
 more the directing than the restraining power of the 
 law. The whole discipline of the church is based 
 upon the supposition of faith in its members, so that 
 what is of no account in the eye of the state, is 
 primary and fundamental in the eyes of the church. 
 It is so perfectly obvious, that the employment of 
 force is abhorrent, from the whole nature and genius 
 of the church, that even the fiends of the "holy office" 
 were compelled to profess the greatest horror of shed- 
 ding the blood of heretics, and piously turned them 
 over to the secular arm. The Inquisition was always, 
 in theory at least, what every court of the church is, 
 a "penitentiary tribunal," a tribunal whose function is 
 not punishment, Init discipline, not the destruction, 
 but the edification of the offender, brought about 
 through his personal repentance. 
 
 30. Tliird. The state and the church differ in the 
 rule by which they are respectively guided in the ex- 
 ercise of power. The constitution of the church is a 
 divine revelation ; the constitution of the state must be 
 determined by human reason and the course of provi- 
 dential events. (Assembly of 1861.) The Bible is the 
 statute-book of the church, the visible kingdom of 
 Christ ; the light of nature is the guide of the state. 
 The church has no legislative power, properly so- 
 called, but only a power to declare and obey the law 
 of Christ's kingdom. The church is only a witness, 
 and she cannot go beyond the divine testimony of the 
 Word; she has no commission to open her lips, but 
 
The Power Ecclesiastical and Civil. 145 
 
 with a " Thus saith the Lord." All her acts of govern- 
 ment are acts of obedience to Christ, her only king. 
 As a church, she owes no allegiance to any authority 
 but that of Christ ; as his bride, she owes no loyalty 
 to any person but him. Her members, as citizens or 
 subjects, owe allegiance to the civil power, and are 
 subject to it in their bodies and estates ; but as Chris- 
 tians, they know no authority but Christ's ; and if the 
 church itself should enact laws against her divine con- 
 stitution, her members must appeal from her to Christ, 
 the king. The state may adopt any form of govern- 
 ment it pleases — its power is magisterial and impera- 
 tive. The power of the church being only "ministerial 
 and declarative," she must adopt the form of govern- 
 ment whose regulative and constitutive principles are 
 revealed in the Scriptures, her constitution and charter. 
 The life of the state is natural, and it is left to create 
 an organization for itself. The life of the church is su- 
 pernatural, and God prescribes an organization for it. 
 31. When we say that the Bible is not the rule for 
 the state, we do not mean that the state is at lib- 
 erty to disregard its teachings. We mean to affirm 
 that God has given no commission to the state to tes- 
 tify to the truth of Christ's revelation, or to interpret 
 it. It is to the church that the lively oracles have heen 
 comrnitted hy her divine Head. The church alone is 
 founded upon the prophets and apostles, Jesus 
 Christ himself being the chief corner stone. The 
 church alone is the pillar and ground of the truth. She 
 is the woman, clothed with the sun, with the moon un- 
 der her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve 
 stars. She is the system of candlesticks, in the 
 midst of which the King of the kingdom walks, and in 
 his hand alone are the stars, the teachers and the 
 rulers of the church. Christ is the luraen illuminans^ the 
 church is the lumen illuniinatum. It is the kingdom 
 of the Son of Man, and not the kingdom of the levia- 
 than of the state, which is the light of the world. This 
 
146 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 is the case under the present dispensation, whatever 
 may be the case when kingdoms of this world shall l)e- 
 come the kingdoms of onr Lord and of his Christ. 
 Hence the change which has been proposed from time 
 to time in the constitution of the United States, so as 
 to make that instrument acknowledge the divine 
 authority of the Scriptures and the kingly office of 
 Christ, proceeds upon a totally false conception of the 
 sphere and functions of the state. As the state is the 
 ordinance of God, as creator and moral governor, and 
 is designed for man as man, it has nothing to do with 
 any principles of religion but those which belong to 
 man as man : to wit, the being of God and a moral 
 government. To give it any power over the truths of 
 revealed religion, and over the records which contain 
 those truths, is to confound it with the church, or what 
 is practically the same thing, to abolish the church, ex- 
 cept as an auxiliary of the state, in preserving order. 
 It becomes then, what iniidel philosophers have repre- 
 sented it to be, a mere temporary "crutch." 
 
 32. The definition of the church visible in our Con- 
 fession (Chap. XXV. Sec. 5, 2), makes it to consist of 
 those "who profess the true religion, together with their 
 children." Now, if the proposed change in the consti- 
 tution of the United States were made, the state Avould 
 answer to this definition. It would profess the "true 
 religion." If it should be said that it is but a single 
 doctrine, which the state professes, we ansAver again, 
 (a), that it is a confession fully as comprehensive as" 
 that which the church itself made for centuries under 
 its patriarchal form ; (/>), that in itself it includes the 
 whole plan of salvation ; for Christ's kingly office is 
 based upon his priestly. It is certainly no narrower 
 than the confession in Acts viii. 37, and 1 Corinthians, 
 xii. 3. It is the very substance of the teaching of the 
 whole gospel history, specialty of the first three Gos- 
 pels. The burden of this history is the "kingdom of 
 heaven" and the " Son of Man," the king, (c), That 
 
The Power Ecclesiastical and Civil. 147 
 
 the principle upon which the advocates of this amend- 
 ment proceed does not hinder the state from enlarging 
 its confession at any time, or from finally enlarging 
 it to the dimensions of the Westminster standards. 
 Upon the whole, then, it appears that these brethren 
 would logically confound church and state, by making 
 the same definition answer to both ; and really con- 
 found them by making the state and church both- wit- 
 nesses of Christ. 
 
 33. The only safety for liberty and religion is in 
 rigidly enforcing the maxim that the Bible is the 2^osi- 
 tive rule for the church, a negative rule for the state. 
 The state may do whatever the Bible does not forhkl. 
 The church may do only what the Bible directs or per- 
 mits ; and where the Bible is silent, the church must 
 be silent. Whatever the Bible does not grant is eo-ipso 
 to the church prohibited. This distinction is al- 
 most certain to be overlooked when civil and ecclesias- 
 tical functions are mingled, as in England in the days 
 of Hooker and Cartwright — Hooker and the court 
 party contending that matters not expressly prohibited 
 in the Scriptures were matters of lawful legislation on 
 the part of the church. This approval of the princi- 
 ple, that whatever is not forbidden is lawful, Avas natu- 
 ral enough to these men, because the church had been 
 subject, and continued to be subject, to the civil power; 
 and the principle is justly applicable to the state. 
 Cartwright and the Puritans contending, on the other 
 hand, that the principle was false in its application to 
 the church; that the Bible was the constitution and 
 charter of the church, and consequently the silence 
 was prohibition, or, in other words, that all additions 
 to the things in the Bible, if not contrary to any par- 
 ticular command, were contrary to the general com- 
 mand that "nothing be added." So, also, in the 
 United States, when the church, forgetting her ex- 
 clusive relation to Christ, committed fornication with 
 the civil power, and abdicated her high dignity and 
 
148 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 glory as tlie free woman, voluntarily enslaved herself 
 to the state. We find the church, on the one hand, 
 leaving her testimony and prescribing terms of com- 
 munion not revealed in the Scriptures ; and the state, 
 on the other hand, transcending its sphere and usurp- 
 ing the privileges of the church and of Christ. The 
 state, and even a party in the state, dictates (virtually 
 at least) the testimony of the church ; and the church 
 (or its doctors) insist that the state also testify for a 
 doctrine, which she herself had practically denied, the 
 royal authority and headship of Christ. How re- 
 morseless is that unconscious logic which governs men 
 who have forsaken, or who are ignorant of, a conscious 
 logic. The church feels that there is no great difference 
 between her and the state, and, therefore, on the one 
 hand, acts upon the rule, that whatever is not prohib- 
 ited is lawful ; and, on the other hand, insists that the 
 state shall adopt her lip-service, and confess that Jesus 
 is the king. She feels that Christ is no more her king 
 than he is the state's king, and therefore the confes- 
 sion and the legislation ought to be the same in both. 
 HoAv else can we account for the remarkable fact, that 
 in the very midst of all the shameful subserviency of 
 the church to the civil iDOwer, and its superserviceable 
 zeal on behalf of the government in the midst of its 
 apostasy from true allegiance to Christ, it should in- 
 sist upon the state amending its constitution, so as to 
 confess Christ to be a king. True, a like proposition Avas 
 made in the Southern church, and in the midst of great 
 political excitement, when the state loomed out in pro- 
 portions vast enough to fill nearly the whole field of 
 vision. But it has been buried effectually, and that, 
 too, because deemed inconsistent with the Scriptural 
 doctrine of church and state. 
 
 34. This view of the relation of the Scriptures and 
 of the truth they reveal to church and state respect- 
 ively, is, we think, clearly taught in John xviii. 36, 37. 
 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world; if 
 
The Power Ecclesiastical and Civil. 149 
 
 my kingdom were of this world, then would my ser- 
 vants light that I should not be delivered to the Jews; 
 but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate, 
 therefore, said unto him, Art thou a king, then? 
 Jesus answered. Thou sayest that I am a king. To 
 this end was I born, and for this cause came I into 
 the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. 
 Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." 1. 
 Jesus teaches us that his kingdom is not of this world, 
 either as to its origin or its nature. 2. That it is 
 not, therefore, a kingdom of force, but of persuasion, 
 founded upon the conviction of the truth. Its great 
 glory is internal, the possession of the truth ; its great 
 external feature is "bearing witness to the truth." The 
 truth is the means by which this kingdom is established 
 and extended, and the only subjects it recognizes are 
 those who are "of the truth," and all such, are its sub- 
 jects. 3. That this opposition between his kingdom and 
 the kingdom of this world (which Pilate represented), 
 should last during the dispensation of the calling of 
 a people out from among the Gentiles. '^Novj is my 
 kingdom not from hence." Now, if a commission has 
 been given to civil governments to profess the truth of 
 Christ, how^ could Christ say that his kingdom differed 
 from the kingdoms of the w^orld in this very respect ? 
 The ideas of "the truth" and "the sw^ord" are set over 
 against each other. A kingdom of force is not a king- 
 dom of truth, and vice versa. This is the very point 
 of the contrast between the tw^o kingdoms, as Christ 
 presents it. And the question of Pilate, "What is 
 truth ? " taken in connection with the following declar- 
 ation to the Jews, "I find no fault in Mdi," shows 
 that he understood this much, that Christ's kingdom 
 was a totally different thing from that of C?esar. He 
 understood the difference better than many Christian 
 kings, and even Christian churches, have understood 
 it in later times. Bearing witness to the truth, theie- 
 fore, is the function of Christ's kingdom, not the func- 
 
l50 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 tion of the kingdom of this world. It may do very 
 well for a Saracen to talk <>f propagating the truth by 
 the sword, but it is a shame for a Christian to think of 
 force in connection with the truth. Only they who are 
 "born of the truth" and "of the spirit of the truth" 
 can " obey the truth " and " hear the king's voice." The 
 sword has often silenced, but never convinced men. 
 
 35. The idea of a Christian nation, which is associ- 
 ated with this amendment of the constitution, is, as 
 has been already suggested, a false and impracticable 
 idea during the present condition of trial, testimony, 
 and conflict. The Jews were a ^'jjeculiar people" in 
 this respect, and were, therein, a type of the Christian 
 church. The conception of the state which prophecy 
 generally gives us is that of an organism operating by 
 brute force, and it is generally represented in an atti- 
 tude of opposition to the church of Christ. Hence we 
 find those civil governments which have undertaken to 
 "bear witness to the truth" have usually denied the 
 truth and persecuted its professors. And even where 
 civil governments make no such pretensions, their pol- 
 icy, both domestic and foreign, demonstrates that they 
 are "of the earth, earthy," "kingdoms of this world," 
 and not of the Lord and of his Christ. We must wait 
 for the sounding of the seventh trumpet, in order to 
 see a Christian nation or a Christian government. Till 
 then civil government will be, in the main, what 
 Hobbes, its worshipper, represents it, a leviathan. 
 
 36. It may not be amiss to add a word or two more 
 upon the use which may be legitimately made of the 
 Scriptures by the state. 1. In the first place, the light 
 of nature and reason, which is the guide of the state, is 
 made clear by the revealed will of God. The true 
 statesman Avill seek light from every possible quarter. 
 As he will enlarge his views by the study of the politi- 
 cal writings of Plato, Aristotle and Cicero, and by the 
 study of the great historians of Greece and Rome, as 
 well as those of modern states, so he will not neglect 
 
The Power Ecclesiastical and Civil. 151 
 
 the laws of Moses, nor the striking biblical histories in 
 which the operation of those laws is exemplified. And 
 upon many points of civil regulation he will find that 
 the Bible sustains the conclusions of reason and ex- 
 perience. For example, in respect to the justice and 
 expediency of capital punishment for the crime of 
 murder, the Bible not only gives its sanction to this 
 penalty, but makes it the duty of the civil magistrate, 
 as the sword-bearer, to inflict it. It represents the land 
 in which murder is not thus punished, as " polluted 
 with blood," and thereby provoking the judgment of 
 heaven. So also as to the lawfulness of war, and of the 
 profession of a soldier. The sword-bearer is bound to 
 wage defensive war; to punish the invader, and to 
 protect the lives and property of the people, upon the 
 same principle upon which he punishes the individual 
 murderer. According to the light of nature, interpret- 
 ed by the Scriptures, the Quaker theory of war is not 
 merely a sickly sentimentalism, but a rebellion against 
 the organized law of society and government. The 
 law of marriage is another example. The Bible gives 
 us, in the account of the creation of man, as male and 
 female (one man and one woman, the one sex as the 
 complement of the other), the true idea which should 
 govern all civil legislation concerning this relation. It 
 shows the inexpediency of polygamy. In assuming, 
 further, a community of life l)etween the husband and 
 the wife, it makes the promiscuous intercourse of the 
 sexes a mondrous crime against nature, and so con- 
 firnis a physiological law, Avhicli has been established 
 by observation and experience. It settles, also, the 
 question of independent, marital rights. 
 
 37. In the second place, the Bible rectifies the teach- 
 ings of the light of nature. In the case of a weekly 
 rest, for example, it teaches that such a rest, like the 
 institution of marriage, belongs to man as man, was 
 ordained before his fall, and is necessary to his well 
 being. Beason and experience have amply demon- 
 13 
 
152 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 strated the same truth, that the " Sabbath was made 
 for man " ; but it is doubtful whether the fact would 
 have been recognized by the light of nature alone ; and 
 Christian governments, so-called, habitually violate 
 reason and experience in their legislation concerning a 
 weekly rest. The French, at the close of the last cen- 
 tury, abolished it altogether, and with what results all 
 the world knows. 
 
 38. In the third place, every man who has received 
 this revelation is bound to accept it as a revelation 
 from God, and to regulate his faith and practice by its 
 authority, either in a ]30sitive or negative way. Touch- 
 ing the whole matter of the method of salvation, the 
 whole question as to what is necessary to be believed 
 or done, and all that is necessary to be believed or 
 done, in order to salvation and eternal life, the Scrip- 
 tures are a full, complete and j^ositive guide. Touch- 
 ing the life that now is, the conditions necessary to 
 sustain the being or promote the well-being of society, 
 agriculture, commerce, manufactures, civil and crimi- 
 nal laws, the man, if he be a civil magistrate, or what- 
 ever else, is to be governed by the negative authority 
 of the Bible. He can do anything which the Bible 
 does not forhid. 
 
 39. It may be said that this cannot be the theory 
 received by the church and people of this country be- 
 fore the war ; for it had become the settled policy of 
 the Federal government to have chaplains of Congress 
 and chaplains of the army and navy, and of the army 
 and navy schools ; and of the State governments, as 
 well as the Federal, to recognize the Sabbath as the 
 law of the land ; to prescribe the reading of the Bible 
 in the public schools, etc. We answer: 1. In refer- 
 ence to the chaplains, that the government was bound 
 to provide religious ordinances for those whom its ser- 
 vice prevented from procuring them for themselves, 
 but the choice of religious teachers ought to have been 
 left to the men who were to be placed under their in- 
 
The Power Ecclesiastical and Civil. 153 
 
 struction ; and, in respect to the cLaplains of Congress, 
 the compensation ought to be paid by the members 
 themselves, not out of the government treasury ; or, in 
 other words, they ought to act as men or citizens, not 
 as legislators — in like manner as the President of the 
 United States, or a Governor of a State, can invite the 
 people to observe a day of prayer or thanksgiving, 
 only as a distinguished citizen. If the chief magistrate 
 should issue a proclamation of this sort, as of authority, 
 without the action of the legislative department of the 
 government, he would be guilt}^ of usurping the powers 
 of that department ; and if the legislative and executive 
 departments together should ordain such a day, both 
 would be guilty of usurping the powers of the church. 2. 
 In regard to the use of the Bible in the public schools, the 
 state has no power to ordain anything about the Bible in 
 the public schools, either in the way of prescribing or 
 proscribing its use as the word of God. It might 
 ordain the use of the English Bible as a classic of the 
 English language, but, in my judgment, it would not 
 be expedient to do so. The public schools are not de- 
 signed to teach revealed religion, but the branches of 
 secular learning. The teaching of religion must be 
 left to the family and the church. 3. In regard to the 
 Sabbath, we have already alluded to one ground upon 
 which it is recognized in civil law. " It may be added, 
 that the state has no right to violate liberty of con- 
 science ; and by disregarding the Sabbath as it does 
 in some of its laws (in the post-office department, for 
 example), it does violate the liberty of conscience by 
 excluding from offices those who regard the Sabbath 
 as a rest divinely ordained. On the other hand, it is 
 absurd to contend, as Jews and infidels contend, that 
 their rights are violated by the state's prohibiting 
 buying and selling on the Sabbath, unless they take the 
 position that the state has no right to put any re- 
 striction whatever uj)on trade. If they take this po- 
 
 * See Soutliern Presh. Review for Jan. 1880, pp. 101 if. 
 
154 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 sition, they make civil government an impossibility. 
 Illustrate the relation of church and state further by 
 reference to the provision contained in the constitution 
 of some of the States, forbidding ministers to be chosen 
 to certain civil offices. 
 
 40. One more question of great importance, as re- 
 cent events have shown it to be, demands a brief no- 
 tice. The respective jurisdictions of church and state 
 seem to meet in the idea of duty. In many things, in 
 the majority of things, this is the occasion of no diffi- 
 culty. The church enjoins duty as obedience to God, 
 and the state enforces it as the safeguard of social or- 
 der. But there can be no collision unless the one or 
 the other blunders as to the things that are materially 
 right. When the state makes wicked laws, contradict- 
 ing the eternal principles of rectitude, the church is at 
 liberty to testify against them, and humbly to petition 
 that they may be repealed. In like manner, if the 
 church becomes seditious and a disturber of the peace, 
 the state has the right to abate the nuisance. In ordin- 
 ary cases, however, there is not likely to be a collision. 
 The only serious danger is where moral duty is condi- 
 tioned upon a political question." Under the pretext of 
 inculcating duty, the church may usurp the power to 
 determine the question which conditions it, and that 
 is precisely what «he is debarred from doing. The 
 condition must be given. She must accept it from the 
 state, and then her own course is clear. If Cj^sar is 
 your master, then pay tribute to him ; but whether the 
 "if" holds, whether Caesar is your master or not, whe- 
 ther he ever had any just authority, whether he now 
 retains it, or has forfeited it, these are points Avhich 
 the church has no commission to adjudicate. (Letter 
 of Assembly of 1861 to the churches throughout the 
 world.) This was the view also of Dr. Hodge and 
 others who protested against the " Spring Eesolutions" 
 
 * On* the tactics of Erastiaus aud Ultramontauists as to these mixed 
 questions, see Cunningham'' s Church Principles, page 152. 
 
The Power Ecclesiastical and Civil. 155 
 
 adopted by the Northern Assembly of 1861. They 
 say: "We deny the right of the General Assembly to 
 decide the political question, to what government the 
 allegiance of Presbyterians, as citizens, is due, and its 
 right to make that decision a condition of membership 
 in onr church." . . . " The General Assembly in this 
 decided a political question, and in making that decis* 
 ion practically a condition of membership in the church 
 has, in our judgment, violated the constitution of the 
 church, and tisurjped the prerogative of its divine Mas* 
 ter." (See the paper quoted in Bullock's address, page 
 10.) The Synod of Kentucky of the same year, under 
 the lead of Dr. R. J. Breckinridge and Dr. Humphrey, 
 adopted a similar testimony against the action of the 
 Assembly. In this they foUow^ed the example of the 
 Master, who, though head over all things to the church, 
 refused to decide the question of civil allegiance, or to 
 exercise anj^ other secular function. In this they fol- 
 lowed the example of the church for many generations, 
 which recognized no political questions, as questions 
 of allegiance to this or that emperor. It was only af- 
 ter the establishment of the Christian religion under 
 Constantine, that church questions became compli- 
 cated with questions of allegiance and of support to 
 this or that government. 
 
 41. It is a question, as the protestants of the Assem- 
 bly of 1861 (Northern) say, about which Christians 
 may honestly differ. In this country it is a question 
 about the interpretation of the constitution. The Fed- 
 eralist ministers of the North, before the war, often 
 exchanged views with States-rights ministers of the 
 North and South upon this question, and no one of 
 them thought of denouncing the States-rights theory, 
 either as a heresy or as an irnmorality ; nay, not a few 
 of them, who are now foremost in denouncing us as 
 rebels, unworthy to sit with them at the Lord's table, 
 asserted and defended the right of the South to seek 
 redress against the tyranny of a majority, and one of 
 them went so far as to defend the right of the South 
 
156 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 to make war for her own protection. (See Breckinridge 
 in Presljyterial Critic for Jnly, 1855.) Surely it is an 
 astonnding spectacle to see this church fall so sud- 
 denly, headlong, down from the very battlements of 
 heaven into the boiling abyss of partisan political pas- 
 sion, hatred, and excess. A solemn warning to us all 
 to " watch and pray, lest Ave enter into temptation." 
 
 42. The foregoing views of the relations of church 
 and state, of the indispensable necessity of each mov- 
 ing in its own orbit and attending to its own concerns, 
 have been fully vindicated by the history of this coun- 
 try. The church in the North became corrupt; the 
 glory of Christ was sacrificed to the interests of Caesar ; 
 the lovely fruits of charity perished in the storm of 
 political prejudice and passion ; the unclean spirit of 
 the world took possession of the temple of the Holy 
 Ghost, and the church, instead of being a sequestered 
 and quiet retreat for the heart weai-y of strife and tur- 
 moil, became itself the scene of strife and turmoil. As 
 its great type, the nation of Israel, dwelt in peace, 
 while the surrounding nations were convulsed, so long 
 as Israel was true to its vocation as a peculiar people 
 and separate from the nations, but became subject to 
 the dangers and calamities of those nations, even in a 
 higher degree, when it formed entangling alliances 
 with them, so also the church in this land, b}' renounc- 
 ing her dignity and safety as an organism entirely sep- 
 arate from the state, became subject to the miseries of 
 her ally. Better, a thousand times better, would it 
 be for her to be wasted by the fire and sword of the 
 beast, than to ride upon it and be carried hither and 
 thither by it, or, in other wards, to renounce her alle- 
 giance to her royal spouse and become a harlot. 
 
 XIY. 
 
 Other Theoeies of Chuech and State. 
 
 1st, That of alliance. The great expounder of this 
 theory is Bishop Warburton (in his treatise entitled 
 
Other Theories of Church and State. 157 
 
 Alliance heticeen CJuvrch and Stated. It is briefly as 
 follows (see Southern Preshyterian Beview, Vol. III., p. 
 214, October, 1849): "Church and state are originally 
 both independent and sovereign societies, having dif- 
 ferent ends in view, and hence not clashing, although 
 the same persons may be under the jurisdiction of 
 both. The office of the state is to provide for the teni- 
 jjoral interests of man. That of the church, for his 
 eternal interests. The care of the one is confined to 
 the lody, that of the other is directed to the soul. The 
 one looks upon offences as crimes, the other takes cog- 
 nizance of them as vices and as sins. Now, as civil 
 society can only restrain from open transgression, nor 
 always from this without opening the way to crimes 
 still more flagitious ; as it cannot enforce the duties of 
 imperfect obligation; and further, often inflames the 
 appetites it proposes to correct ; and as religion, hav- 
 ing the sanction of rewards (while civil government 
 has only that of punishment), exactly supplies these 
 defects ; so the church becomes necessary as a com- 
 plement to the state. The state, therefore, proposes 
 to the church a union for their mutual benefit, and 
 this union is called an ' alliance,' to indicate the origi- 
 nal sovereignty of the parties. By this alliance the 
 state pledges itself to endow, protect, and extend the 
 church, and the church to lend her whole influence to 
 the state. The reciprocal concessions are, that the 
 church resigns her supremacy by constituting the civil 
 ruler her supreme head, and by submitting her laws to 
 the state's approval ; and the state, in compensation, 
 gives to the church a coactive power for the reforma- 
 tion of manners, and secures her a seat and represen- 
 tation in the national council. By this alliance the 
 civil magistrate gets additional reverence, and the 
 church a power which does not belong to her." 
 
 In reference to this theory it is sufficient to sa}^ : 1st, 
 That the church has no "sovereignty," and, therefore, 
 could form no such " alliance." 2nd, That while it is 
 true that she supplies the deficiencies of civil govern- 
 
158 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 ment, it is also true that she does this most e£fectually 
 when she is untrammelled and uncorrupted by any 
 such raesalliance, as all history shows. 3rd, That the 
 "coercive" power she gets from the state is a power 
 which does not belong to her, a power which tends to 
 destroy that moral and spiritual power which does be- 
 long to her, and to nullify her vocation as a witness 
 for the truth. She must be like her Master (John 
 xviii. 36, 37). 4th, The theory is inconsistent with it- 
 self. The church and state are represented as sover- 
 eign and independent, having each a life, a sphere, an 
 aim, etc., etc., of its own; and yet the alliance is made 
 necessary to the life of both. 
 
 II. The Church of Scotland Theory. — The most il- 
 lustrious defender of this theory is Dr. Chalmers, in 
 his Lectures on the Establishment and Extension of Na- 
 tional Churches. This is, in sum, that the church has 
 a right to a "legal provision for the expenses of its 
 ministrations." The church does not, however, resign 
 any portion of her independence. She receives from 
 the state the maintenance of her clergy, and the clergy 
 in return give to the subjects of the state a Christian 
 education ; but they may and do reserve to themselves 
 the whole power and privilege of determining what 
 that education shall be. For their food and raiment, 
 and their sacred, or even their private edifices, they 
 may be indebted to the state; but their creed, disci- 
 pline, ritual, articles of faith, formularias, whether of 
 doctrine or devotion," etc., etc. 
 
 Answer: (1), Such an establishment is as purely Uto- 
 pian as Plato's republic. (2), The history of the church 
 of Scotland refutes it all. (3), No state will, or ought 
 to, support a church without holding the church ac- 
 countable for the mode in which the funds are ex- 
 pended. If the state pays for " education," she has a 
 right to say what sort of education she is willing to pay 
 for, and to enquire whether she is getting it. (4), Then 
 the civil magistrate must be the judge as to matters of 
 
Othee Views of Church and State. 159 
 
 faith, which is the principle of all the persecutions 
 which have cursed the earth, and of which the king- 
 dom of Scotland has had its full share. (5), The spir- 
 ituality of the church impaired. Moderatism in the 
 kirk of Scotland. 
 
 III. Gladstone' s Theory. — [The State in its delation 
 with the Church, by W. E. Gladstone, Esq., M. P. See 
 also Macaulay's review of this work in his Miscella- 
 nies.) The theory, in sum, is the same as that of Vat- 
 tel and other old civilians, that civil government is in- 
 stituted for the highest good of the whole in every 
 concern, and is bound to do all in its power for this 
 end in every department ; that a commonwealth is a 
 moral person, having judgment, responsibility, etc., etc. 
 (compare Theory of Territorial Jurisdiction, page 162, 
 below), and is, therefore, bound as a corporate person 
 to recognize and obey the true religion. Hence the 
 state, as a state, must have its religion. It must pro- 
 fess this religion by state acts. It must have a relig- 
 ious test for office, because otherwise the religious 
 character of the state would be lost ; and it must use 
 its state power to propagate this state religion. Mac- 
 aulay's review showing that, upon these principles of 
 Mr. Gladstone, every army, bank, railroad corpora- 
 tion, would be bound to have its own religion, the au- 
 thor, it is said, in his second edition modified his 
 statement so as to make moral personality, etc., etc., 
 the attributes only of those associations which have 
 these three characteristics, viz. : (1), That they are of 
 divine institution; (2), That they are perpetual; (3), 
 That they are universal, that is, embracing everybody. 
 These marks are found in two natural associations of 
 men, as well as in the supernatural society of the 
 church, the family and the state. Now, as all admit 
 that the family must have a religion, so also must the 
 state, for the same reasons. 
 
 The simple answer to all this is: (1), That it makes 
 the state to nav^ in the moral world, and it absorbs all 
 
160 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 other relations, both of the family and the church ; a 
 Lacechemonian theory of the state, and an Erastian 
 annihilation of the church. (2), It contradicts plain 
 definitions of the several spheres of the church, state, 
 and family, as laid down in the Scriptures. (3), It is 
 the parent of tyranny in the state, of formalism and 
 hypocrisy in the church. 
 
 IV. Dr. Arnold's Theory. — ( The Principles of Church 
 lieforni, The State and the Church, with other Essays, 
 by Thomas Arnold.) This theory is expressed in the 
 following extract (see Southeym Preshyterian Pevieu\ 
 Vol. III. p. 227) : "Where a state chooses for itself the 
 true religion, it declares itself Christian. But by so do- 
 ing it becomes a part of Christ's holy catholic church, 
 not allied with it, which implies distinctness from it, 
 but transformed into it. But as for the particular 
 portion of this church which may have existed before 
 within the limits of the state's sovereignty, the actual 
 society of Christian men there subsisting, the state 
 does not ally itself with such a society, for alliance 
 supposes two parties equally sovereign ; nor yet does 
 it become the church as to its outward form and 
 organization; neither does the church, on the other 
 hand, become so lost in the state as to become, in the 
 offensive sense of the term, secularized. The spirit of 
 the church is transfused into a more perfect body, and 
 and its former organization dies away. The form is 
 that of the state, the spirit is that of the church ; what 
 was the kingdom of the world has become a kingdom 
 of Christ, a portion of the church in the high and spir- 
 itual sense of the term ; but in that sense in which 
 church denotes the outward and social organization of 
 Christians in any one particular place, it is no longer 
 a Christian church, but what is far better and brighter, 
 a Christian kingdom." Same thing, substantially, as 
 that of the rationalists. (See Hertzog's EncyclopcEdia 
 snh voc. " Church.") The answer to all this is contained 
 in the last sentence, that the church ceases to exist 
 
Other Views of Church and State. 161 
 
 altogether. It is Erastianism in its boldest and 
 extremest form. The same theory really with that 
 of Hobbes, only Dr. Arnold's leviathan is a pious 
 beast. 
 
 V. The Popish Theory. — ( Ultramontane). — The dif- 
 ferent stages of its development may be seen in the 
 claims of Hildebrand (1073-1085), Innocent III. (1198 
 -1216), Boniface VIII. (1294-1303). The doctrine, in 
 brief, is that the ]3ope is vicar of Christ ; and as Christ 
 is the head of the church and head of all things 
 besides, for the sake of his church, so the pope is the 
 visible head of the church on earth, and all civil pow- 
 ers are subject to his direction and power when- 
 ever the interests of the church require it, of which the 
 pope, and not the civil power, is the judge. The 
 claim, in its extremest form, is contained in the Ball 
 ^^ clericis laicos^' and in the message of Boniface VIII.. 
 to Philip the Fair, King of France (1296) Scire te volu- 
 imis quod in sjnritualihus, et tevijyoraHhas nohis sahes. 
 Al'md credentes, hmreticos reputainiis. And a sufficient 
 answer to the claim is contained in the reply of Philip : 
 Bciat maxina tua fatuitas, in tevxporaliljus nos alicui 
 non suhesse. Secus credentes fatuos et dementes reputa- 
 mus. (See Kurtz's Church History, Sect. 140-'l.) It 
 must be acknowledged, however, that as between Ul- 
 tramontanism and Gallicanism, the former has the best 
 of the argument from papal premises, accepted by 
 both. (See Thornwell on the Apocrypha, Collected 
 Writings, Vol. III., pp. 540 ff., for a full discussion 
 and refutation of this abominable theory. (See also, 
 for some concessions in regard to the effect of such 
 claims upon the causes of civil freedom, p. 44 of the 
 memoir of Dr. Muller, prefixed to Robertson's trans- 
 lation of his Symholic.) The legitimate fruits of this 
 Ultramontanism are seen in the Albigensian Crusades 
 and the Inquisition. No surer evidence is needed to 
 prove that the liar-murderer was the author of the 
 theory. (See Gillespie's Assertion of the Government 
 
162 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 of tlm CJinrch of Scotland, Part II., Cli. I. See on the 
 Galilean Liberties, Gregorie — French papal bishop — 
 Les Liberties de VEglise Gallicane. ") 
 
 XV. 
 
 Subject of Chuech Power. — Materia hi qua. 
 
 See Confession of Faith, Chap. XXX. Sec. 1. All 
 church power (of which Christ, the head, is, as Ave 
 have seen, the -only source) is in senindo actAi, in the 
 officers ; in jyrhno acta, in the whole body. The life 
 of the church is one ; officers are but the organs through 
 Avhich it is manifested, in acts of jurisdiction and in- 
 struction ; and the acts of all officers, in consequence of 
 this organic relation, are the acts of the church. They 
 are the jy/vv^c^j;/^/?/?. quo ; she is the princi^ntcni quod. 
 The power resides in her; it is exercised by them. 
 Ministers are her mouth as elders are her hands. 
 Both equally represent her, and both are nothing, ex- 
 ce})t as they represent her. All lawful acts of all law^- 
 ful officers, are acts of the church, and they who hear 
 
 * By way of addendum attention may be called to the three theo- 
 ries held in the Lutheran Church : 
 
 1. The "Episcopal system," originated by Constantine the Great, in 
 which the chief magistrate is head of the church {circu Sdcrti.), in vir- 
 tue of his being the pm'cipuum r/ieinbrum ecclesm, in Constantine's case 
 as Pont if ex Md.viiiius. 
 
 2. The system of "territorial jurisdiction" (c'/j"s regio, ejvs ■>elif/io) 
 according to which the chief magistrate is regarded as the head of the 
 church, not as its chief member, but as the "father of his people, "and 
 bound to look after all their interests. (Com-pare Vattel and Puffen- 
 dorf, and Gladstone, as above.) 
 
 3. The "collegiate system," according to which the three estates, 
 which constitute the Ecdesia synthetic a, (to wit : "Economic, " " politi- 
 cal," and "ecclesiastical") are all rei^resented, differs from the fii'st 
 (the Episcopal system) in that it gives much greater prominence to the 
 people {stains ecnnomicus), while the "Episcopal" does not go behind 
 the ministers (the atat. ecclesiasticus). It made the power to reside in 
 all the tliree estates, but primarily, in the status economicus, which 
 could transfer its authority to the civil ruler. It was called the ' ' col- 
 legiate" system, because it made the '.' jura in sacris" (doctrine, wor- 
 ship, appointment to ministry, etc. Jura coUegialia (collective rights). 
 See Kurtz's Church History, Vol. II. pp. 246-7. Hase's Dogmatic Evan- 
 gel (Protestant), p. 438, and Quenstedt, as quoted there. 
 
Subject of Church Power. 163 
 
 the preacher or the presbytery, hear the church. The 
 case is analogous to the motions of the human l)0(ly. 
 Vital power is not in the hands or tliB feet, it is in the 
 whole bocl}^ But the exercise of that power in walk- 
 ing, or in writing, is confined to particular organs. The 
 power is one, but its functions are manifold, and it has 
 an organ appropriate to every function. This makes 
 it an organic whole. So the church has functions; 
 these functions require appropriate organs; these 
 organs are created by Christ, and the church becomes 
 an organic whole. (Thornioeirs Writings, lY'. pp. 
 272-'3.) This theory is opposed to the popish and 
 prelatic assumption, that the power resides in the 
 clergy, and is transmitted in a certain line of succes- 
 sion. The history of the very terms " clergy and 
 laity" is the history of the growth of this grievous 
 error in regard to the subject of church power. The 
 terms are derived from tAvo Greek words, xXyj^oq, lot or 
 inheritance, and Xao::^ people. When it became fash- 
 ionable for the pastors of the church to widen the dis- 
 tance between their own order and the condition of 
 their Christian brethren, the Christian commonwealth 
 was by them divided into clergy and laity ; the former 
 term was appropriated to themselves as selected and 
 contradistinguished from the multitude, as being in 
 the present world by way of eminence, God'^ pecidhwi 
 or special , inheritance. (See Campbell's Lect. on 
 Eccle. History, 9, p. 151.) This usage was derived, as 
 was pretended, from the Old Testament, in wdiich the 
 tribe of Levi was called the inheritance of the Lord. 
 But it so happens that the tribe of Levi is never 
 called the inheritence of the Lord, as distinguished 
 from the people, but only as a part included in the 
 whole. — Moses, himself a Levite, says in an address to 
 God (Deut. ix. 29), "They (i. e. the whole nation), are 
 thy people (/«oc), and thine inheritance [xXrjfto::).'" In 
 the LXX. version of this passage, the same persons are 
 in the same sentence declared to be both / and x. In 
 14 
 
164 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 tlie New Testament the term a is applied to persons 
 but in one passage (1 Pet. v. 3), and in that the term 
 is appHed not to the shepherds but to the flock, in op- 
 position to the pastors. The Lord is said to be the 
 inheritance of Levi (because that tribe had no landed 
 possessions, but lived by the temple), but not vice 
 versa. , Strange the confusion about so simple a matter. 
 Clemens Romanus, indeed, uses the term ^^ Xacxoc'' to 
 distinguish the mass of the Jews from the Levites (in- 
 cluding the priests) f and on this account, the use of 
 the terms "clergy and laity" is thought to be as old as 
 his day. But, as Dr. Campbell observes {loc. sup. 
 cit), he is speaking of the Jetoish priesthood , not of 
 the Christian nniiiistry ; and he does not use it in op- 
 position to any one general term, such as clericoi, but, 
 after mentioning three different orders, he uses the 
 term laicoi, to include under one comprehensive name 
 all that Avere not specially comprised under an}^ of the 
 former — corresponding to the application sometimes 
 made of the Latin word popnlaris {e. g. a citizen, one 
 that is not a soldier). Li this view it might be con- 
 trasted with men in office of any kind whatever ; thus, 
 in civil government, with "rulers," to distinguish the 
 people from the magistrate ; in an army with " generals," 
 the soldiers from the commander. In this sense like idi- 
 otes. i^ee Ilorsleys Tracts against Priestly ; Ale,pander 
 071 Acts iv. 13.) Even in its application to the Levitical 
 economy, Clemens (as Dr. C. maintains) does not use it so 
 as to imply that it was in itself exclusive of the priest- 
 hood and of the tribe of Levi. They are indeed ex- 
 cluded, because separately named, but not from the 
 import of the word. Take an example from the New 
 Testament (Acts xv. 22) : "Apostles and elders with the 
 whole church." Here are three orders plainly men- 
 tioned and distinguished (compare the phrase, " the 
 law, the prophets and the scriptures" ; see Alexander's 
 Isaiah, p. xix.), the apostles or extraordinary ministers, 
 
 * Clement's words are " The High Priest, the Priests, the Levites and 
 the laics. " 
 
Subject of Church Power. 165 
 
 the elders or fixed pastors, and the church or Christian 
 people.^" But does this imply that the name church 
 does not properly comprehend the pastors as well as 
 people? By no means. They are not, indeed, in this 
 passage comprised under the term, not because it does 
 not extend so far (which is not the fact), but because 
 they are separately named. The import of the ex- 
 pression is no more than this : the apostles and elders, 
 with all the Christian brethren who come not under 
 either of these denominations. So also 1 Pet. v., the 
 presbyters are opposed to the cleroi, not as though the 
 former constituted no part of God's heritage or clergy ; 
 they only do not constitute that part of which they are 
 here commanded to take the charge. So Clement's 
 laicoi is "all the Jewish people." 
 
 I have said that the history of these words is the 
 history of the grievous error of popery and prelacy, 
 which lodges church power in the ministry or clergy. 
 The distinction of clergy and laity took its rise in the 
 church about the same time with the rise of the doc- 
 trine of a sacerdotal character in the ministry. 
 Churches became temples, ministers, priests, and wor- 
 ship, sacrifice. Now, under the law, the priesthood was 
 a separate caste, the succession depending not upon 
 election by the people, but upon birth ; and so also 
 with the Levitical ministry in general. It was all a 
 matter of birth. Consequently, although the whole na- 
 tion of the Jews was called a " kingdom of priests," in a 
 figurative sense, yet the power of the priesthood was 
 not in the people, but in the family of Aaron alone. 
 Hence the terrible judgment upon Korali and his fol- 
 lowers. When, therefore, the sacerdotal theory of the 
 ministry began to prevail, and the Levitical priesthood 
 was considered the type of the Christian ministry, it was 
 inevitable that the ministry should become a caste, and 
 the people become a flock of sheep only to be fleeced. 
 
 * This is the division found in the Hebrew Scriptures, in Josephus and 
 Philo. and alluded to in Luke xxiv. 44, where the "Psalms" are men- 
 tioned as representing the Hagiographa (or Scriptures. ) 
 
166 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 Hence the privileges of the people began to be 
 abridged, in the matter of electing their own chnrch 
 officers, until the settled doctrine of the church of 
 Eome was thus expressed in the words of Bellarmine 
 (See Clericis, Chap, vii., cited by Cunningham; see 
 ThormoelTs V^riUngs, IV. p. 271): "The election of 
 pastors pertains to the government of the churph. 
 The people, therefore, ought not to elect their pas- 
 tors." So long as they had the power of election it 
 might appear as if the people was the body in which 
 the vital force resided, and that the officers were 
 merely the mouth, or hands, or feet. 
 
 The same leaven of prelacy is manifested in the use 
 of the terms " clergy and laity" by some in our own 
 church. (See TliormoelVs Writings, IV. p. 277.) Im- 
 portant, therefore, to point out in what sense these 
 terms may be used in harmony with the doctrine 
 that all church power is, as to its hei?igj in the whole 
 church. (See ThornwelVs Writings, tit supra.) Clergy 
 and laity are terms which in the New Testament are in- 
 discriminately applied to all the people of God. About 
 this there can be no question. In the New Testament 
 sense, therefore, every minister is a layman and every 
 layman is a clergyman. In the common Protestant 
 sense, the origin of which it is useless to trace (it is 
 given above from Campbell), the terms express the dis- 
 tinction between the office-bearers of the church and 
 the people in their private capacity. A clergyman is a 
 man clothed Avith the office of a Presbyter. Now, an 
 office in a free government is not a rmik or a caste. It 
 is not an estate of the realm. It is simply a public 
 trust. A man, therefore, does not cease to belong to 
 the people by being chosen to office. The president 
 of the United States is still one of the people. The 
 representatives in Congress are still among the people. 
 Our judges and senators are still a part of the people. 
 Office makes a distinction in relations — the distinc- 
 tion between a private and a public man, but makes no 
 
Subject of Chuuch Powee. 167 
 
 distinction in person or in rank. Office-bearers are 
 not an order in the legal sense. ^' "^^ ^ To convey the 
 idea that the distinctions induced by ordination are of- 
 ficial, and not personal, our standards have studiously 
 avoided the word clergy, which had been so much 
 abused in the papacy, and substituted the more cor- 
 rect expressions, offices and office-bearers. See Acts 
 XX. 28, where bishops are said to be " in the flock" t 
 (a part of the flock), not over it, as in our version. 
 Powder, then, is m prlmo actio, in the church as a 
 body, an organic whole; the people and the rulers 
 are the organ of election. The officers elected are 
 the organs by which the functions of teaching, 
 government, and distribution of revenues are ex- 
 ercised. And as the organs are, in a truer sense, given 
 to the body than the body to the organs, so it is more 
 proper to say that the ministry is given to the church 
 than the church to the ministry. The former is Paul's 
 mode of stating the case (Eph. iv. Gor. xii., Rom. xii.) ; 
 the latter is the mode of the prelatists. 
 
 II. Power in aciu secundo, or as to its exercise, is 
 in the officers of the church. This is opposed to the 
 Congregational theory of church power, which makes 
 it to reside in the people, both in actu priino and in 
 actu seciindo. When I say the Congregational theory, 
 I do not mean that it was the accepted theory of the 
 English Independents as a body, for John Owen held 
 the true doctrine upon this point, as you ma}^ see by 
 referring to his True Nature of a Gospel Church. So 
 far as a particular church is concerned, he was a Pres- 
 byterian; but he was an Independent in denying that 
 the church visible w^as one in any such sense as to 
 warrant classical, synodical, or general assemblies. The 
 Congregational theory to which I refer was defended 
 by John Robinson, a portion of whose congregation 
 
 * Compare the terms, "ortZo and plebs" — wbicli are very different 
 from clergy aud laity. 
 
 t Revised New Testament. 
 
168 EccLESioLoaY. 
 
 in Holland constituted the colony of the Mayflower in 
 1620. He was opposed, and his tlieoiy refuted, by 
 the famous Samuel Kutherford, in a treatise entitled 
 The Due Bight of Presbyteries, etc., London, 1644. 
 The theory is called by Eutherford, "The way of our 
 New England brethren," and we may call it, therefore, 
 the "New England Congregational theory." It is 
 briefly this : that all power resides in church-members, 
 in the brotherhood, and that they delegate this power 
 to those whom they elect to bear office ; these office- 
 bearers being deputies or proxies of the people, and 
 doing only in the matter of government what the peo- 
 ple themselves might of right do ; or, as it is given by 
 Eutherford (I suppose from Eobinson): "The church 
 which Christ, in his gospel, hath instituted, and to 
 which he hath committed the keys of his kingdom; 
 the power of binding and loosing the tables and seals 
 of the covenant ; the offices and censures of his church ; 
 the administration of all his public worship and ordi- 
 nances, is a company of believers meeting in one place 
 every Lord's day for the administration of the holy 
 ordinances of God to public edification." (Right of 
 Presljyteries, ch. 1, sec. 1, prop. 1.) In answer to this, 
 Eutherford contends that "the keys," the power of 
 binding and loosing, are not given to a company of 
 believers, considered as an unorganized assembly, but 
 to the organized church, an assembly under officers of 
 their own choice ; and that this organized body is the 
 "subject" of ecclesiastical power in actu primio, and 
 that the presbyters are the "subject" of the power of 
 government in actu secundo, or, as our Confession of 
 Faith (xxx. 1) expresses it, the Lord Jesus is king and 
 head of his church, and hath therein cvppoiuted a gov- 
 ernment in the hands of church officers, distinct from 
 the civil magistrate. The rulers of the church, there- 
 fore, although the representatives of the people, are 
 not their deputies or proxies ; are not responsible to 
 them, though elected by them ; but are responsible to 
 
Subject of Church Power. 169 
 
 Jesus Christ, who has ordained the constitution of the 
 church, created these offices, and defined their func- 
 tions. The difference between the Presbyterian and 
 the New England Congregational theories may be il- 
 lustrated by the difference between the true theory of 
 our civil constitution and the false, though popular, 
 theory of it. Our civil government is a representative 
 republic. The source of all political power is the peo- 
 ple, who ordain and establish a constitution, a funda- 
 mental law, by which the exercise of the various de- 
 partments of government is given to certain officers or 
 bodies of officers, legislative, judicial, and executive, 
 chosen or appointed in a certain Avay prescribed by 
 the people in the constitution. Now, all these officers, 
 whether in this department or in that, whether acting 
 singly or jointly, represent the people, because they 
 were chosen by the people, directly or indirectly. But 
 they are, when chosen or appointed in a constitutional 
 manner, not responsible to the people (that is, in the 
 sense of "constituents" or "electors"), but to the law. 
 The representatives in the legislature, and the execu- 
 tive, and all other officers chosen by the popular vote, 
 are responsible, not to their constituents, but to the 
 constitution — "that is to say, not to the people who 
 elected them, but to the people (sovereign) whose will 
 is expressed in the constitution." So that, as Burke 
 said to the electors of Bristol he had done, the repre- 
 sentative is often compelled to maintain the interests 
 of his constituents against their vnshes. (Thornwell, 
 Vol. lY., page 100.) 
 
 The popular theory, on the other hand, is that the 
 will of the people, through the ballot-box, is the law ; 
 that is, that our government is a democracy like that 
 of ancient Greece, with this difference, that while in 
 the old democracies the people' assembled en viasse, in 
 ours they assemble by proxies or deputies. So in the 
 church, Presbyterians hold that the rulers are repre- 
 sentatives, deriving their authority, when once chosen 
 
170 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 to office by the people, not from the people, but from 
 Jesus Christ, who ordained and established the con- 
 stitution ; that the people have no share in the govern- 
 ment, but only the right of choosing their governors ; 
 while the New England theory is that the people gov- 
 ern themselves, are themselves rulers, either en masse, 
 or by proxies or deputies. The error upon which the 
 New England theory is founded is that contained in 
 the sentence already quoted from Bellarmine, that the 
 election of pastors is a function pertaining to the gov- 
 ernment of the church. Bellarmine, as we have seen, 
 draws from this principle the conclusion that the peo- 
 ple have no right to elect their pastors. The Inde- 
 pendents in the Westminster Assembly, on the other 
 hand, accepting the principle, drew the conclusion that 
 the people have some share in the government of the 
 church, and consequently that the Presbyterian doc- 
 trine, which excludes them altogether from govern- 
 ment, must be false. The true way of meeting both 
 extremes, papists and Independents, is by denying the 
 principle and asserting with Ames, in his answer to 
 Bellarmine, ^'Electio quavivis,'' etc. "Although elec- 
 tion pertains to the constituting of government, it is, 
 nevertheless, not an act of government." Dr. Hodge 
 holds the same erroneous view, laying it down among 
 the fundamental principles of Presbyterianism that 
 the people "have a right to a substantive part in the 
 government of the church." (See Discourse on Pres- 
 byter laiiism, published by the Board of Publication, 
 Princeton Review, July number, page 547 ; Tliornioell, 
 Yol. IV. p. 274-'5 ff.) Hence he makes the ruling elder 
 a mere expedient by which the people appear in church 
 courts ; and the people appear, not as the church, con- 
 sidered as a whole, but as a separate class or party, 
 opposed to the clergy; hence, again, the ruling elder is 
 not a representative, but a deputy, a mere factor of the 
 people. {Thorn irell, ut snp.) More will be said on 
 this subject when Ave come to consider the meaning of 
 
The Subject of Church Power. 171 
 
 the term presbyter as an official designation, and the 
 nature of Presbyterian government as representative. 
 
 XYI. 
 
 Officers or the Church. 
 
 I. Officers in the apostolic church were of two kinds, 
 extraordinary and ordinary. See Eph. iv. 11 ; 1 Cor. 
 xii. 28, and compare, for the grounds upon which the 
 extraordinary are defined to be temporary, 1 Cor. xiii. 
 10, etc., with Warburton's exposition of the passage in 
 his '^Doctrine of Grace.'" We shall consider the ordi- 
 nary officers first, as those in which we have a practi- 
 cal concern in the administration of the affairs of the 
 church. (See Form of Government^ 
 
 1. Bishops, or pastors, and elders. I put these to- 
 gether because they are all designated in the New 
 Testament by a common term, preshyters. Our church 
 derives its name from preshytery, the government being 
 lodged in the hands of courts consisting of presbyters. 
 See the definition of Presbyterianism on page 194 
 et seq. Our book uses the terms in the popular ac- 
 ceptation " bishops or pastors," denoting the presby- 
 ters who "labor in the word and doctrine;" "ruling 
 elders" denoting the presbyters who rule only. In the 
 New Testament all these terms are used interchange- 
 ably. Take one example in which they all occur (or 
 their equivalents) Acts xx. 17-28 : " Take heed there- 
 fore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the 
 which the Holy Ghost hath made you ("presbyters" 
 vs. 17) overseers (episcopos), to feed (perform the of- 
 fice of a sh&pherd or 7J>«cS'/(y?') the church of God," etc. 
 "Presbyter" is the title of honor or respect, "bishop" 
 the name designating the function, " pastor" the poet- 
 ical name, and expressive chiefly of afiection. 
 
 There are three leading opinions as to the use of the 
 term " presbyter " in the New Testament. Fird, That 
 it denotes an officer inferior in order to the "bishop," 
 
172 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 and differing in function. Second, That it denotes a 
 preacher of the word, and cannot be applied to a ruHng 
 elder. TJiird, That it means a chosen ruler, and 
 that, while it is used to denote pastors or ministers of 
 the word, it is not so used because pastors are min- 
 isters of the word, but because they are rulers; the 
 shepherd having two staves, the one Beauty, the other 
 Bands (Zech. xi. 17), he is called presbyter on account 
 of his staff Bands, his power of rule, and not on ac- 
 count of his staff Beauty, his power of teaching. The 
 first of these opinions is that of the prelatists, the 
 second is that of the Congregationalists generally, and 
 of some leading men in our own church (Hodge, Sm3^the 
 of Charleston, etc.), the third is that of our standards 
 and of the strict constructionists, ov jure div'mo men, in 
 our own church. Instead of considering each of these 
 opinions separately, I shall establish the last as the 
 true view of the term, and in so doing of course the 
 other two will be overthrown. See a very clear, full, 
 neat presentation of the evidence from our book and 
 from Scripture on this point. Read ThormoelV a Col- 
 lected ^VrhmcJs,^o\. IV. pp. 104-114: '' That presby- 
 ter as a title of office, etc." See OweiiH True Nature 
 of Gospel Church, Ch. 7, (works) Vol. XX. pp. 472, et 
 ff. ; JlutherforcVs Due Bight of Preshyteries, pp. 141, 
 etc. ; Miller on Ruling Elders. 
 
 ■ The classic place of the New Testament in proof that 
 the term presbyter is not descriptive of a preacher as 
 such, is 1 Timothy v. 17. The obvious meaning of 
 these words, that which would suggest itself to any un- 
 biased reader, is, that there are two sorts of presby- 
 ters, one sort ruling only, the other laboring in the 
 word and doctrine, as well as ruling. The term " pres- 
 byter," therefore, is applied to an officer in the Chris- 
 tian church who does not " labor in the word and doc- 
 trine ;" and if so, the word cannot designate the func- 
 tion of preaching, and cannot be applied to preachers 
 only. When applied to a preacher it must be on ac- 
 
Officers of the Church. 173 
 
 count of some function other than preaching, which he 
 performs, and this function is explained to be that of 
 ruhng. The general sense of the term, therefore, is a 
 ruler. It follows from this statement : 1. That it is a 
 false induction to collect together a bundle of passages 
 in wdiich presbyters are mentioned, who were un- 
 questionably preachers, and then, without pausing to 
 inquire whether there may not be "negative in- 
 stances" (as Bacon calls them), or whether the real 
 ground has been discovered of the application of the 
 term, to lay it down as an axiom that the scriptural 
 presbyter is a minister of the word. " The negative in- 
 stance is the most powerful." Compare reasoning of 
 Baptists about haptizo. 
 
 To produce a thousand texts in which the words 
 presbyter and preacher appeared to be interchangeable 
 would signify nothing, if a single case could be alleged 
 in which they were evidently of difterent import. In 
 such a contingency, the dictate of sound philosophy 
 and sober criticism would be to inquire whether there 
 were not some property common to both terms, in con- 
 sequence of which the affirmative and negative in- 
 stances might be fairly harmonized. A definition 
 should be sought embracing the points in which those 
 who were and those who were not preachers agreed. 
 
 This definition would include all that is essential to 
 the meaning of the title, and would set forth the pre- 
 cise ground on which it is attributed to either class. 
 Now this common property, the essence of the presby- 
 ter ate, is given in the passage in Timothy. It is the 
 function of ruling. To affirm in the face of this scrip- 
 ture that all elders are teachers, is no less absurd than 
 to affirm, in the face of experience, that all that are 
 mortal are men. There are only two other interpreta- 
 tions, so far as I know, deserving of notice : 1, Yitrin- 
 ga's {l)e Sijn. Vet.), that all presbyters were ordained to 
 preach as well as rule ; but that, in fact, they did not 
 all preach. 2, That the emphasis is on the word 
 
174 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 yMTi (laboring to weariness.) According to this inter- 
 pretation ministers are represented as worthy of 
 "double honor" who do not labor "to weariness." 
 According to Yitringa's, men are ordained to do that 
 which they are not expected to do. 
 
 2. It follows that the objection which is taken from 
 the use of the word deacon has no force. The objec- 
 tion is thus stated : " As the Greek word for deacon is 
 used in a general sense for all church officers, and yet 
 is the specific title of one particular class of officers ; so 
 the word presbyter may be taken in a wide sense, in- 
 cluding even apostles, and is yet the definite title of 
 ordinary ministers of the word, and is never applied in 
 its specific sense and without qualification to any who 
 are not ministers;" i. e., presbyter, from being a ge- 
 neric term, susceptible originally of a larger extension, 
 became eventually the definite title of a particular 
 class. It is a universal law of classification, that what 
 logicians call the whole comprehension of the genus, or 
 every idea which enters into a just definition of the 
 name of a class, must be found in ail the species which 
 are included under it. This is the only ground on 
 which the genus can be predicated of the subordinate 
 classes. Hence, if the word presl)yter is generic, and 
 in its full comprehension capable of being affirmed of 
 other classes of men, besides ministers of the gospel, 
 ■the idea of preaching cannot enter as an element into 
 a definition of the genus. The specific differences 
 which distinguish the various classes under a common 
 name, cannot be included in the definition of that name. 
 If preachers, accordingly, constitute a species of the 
 genus presbyter, and some who are not preachers con- 
 stitute another, it is intuitively obvious that the com- 
 prehension of the generic term excludes the property 
 of preaching. The specitic difference of the classes 
 consists in the possession in the one case and the ab- 
 sence in the other, of lawful authority to preach. 
 Hence the authority to preach could not be the ground 
 
Officers of the Church. 175 
 
 of the term presbyter being applied to preachers in a 
 restricted sense (even if such restricted sense existed), 
 but some property belonging to the comprehension of 
 the genus. And this, for all that appears to the con- 
 trary, may be the function jof ruling. Illustrate by 
 " deacon," and show how this example makes for us. 
 {Thornwelll'Sl.i^. 109.) 
 
 The history of the term elder, or presbyter, or zaJcen, 
 shows that its primary and common meaning is that of 
 "ruler" and not "teacher." It has reference primarily 
 to superiority in years. Now the earliest form of gov- 
 ernment being the patriarchal, the patriarch or elder 
 being the governor, nothing was more natural than that 
 elder should come to mean governor when used of offi- 
 cial station ; afterAvard, such terms came to be used in 
 all languages as terms of respect or reverence, since re- 
 spect belongs both to age and office — senior, sigiiore^ 
 seigneur, sire (lord and father), sieur, rnonsieit7\ senator, 
 alderman. First age ; then authority ; then respect — 
 this seems to be the history of the word. So also the 
 terms pastor and bishop, which we have seen to be 
 used interchangeably with elder, properly denote gov- 
 ernment, not teaching."" 
 
 Pastor, or shepherd, in the Old Testament, is gen- 
 erally used in this sense, and where it is used of a 
 teacher, the ground of such application is probably the 
 tendency of teaching to regulate the life. In our ver- 
 sion, this usage does not always appear, because the 
 expression to "feed " is very often used to represent 
 the word for performing the office of a shepherd. But 
 in the following passages there can be no doubt of the 
 meaning of the term : Ezek. xxxvii. 24, where shepherd 
 and king are used as synonymous ; Ezek. xxxiv. 24, 25, 
 where shepherd and prince are the same ; 1 Chron. xi. 2. 
 
 So in the New Testament, Rev. ii. 27, "ruling" with 
 
 * For a couc'lusive argument from the earlier Fathers, see Spirit of 
 the XIX. Century (1843), pp. 621 if, by Thornwell, in his " Uollect&d 
 Writings,'' Vol. IV., pp. 115 ff. 
 15 
 
176 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 a rod of iron, is "slieplierding" with a rod of iron; 
 Matt. ii. 6, the governor shall shepherd mj people Is- 
 rael; and in Eph. iv. 11, if pastors are not rulers, 
 there is no mention made of rulers at all. In the 
 classic Greek writers, reference may be made to Ho- 
 mer, in whom "shepherd" is constantly used for 
 "king," TLOt(j:fy/jj.o)v. 
 
 Bii<lio'p, as a title of office, is properly applicable to 
 a subordinate class of rulers, who, possessing no inde- 
 pendent powers of their own, are appointed to see that 
 duties enjoined upon others are faithfully discharged. 
 They differ from the higher order of magistrates in 
 having no original authority, and in being confined to 
 the supervision of others in the department committed 
 to their care. They have no power to prescribe the 
 law, they can only see that its precept is obeyed. 
 Their functions seem to be exactly expressed by the 
 English word "overseer." The subordinate magistrates 
 sent out by Athens to take care of her interests in trib- 
 utary cities were styled epiHcopo't. 
 
 Homer, to Inculcate the doctrine that the gods will 
 protect the sanctity of treaties, calls them the bishops 
 of covenants. (II. xxii. 255.) Hector, as the guardian 
 and defender of Troy, is lamented by Andromache, 
 under the same title. (]1. xxiv. 729.) So in the 
 LXX., in Numbers xxxi. 11, officers of the host are 
 ^^- episcoxyoi' of the host. Hee also Judges ix. 28, 30, 
 Avhere bishop and ruler of the cit}^ are the same; 
 Nehemiah xi. 9, 11, 22, a ruler of the specified division, 
 not a teacher. In the Apocrypha, see 1 Maccabees, i. 
 51. The first meaning Hesychius gives to " episcopos,'' 
 is "king." In 1 Mac. x. 37, anXovTB^ is used, bishops 
 (overseers) appointed by Antiochus Epiphanes. 
 
 Lastly : This is the sense in which our standards ex- 
 plain the term "presbyter." {Thormcell, IV., p. 105.) 
 It says {Form of Government, Ch. IV. Sec. 2, Art. 1) that 
 the reason why the pastor (or minister) is called pres- 
 hyter is, that it is his duty to be grave and jDrudent, and 
 
Officers of the Church. 177 
 
 an example of the flock, and to govern well in the 
 house and kingdom of Christ. Compare this now with 
 the reasons assigned for calling him " ambassador" or 
 '' steward," and nothing can be plainer than that of set 
 purpose, our standards define presbyter in such a way 
 as to make the definition as applicable to a ruling- 
 elder as to a pastor (commonly so called). The 
 preacher shares in common with the deacon the title 
 of minister, because both are appointed to a service ; 
 and he shares, in common with the ruling elder, the 
 title of pre^sbyter, since both are appointed to rule. 
 Our standards also quote 1 Tim. y. 17, in Ch. V. of the 
 old book, in proof of the divine right of the office of 
 ruling elder, implying a judgment that presbyter 
 means ruler. Neither the word of God, therefore, nor 
 our standards, countenance the notion that presbyter 
 means preacher. See Gieseler, Vol. I. pp. 56, 57, etc., 
 who contends that elder and bishop were the same, and 
 that neither term had any reference to teaching. He 
 goes too far, however, in asserting that the term is not 
 used of those who did teach. 
 
 Here, then, we have one fundamental principle of 
 Presbyterianism (see the traces of this doctrine even in 
 Rome — Cunningham's C/ivrch Prrnc'qyle^ p. 159, and 
 Historical Theology, Vol. XL, p. 251), ajDrinciple by which 
 it is distinguished from other evangelical churches, to 
 wit : that there is one order of presbyters or chosen 
 rulers, that in this order there are two classes, like the 
 genvs and its co-ordinate species : 1, Presbyters who 
 rule only ; 2, Presbyters who not only rule, but also la- 
 bor in the word and doctrine ; and both these classes 
 entering into the composition of the church's parlia- 
 mentary assemblies, we have an exemplification of the 
 same principle which is exemplified in our civil legis- 
 latures by two houses, an expedient which is as great 
 an improvement upon the representative principle as 
 that principle is over the principle of the old democ- 
 racy. 
 
178 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 Pkesbyteries — Congregational. — " Sessions." * 
 
 See Owen, Yol. XXII., pp. 481 et seq., for the principle 
 in its application to a single congregation (which is the 
 only visible church which as an Independent he ac- 
 knowledges.) See Form, of Government, Ch. Y., Sec. 3 ; 
 R. J. Breckinridge's speech on " Presbyterian Govern- 
 ment not a Hierarchy bnt a Commonwealth" ; Thorn- 
 well, Yol. lY., pp. 43, ff. In opposition on one hand to 
 prelacy, which puts the government of the church into the 
 hands of single men, and may therefore be called the 
 monarchical form, and on the other to Congregational- 
 ism, which puts the government into the hands of the 
 people or brotherhood, and may, therefore, be called a 
 democracy, Presbyterianism is distinguished by a 
 government in representative assemblies, and may 
 therefore be called a republic or representative com- 
 monwealth. {Form of Government, Chap. Y., Sec. 1, 
 Art. 1.) We agree with Congregationalists against the 
 prelatists in holding that the power of rule is a joint 
 and not a several power ; but we differ from the Con- 
 gregationalists in this, that while they put the power 
 in the hands of the people en masse, or in their depu- 
 ties, we put the power in the hands of presbyters as- 
 sembled in presbyteries, these presbyters being the 
 chosen representatives of the people, yet according to 
 the principles already stated under the head of the 
 " Subject of Church Power," deriving their authority 
 from Christ the head of the church and the author of 
 its constitution. 
 
 1. The first step in the proof is to show that there 
 was a plurality of elders or bishops in every church in 
 the times of the apostles. This is to be proved not 
 only against the prelatists, but against the Congrega- 
 tionalists also. The Congregationalists of England 
 
 * See Psa. cvii. 32, and Alexander in loc 
 
Presbyteries— Congregational. — Sessions. 179 
 
 and of New England, as a general if not a universal 
 rule, have but one elder, who is a teaching elder. (See 
 The Billing FJdersMjj, by Eev. David King of Glas- 
 gow ; Pittsburg United Presbyterian Board of Educa- 
 tion, 1860.) And many leading Congregationalists 
 have contended that this was the practice in the primi- 
 tive church ; but other leading Congregationalists, such 
 as Dr. Wardlaw in his Congregatiomd Independency, 
 Dr. Vaughan in his Congregaiionalisni, and Dr. Da- 
 vidson in his Ecclesiastic Polity, have of late years 
 admitted (according to King, from whom these refer- 
 ences are taken), that in the primitive church there 
 was a plurality of elders in each church. They con- 
 tend, however, that these elders were all preachers, 
 which has been shown to be a mistake. If they will,' 
 however, carry out their own convictions and make a 
 plurality of preaching elders in any church, they will 
 soon find that the circumstances will compel the most 
 of their elders to become ruling elders only, and thus 
 their organization will become practicallv the same as 
 ours. But to the proof. (See Acts xi. 30, xiv. 23; 
 XV. 2, 4, 6, 22; xvi. 4; xx. 17; 1 Tim. v. 17; Phih i' 
 1 ; Titus i. 5 ; 1 Peter v. 1.) These references are 
 taken from Given s Ncdure of a GosjM Church : Works, 
 XX., p. 481, and Owen was an Independent, and not a 
 Congregationalist. The argument from these passages 
 is this : A plurality of elders or bishops is spoken of 
 as existing in the church of Jerusalem, the church of 
 Ephesus, the church of Phihppi, etc. Now the word 
 church in such passages means either a particular 
 church, a single congregation of the faithful, or it 
 means a church consisting of several congregations 
 united under one government. If it means a single 
 congregation, then both Congregationahsts and prela- 
 tists must give up their theories ; the former must as- 
 sert that in every congregation, however small, there 
 were many preachers, and admit, consequently, that 
 their present practice is unscriptural in having only 
 
180 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 one. The latter must admit there were several bish- 
 ops in each congregation, and, therefore, that these 
 bishops were not diocesan. If the word church in 
 such passages, on the other hand, means several con- 
 gregations united under one government, then the In- 
 dependents must give up the distinctive principle of 
 their sect, that a single congregation is the only visi- 
 ble church known to the New Testament ; and the pre- 
 latists must give up their principle, that the church is 
 governed by a single bishop instead of a presbytery. 
 But this last point will appear more clearly hereafter. 
 Here note that Schaff (see Apostolic Church, sec. 132, 
 p. 526), although he differs from his master, Neander, 
 as to the nature of the office denoted by the term pres- 
 byter, denying what Neander affirms, that presbyter 
 denotes two classes of rulers — a teaching and non- 
 teaching class — yet contends that in Acts xiv. 23, Ti- 
 tus i. 5, the force of kata is adverbial, not collective, 
 and that the meaning, therefore, is that elders were 
 ordained in each city (city by city, church by church), 
 not as Baur and others assert, one presl)yter in each 
 city or church. 
 
 2. The next step in the argument is to show that 
 these elders in each church constituted a parliament 
 or court for the government of said church, or in other 
 words, that they ruled jointly and not severally. We 
 argue this : First, From the nature of the case. If 
 they were all rulers of equal authority there could be 
 no decency or order in the exercise of their power ex- 
 cept by agreement ; that is, by an agreement of the 
 majority. There must have been deliberation, con- 
 ference, interchange of views, and a vote which made 
 the action the action of the whole governing body. 
 (Compare Acts xv., the account of the proceedings of 
 the council at Jerusalem.) Second, From 1 Tim. iv. 
 14, compared with Acts xxii. 5, and Luke xxii. QQ. 
 The lexicographers (see Schleusner, in vac.) give as 
 the meaning of preshyttrion a college of elders, or a 
 
Pbesbytekies— Congregational. — Sessions. 181 
 
 senate, implying an organized body, a corporate unit, 
 of which the elements are presbj^ters. There can be 
 no donbt of this being the meaning of the terms in 
 Luke xxii."" and Acts xxii., for in these places it denotes 
 the sanhedrin, the highest court in the Jewish church 
 and state. But in the place of 1 Tim., so high an au- 
 thority in Hebrew antiquities as Selden (7>6 Synedris, 
 L. I, c. 14, cited by Vitringa, De Synag. Vet. L. 2, c. 
 12), asserts that it means the presbyterate, the office 
 of presbyter ;t as if Paul intended to say, ''Neglect 
 not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by 
 prophecy, with the imposition of hands, by which im- 
 position thou wast made a presbyter, or endowed with 
 the presbyterate." To this it is sufficient to reply: 1, 
 That it is not very likely that a word which is used 
 only in three places of the New Testament should in 
 two of them designate, beyond all doubt, a college or 
 council of presbyters; and in the remaining one the 
 office of a presbyter. So that, while it is admitted, so 
 far as the termination of the word is concerned, no 
 argument can be made for one meaning or the other, 
 the prevailing usage is in favor of a council or col- 
 lege of persons possessing the presbyterate, and not 
 the presbyterate itself. 2, A comparison of this pas- 
 sage with 2 Tim. i. 6 (as Vitringa suggests in loc. siq). 
 cit.), shows that the genitive here is not the genitive 
 of the thing conferred, but of the body conferring ; 
 "iiioic in this passage standing in the same relation to 
 "hands" as "presbytery" does in the other. In the 
 
 *In Luke xxii. QQ, the " -pzari'' seems to be distinguished from the 
 " (TUi^sOfJCOU " ; but it must, in any case, denote a collection of elders. 
 (•'Estate of the elders," in Acts xxii. 5, both in A. V. and Rev.) In 
 the Eevision of 1881, the word is rendered in this place, " Assembly of 
 the Elders," but in 1 Tim. iv. 14, "Presbytery," as in the A. V. 
 
 t Calvin in his Institutes (B. iv. c. 3, ^16) takes this view also ; but 
 in his commentary on 1 Tim. i. 14, he takes the view here defended. 
 The commentary on 1 Tim. was published in 1556 ; the last edition of 
 the Institutes in 1559. Cftlvin died 1564. 
 
182 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 one, the gift is said to be conferred by the laying on of 
 the hands of Panl ; in the other, by the laying on of 
 the hands of the presbytery. PreHhyterioii, therefore, 
 is the canse and not the effect of the imposition of 
 hands. 3, This nse is sanctioned by the writings of 
 Ignatius, which the prelatists are so fond of quoting, 
 but which have all been proved to be forgeries. 
 {Ivillhis Ancievt Church; see citations in Vitringa, as 
 above cited!) He calls the presbyters of the Trallean 
 church "the sanhedrin of God." Yitringa refers also 
 to Theodoret, Chrysostom and Theophylact, as giving 
 the interpretation which we have defended. Perhaps 
 words terminating like presbuterlon belong to the same 
 class with such words as prsetorium, originally de- 
 noting the place of business. Some of this class of 
 words might be transferred to denote the officer or 
 body of officers doing business in the place. Some- 
 times, again, the fact of sitting together, or the mode of 
 sitting, gives name to the body, as session, consistory, 
 sanhedrin, or even the nature of the seat, as "divan" 
 (cnshion). Compare the use of the w^ord "church" 
 for the body of believers and for the house where they 
 assemble; also synagogue, etc., etc. Jerome seems to 
 have had this word in his mind in that famous passage 
 of his commentary on Titus i. 7, which has excruciated 
 so much the prelatical patrolaters. (See it in full in 
 Gieseler, Vol. I., p. 56, note. Idem est, etc.) 
 
 We have thus proved that in the apostolic church 
 the government of single congregations was in assem- 
 blies called presbyteries, because composed of presby- 
 ters — these presbyters being of two kinds, teaching 
 and ruling elders. This is the very government which 
 in modern times, among free nations, has been con- 
 sidered the most perfect, or, to use the language of 
 Milton, "the noblest, the manliest, the equalest, the 
 justest government" on earth — a government by repre- 
 sentatives, not by the people in propria persona, or by 
 deputies ; and these representatives not all of the same 
 
PeESBYTEEIES — CONGEEGATIONAL. — SESSIONS. 183 
 
 class, but of different classes, so that, as the represen- 
 tative principle is itself a check upon the excesses of 
 the democratic principle, the two classes of represen- 
 tatives constitute a check upon the evils incident to re- 
 presentation by one class. 
 
 Both these principles are recognized in the civil con- 
 stitutions of this country — the principle of representa- 
 tion, and of representation by two classes of represen- 
 tatives, "senators" and "representatives." The apos- 
 tles seem to have j^ut special honor on this government 
 by sitting themselves as elders in settled churches, 
 especially toward the close of their ministry, w^hen 
 the church was so far established as to be ready to 
 pass out of the state of infancy and childhood into 
 that of manhood. (1 Cor. xiii. 8-11 ; see Acts xv. 
 2, 4, 6, 22; 2 Tim. i. 6; compare wdth 1 Tim. iv. 14; 1 
 Peter v. 1.) 
 
 An incidental confirmation of this government by 
 presbyteries may be derived from the concessions of 
 Independents. These concessions are made in two 
 ways: First, in words. (Beside the quotations from 
 King in the beginnino: of this lecture, see Miller on 
 Ruling Elders, Chap. 7, who quotes largely both from 
 English and New England Independents.) Second, in 
 practice. (See Miller as before. Chap. 8, p. 186 ; King 
 on the Eldershij), Part I., pp. 27-32.) Although Inde- 
 pendents contend that the discipline of the church is 
 in the hands of the brotherhood by divine right, yet in 
 practice they find that a promiscuous "church-meet- 
 ing" is an assembly very unhappily constituted for 
 judicial purposes; and the tendency has been to rem- 
 edy the evil in one of two w^ays : first, by making the 
 pastor or elder sole ruler, that is, by converting the 
 democracy into a monarchy ; ^' or, second, by associat- 
 ing with tlie pastor a few of the most godly and pru- 
 dent men in the congregation as an advisory commit- 
 
 * A Democracy always tends toward the centralization of jDOwer. 
 
184 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 tee — a sort of eldership, with the disadvantage of be- 
 ing unordained, and unpledged to snpport the consti- 
 tution. Dr. King gives some quotations from Inde- 
 pendent writers, such as Davidson, James, Campbell, 
 asserting for the pastor of a congregation a degree of 
 power which Presbyterians would be very far from 
 conceding to the pastors of their congregations. (See 
 King on the Eldership, ]y2ige 15, footnote.) The more 
 common method, however, is the second above named, 
 the selection of a committee. But this expedient, 
 though a concession to our princij^les, is far from be- 
 ing as efficient or wholesome, for the ver^^ obvious 
 reason that these quasi ruling elders are made by the 
 pastor and not chosen by the people, and that they 
 are temporary officers, not permanent, and that for the 
 reason already assigned, they are under no engage- 
 ment of faithfulness to the constituti6n of the church. 
 We might argue also from the concessions, in Avords 
 and in practice, of Episcopalians. But I simply refer 
 you to Miller on Ruling Elders, Ch. 6, and Ch. 7, page 
 185, and on the Christian Ministry, Ch. 8. That these 
 presbyteries must consist of two sorts of presbyters, 
 so far as the sphere of a particular congregation is con- 
 cerned, is conceded by all who admit government by 
 presbyteries at all. The only question upon this point 
 concerns the higher courts, "classical" j)resbyteries in 
 particular. I shall reserve, therefore, the discussion 
 of this point till we reach the subject of the manner 
 in which the idea of the unity of the church is realized 
 in the Presbyterian government. Meanwhile note that 
 our inquiries have led us to two fundamental princi- 
 ])les of Presbyterianism : 1st, The principle of repre- 
 sentative government — of government by parliament- 
 ary courts composed of presbyters duly appointed and 
 ordained ; 2nd, That these representatives must be of 
 two classes, belonging to the one order of ^;;W>?/?fen<?. 
 They all of them belong to the one order of rulers, and 
 only as rulers, chosen rulers or representatives of the 
 
Presbyteries — Classical, Synodical, General. 185 
 
 people, can they appear in any of these courts, — pres- 
 byters who rule only, and presbyters who both rule 
 and labor in the word and doctrine. This answers to 
 the two houses in modern legislation. Presbyteries 
 are not divided, however, into two houses (each class 
 of presbyters deliberating and voting separately), be- 
 cause presbyteries are courts, and are required to act 
 as units. Note that the elders who rule only are called 
 "representatives of the people," not because they only 
 are representatives of the people and ministers are 
 not, but because it is a complete description of their 
 office. 
 
 Compare the use of the terms senator and repre- 
 sentative. It does not imply that the Senate is not a 
 body of representatives because the other house is 
 called the House of Representatives. Both houses 
 consist of representatives ; the lower house of Congress 
 is so called because the title is a complete description 
 of their office. The Senate discharges executive as well 
 as legislative functions. 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 Presbyteries — Classical, Synodical, General. 
 
 [See Form of Government, Ch. V., Sec. 1, Arts. 1, 2 ; 
 Confession of Faith, Ch. XXXI, Sec. 1. See also Divine 
 Right of Church Government, by the London minis- 
 ters, Pt. II., Chs. XIII., XIV., X:V., p. 177, etc., of the 
 New York edition of 1844, by R. Martin & Co. Dick's 
 Theological Lectures, 99, Vol. II., pp. 448, et seq., of 
 Carter's edition. New York, 1851. Principal HilVs 
 Theology, B. 6, Ch. II., Sec. 2, pp. 591, et seq., of Hooker's 
 edition, Philadelphia, 1844. Rutherford's Dice Right 
 of Preshyteries. Killerts Ancient Church, p. 248, et 
 seq., New York, Scribner, 1859; also of the same, pp. 
 605, et seq. Miller on Ruling Elders, Ls. 1, 2, 3. R. 
 J. Breckinridge' s Sermon on the Christian Pastor, pp. 
 25, 26. Thornwell, Vol. IV., pp. 134, ff.] 
 
186 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 All these sorts of presbj^teries are named together 
 because the same principle underlies them all. When 
 we have once determined that two congregations (ccetus 
 fidelinm) can be connected together in government, 
 we have demolished the fundamental principle of In- 
 dependency, and established a fundamental principle 
 of Presbyterianism. It is a matter of no consequence, 
 then, how much the number of congregations may be 
 increased, the principle upon which they are united 
 is the same, and the arrangement of the courts, their 
 number, extent of territory, etc.,. is an affair to be 
 determined by human wisdom, accommodating its 
 plans to the circumstances of the case, with a view to 
 decency, order and general edification. Mountains, 
 rivers, political divisions, language and other circum- 
 stances do and must modify our attempts to realize, 
 in any external form, the idea of the unity of the 
 church. 
 
 I. The principle which justifies the union of several 
 congregations under one government has just been 
 suggested : it is the unity of the church. I am aware 
 that the idea of unity can never be perfectly realized, 
 in an external organization, upon earth, and the at- 
 tempts which have been made for that purpose, from 
 the days of Cyprian to the present, have only served 
 to sacrifice the substance of unity to the shadow. Still 
 the Independent and the Presbyterian cite with equal 
 approval (see ./?. HalVs Terms of Cm nonunion, Wo7'ks, 
 p. 289, Vol. I., Harper's edition, and Miller on Ruling 
 Elders, p. 16), the splendid description by the Bishop 
 of Carthage of the church as one. In the strict and 
 proper sense, unity is an attribute of the church invisi- 
 ble, and exists in perfection only in the mystical body 
 of Christ ; yet even Independents acknowledge (see 
 Hall, as above), that there ought to be some anxiety 
 and some effort to exhibit it externally. 
 
 "Nothing can be more abhorrent," says this elo- 
 quent writer, "from the principles and maxims of the 
 
Pbesbytekies — Classical, Synodical, General. 187 
 
 sacred oracles than the idea of a phiraHty of true 
 churches, neither in actual communion with each 
 other, nor in a capacity for such communion," and 
 well may he say so. (See Eph. iv. 3-6 ; 1 Cor. xii. 
 12, etc., X. 17; John x\ii., jjassivi. (See Mason on the 
 Church, No. 1, "Plea for Communion," P. I., pp. 9, 
 et seq.) So glaring is this doctrine of the unity of the 
 church, eA^en as a visible church catholic, in the sacred 
 Scriptures, that it is unconsciously recognized even 
 by those Christians whose church organizations pro- 
 ceed upon a denial of it. They talk habitually of the 
 church, the faith of the church, the worship of the 
 church, the sufferings of the church, God's dealings 
 with his church, and a thousand like things. Let 
 them ask what they mean by such expressions. They 
 will not say "a particular congregation"; and if they 
 say "tlie election of grace," tlie}^ will speedily contr^i- 
 dict themselves, and fact, and the word of God too. 
 {Mason.) The unhappy division of the church into 
 sects has been the chief means of obscuring the idea 
 of her unity ; and, therefore, in this discussion we con- 
 fine ourselves to one denomination, or to the church 
 before sects existed. The question, then, is, is the 
 visible church one in any such sense as to warrant 
 the union of two or more congregations under the 
 same government? I answer in the affirmative, for 
 the following reasons : 
 
 1. From the nature and ends of church fellowship. 
 The union of believers with Christ and each other is the 
 source of communion with each other. This com- 
 munion is involuntary, or spontaneous where the union 
 is real. As a man cannot help feeling sympathy with 
 his fellowmen, because he and they possess the same 
 nature — as one member of the body cannot help sym- 
 pathizing with the other members, because they possess 
 the same life, so one believer must sympathize with 
 other believers. It is the very nature of the spiritual 
 life which they all possess in common. God has made 
 16 
 
188 Egclestology. 
 
 them so. But as God has ordained the family and the 
 state that the natural fellowship of men may be ex- 
 pressed and strengthened, so he has ordained the 
 church that the fellowship he has instituted among his 
 people may be promoted by joining in the observance 
 of common ordinances of w^orship, and by obedience 
 to common rules of government. They all have the 
 same end in view, the glory of God in their own salva- 
 tion and in the salvation of mankind. Every Christian 
 is as much interested in the consistent walk and growth 
 in grace of every other Christian as he is in his own ; 
 and is therefore as much concerned in the purity of 
 the faith and the holiness of the life of other congre- 
 gations as he is in those of his own. In the matter, 
 for example, of the character of ministers of the word, 
 their training, their soundness in doctrine, their godli- 
 ness, they all are equall}^ interested. Wh}^ not then 
 commit the whole affair of examining, licensing, or- 
 daining, installing, removing, and judging ministers to 
 a body of presbyters representing all the congregations 
 within a certain district, and common to them all ? 
 Again, in cases of conscience, in questions of doctrine 
 or discipline which are of common concern to all con- 
 gregations, is there not the same reason for having 
 such matters decided by a court representing all, as 
 there is for Christians of a single congregation uniting 
 ill submission to a court of their own in ordinary 
 cases of discipline ? So also in the application of the 
 rules of discipline to particular cases. The presbyter}^ 
 in a particular church is sometimes so small, or the 
 members so liable to bias and prejudice by reason of 
 their relationship to parties in a cause, as to make it 
 inexpedient for the court to issue, if not to investigate 
 the cause ; and there ought to be a provision by which 
 the cause can be " referred" [Rules of Discipline Ch. 
 XIIL, Sec. 2), to a court representing a larger section of 
 the church, or several congregations. Or the session 
 of a particular church may, through ignorance or un- 
 
Presbyteeies — Classical, Synodical, General. 189 
 
 faithfulness, take no steps to institute process, or in 
 conducting process may violate the moral or legal 
 rights of accused parties, or may, in issuing a case, vio- 
 late, the plainest dictates of justice. There ought to be, 
 therefore, provisions made for "reviewing" {Rides of 
 Discipline, Ch. XIII., Sec. 1), or judging by " appeal" 
 (Sec. 3 of the same chapter), or "complaint," (Sec. 4) 
 by some higher court, the doings of the lower. These 
 principles are acknowledged in the constitution of the 
 judiciary in every free commonwealth. The necessity 
 of some such arrangement is more clearly seen in the 
 matter of the discipline of ministers of the gospel for 
 heresy or immorality (specially the former) than in 
 anything else. Heresiarchs are generally plausible, 
 and if the responsibility of judging a minister rests 
 upon a single congregation, or upon the rulers thereof, 
 it is not difficult to see how unequal the contest is 
 likely to be between truth and justice on the one hand, 
 and error, or even immorality, combined with talents 
 and personal popularity on the other. The history of 
 Congregationalism in this country is very instructive 
 upon this point. It has shown itself powerless either 
 to prevent or to remedy the inroads of error. Once 
 more, the church is not merely to maintain itself, but 
 to extend itself. Its great vocation is to be a witness 
 for Christ, and the sphere of its testimon}^ is no nar- 
 rower than the world. How can it accomplish its mis- 
 sionary work except by union ? For all purposes of 
 aggression, unity of counsel and effort is the first and 
 fundamental prerequisite. This is signally illustrated in 
 the history of Jesuitism and Methodism. I grant that 
 in these instances efficiency in aggression has been 
 purchased at too great an expense. The individuality 
 of the laborers has been impaired and almost destroyed. 
 Still, extreme cases illustrate best the operation of prin- 
 ciples. An autocracy is more efficient in a war of in- 
 vasion than a democracy. Popery and Methodism 
 have gone everywhere in this country. Congregation- 
 
190 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 alism has been established only where Congregational- 
 ists have gone before in large numbers. Congregation- 
 alism can conclnct foreign missions only by irresponsi- 
 hle boards of commissions or associations. Presbyte- 
 rianism conducts them through its regular courts, which 
 are representative bodies ; and it is the only system 
 which combines efficiency of aggressive operations 
 with the full preservation and development of indi- 
 vidual life. Its members are not mere spokes in a 
 wheel ; they are wheels within awheel. The missionary 
 work is an essential part of the calling of the church ; 
 union under one government is essential to the proper 
 prosecution of this work. Ergo, union under one gov- 
 ernment, is essential to the church's calling. 
 
 2. From the concessions of Independents. First, 
 in words. (See Owens True Nature of a Gospel 
 Church, Ch. XI. Works (Eussell's ed. Lond. 1826), 
 Yol. XX., pp. 569 if.) This whole chapter, it seems to 
 me, is a concession to Presbyterian principles ; and is 
 conclusive only against the prelatical notions of the 
 unity of the church, and especially the papal. See 
 the last paragraph in the chapter, in which, after dis- 
 cussing the nature of the Synod at Jerusalem (Acts XY.,) 
 he says, p. 601, Yol. XX., last paragraph in the Treatise, 
 "Hence it will," etc., every word of which a Presby- 
 terian might adopt, not excepting the words "voluntary 
 consent." (See C. of F. Ch. XXXL, § 2.) Second, in 
 universal practice: As they are compelled to imitate 
 Presbyterians on the scale of a single congregation (see 
 Lect. on Congregational Preshyteries) : so also on the 
 larger scale of districts containing many congregations, 
 they have their associations, consociations, confer- 
 ences, etc., which practically attempt the work of Pres- 
 byteries, with the disadvantages already indicated of 
 putting the power in the hands of men who have no 
 official authority, and are under no official responsi- 
 bility. It is a painful evidence of the power of preju- 
 dice that a man like Owen could lay down the princi- 
 
Presbyteries — Classical, Synodical, General. 19l 
 
 pies touching church power so clearly, and contend for 
 the divme warrant of Synods to the extent of asserting 
 that their decrees " are to be received, owned and ob- 
 served, not only on the evidence of the mind of the 
 Holy Ghost in them," but also on the ministerial au- 
 thority of the Synod itself (see place above cited), and 
 yet hold that they have no power of censure (judicial) 
 or excommunication, and that it belongs not to the 
 rulers of the church, as rulers, to be members of such 
 S3'nods, but to private members as well, provided 
 they be delegated thereunto by the people. 
 
 'S. From Scripture. The federal character of the 
 government of Isi'ael, combining unity with the full 
 development of tribal and individual life. Force of the 
 words "congregation of Israel." The Avord "church," 
 {vMf^Gia) has already been noticed as equivalent; in 
 LXX., to the word rendered "congregation" in ours, 
 and as the term "congregation," in the Old Testament, 
 denotes the whole body of the visible people of God, 
 so the term " church," in the New. But here the In- 
 dependents join issue with us. They deny that the 
 term, when used in the singular number, and in appli- 
 cation to a visible body, ever denotes anything larger 
 than a single congregation. It is necessary, therefore, 
 to argue this point a little. I. The phrase " chiu'ch" 
 of or at "Jerusalem," occurs several times in the Acts. 
 (See ii. 47; viii. 1 ; xi. 22; xv. 4.) II. The church of 
 Jerusalem must have consisted of several congregations. 
 Argued, (1), From the multitude of believers. Acts 
 ii. 41, 47 ; iv. 4; v. 14; vi. 1, etc., vs. 7. These notices 
 refer to the church before the dispersion, upon the 
 persecution which arose after the death of Stephen ; 
 and the number of believers could not have been much, 
 if any, short of 10,000. After the dispersion we have 
 notices like the following: ix. 31; xxi. 20; ''-oaat 
 fv^ocaoe-,'' "how many tens of thousands." (2), From 
 the manner of meeting among the primitive Christians. 
 This was not in spacious halls built for the purpose, 
 
192 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 but in dwelling-liouses, chambers, upper rooms, etc.^ 
 Acts i. 18 ; ii. 46 ; xii. 5, witli vs. 12 ; xix. 9 ; xx. 8. 
 Rom., xvi. 5. {Dii\ Govt, by Loncl. Ministers.) (3), 
 The church is represented as one body, in the New 
 Testament, ^^ fitly joined together and compacted by that 
 which eYerj joint supplieth." (Eph. iv. 16.) As this is 
 the church to which is given the ministry (vs. 11, etc.), 
 it must be the church visible ; and it is just as natural 
 to consider these "bands" and "joints" as designating 
 the means by wliicli different congregations are united 
 in the same confederation, as it is to consider them the 
 means of union to the individual members of the same 
 church, particular or single. {Allien, p. 250.) (4), 
 This doctrine of the visible unity of the church seems 
 to have been sanctioned by the practice of the apostles. 
 See Acts viii. 14; xi. 22; also ch. xv., where they are 
 represented as acting in concert, although, from the 
 very nature of the apostolic office, each was a governor 
 of the whole church. 
 
 4. A fourth general argument may be taken from the 
 Jewish synagogues. It is conceded, even by candid op- 
 ponents of the Presbyterian system, "that the church 
 did really derive its polity from the synagogue, and 
 that it is a fact, upon the proof of which, in the pre- 
 sent state of theological learning, it is needless to ex- 
 pend man}^ words" (see Littona Churcli of Christ, 
 cited by Killen, p. 251) ; and this accounts for the fact 
 that in the New Testament there is no formal state- 
 ment in regard to the constitution of the Christian 
 church, just as there is no formal explanation of the 
 meaning of the word Christ or Messiah. Killen gives, 
 out of standard authors (Selden, Lightfoot, etc.), the 
 following account of the government of the s^^nagogue, 
 (p. 251 et seq.) : Every Jewish congregation was gov- 
 
 * This view is contiriired by the well known fact that the synagogues 
 were generally not large. It is said (See Prideaiix) that there were 480 
 of them in Jerusalem in the Saviour's time, and yet the population of 
 the city was probably not more than 150,000 at the outside, giving an 
 average of one synagogue to a little more than 300 people. 
 
Presbyteries — Classical, Synodical, General. 193 
 
 eriied by a bench of elders ; and in every city there was 
 a small sanhedrin or presbytery, consisting of twenty- 
 three members, to which the neighboring synagogues 
 were subject. Jerusalem is said to have had two of these 
 small sanhedrins, as it was found that the multitude 
 of cases arising among so vast a population were more 
 than sufficient to occupy the time of any one judicatory. 
 Appeals lay from all these tribunals to the great sanhe- 
 drin, or " council," so frequently mentioned in the New 
 Testament. (Luke xxii. 66; Acts v. 21; vi. 15; Pri- 
 deaux's Con., Part II., Book 7.) This court consisted of 
 seventy or seventy-two members, made up, perhaps, in 
 equal portions, of chief-priests, scribes, and elders of 
 the people. (Matt. xvi. 21 ; xxvi. 59 ; Mark, xv. 1.) 
 The chief-priests were probabl}^ 24 in number— each 
 of the 24 courses into which the sacerdotal order was 
 divided (1 Chron. xxiv.4; vii. 18), thus furnishing one 
 representative. The scribes were the men of learning, 
 like Gamaliel (Acts v. 34), who had devoted themselves 
 to the study of the Jewish law, and who possessed 
 recondite as well as extensive information. The elders 
 were laymen (?) of reputed wisdom and experience, 
 who, in i:)ractical matters, might be expected to give 
 sound advice. . . . Our Lord himself, in the 
 Sermon on the Mount, is understood to refer to the 
 great council and its subordinate judicatures (Matt, v. 
 22 ); and in the Old Testament, appeals from inferior 
 tribunals to the authorities in the holy city are ex- 
 plicitly enjoined. (Deut. xvii. 8-10; 2 Chron. xix. 8-, 
 11 ; Psalms, cxxii. 5.) All the synagogues, not only 
 in Palestine, but in foreign countries, obeyed the or- 
 ders of the sanhedrin at Jerusalem, and it constituted 
 a court of review to which all other ecclesiastical arbit- 
 ers yielded submission. (See also Miller on Biding 
 Eldrs, Ch. II., p. 31, et seq.) 
 
 These principles and facts undoubtedly explain and 
 harmonize all the notices of the New Testament in re- 
 gard to elders, and the organization of the church, 
 
194 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 better than the theories of Independents or prelatists, 
 although it may be conceded that absolute certainty 
 cannot be reached upon these points as it can be in 
 regard to those articles of faitli which are fundamental 
 and necessary to salvation. And, hence, while we 
 contend for the scriptural order of Christ's house, as a 
 matter of faith and of vast importance to the prosperity 
 and efficiency of the church, we do not unchurch and 
 remit to the uncovenanted mercies of God those who, 
 holding the head, yet differ from us upon these points. 
 
 We have thus reached, in the course of our inqui- 
 ries, a third distinctive feature of Presbyterian church 
 government — the mode in which it realizes the unity 
 of the church. It realizes this idea b}^ the elastictity of 
 its parliamentary representative system. If there was 
 but one congregation on earth, its presbytery or " ses- 
 sion," W'Ould constitute the parliament of the whole 
 church ; if half-a-dozen, the representatives from each 
 would constitute a parliament for the whole church; if 
 a still larger number, the same results would follow. 
 And representatives from all the churches (or from 
 the smaller parliaments, Avhich is the same principle,) 
 constitute the parliament for the Avhole church. Only 
 two churches on the earth realize this idea of church 
 unity — Rome and our ow-n church. But these are the 
 poles apart as to the system by wdiich they realize it. 
 Rome, wdtli her infallible pope at the head, and with 
 graded authorities extending over the Avhole earth, one 
 class subservient to another and all to the pope, se- 
 cures a terrible unity, binding all, abjectly, to a single 
 throne. Our system, on the other hand, secures unity 
 in consistency with the most perfect freedom. Presby- 
 terianism, may, therefore, be thus defined : The gov- 
 ernment of the church by parliamentary assemblies, 
 composed of two classes of presbyters, and of presby- 
 ters only, and so arranged as to realize the visible 
 unity of the wdiole church. ( Thornwell, Vol. lY., p. 267.) 
 
 II. In the light of these principles we recognize the 
 
Peesbyteries — Classical, Synodical, General. 195 
 
 truth of the statement of the fmidamental principles 
 of Presbyterianism contained in the note to Form of 
 Gov., B. 1, Ch. XII., in the okl book. If all the com- 
 municants in the Presbyterian Church of the United 
 States could meet for worship in the same place, they 
 might and should be under the government of the 
 same session; but as this is impossible, they are 
 broken up into single congregations, each with its own 
 session. But in order to preserve the unity, all these 
 single or local presbyteries are ultimately combined 
 by representation in one presbytery, which we call 
 the General Assembly, passing through the inter- 
 mediate stages of classical and synodical presbyteries. 
 Of this General Assembly Ave might sa}^, in the lan- 
 guage of Milton (Reason of Cliurcli Goveriiment against 
 Prelaty, Ch. VI.), "every parochial consistory is a 
 right homogeneous and constituting part, being in 
 itself a little synod, and towards a general assembly 
 moving upon her own basis in an even and firm pro- 
 gression, as those smaller squares in battle unite in 
 one great cube, the main phalanx, an emblem of truth 
 and steadfastness." It is not one order of clergy 
 rising above another, like the gradations in the Roman 
 hierarchy, but a larger square of the same order of 
 presbyters, including a smaller, until the "great cube" 
 is reached. The subordination is not that of inferior 
 officers to superior ; but of a smaller body to a larger 
 body of officers of the same order — the smaller con- 
 stituting a part of the larger. Now in regard to this 
 series of courts it is important to observe: 1, As has 
 already been noted, it is a matter of conventional 
 arrangement, founded upon expedienc}^ how many 
 and how large these courts shall be, how often they 
 shall meet, how they shall be constituted ; that is, of 
 what number of elders and how many of each class, 
 how many shall constitute a quorum, etc. 2, That 
 as appellate jurisdiction must belong to the courts 
 above the sessions, or congregational presbytery, it is 
 
196 EccLESioLoaY. 
 
 also a matter of convention or of constitutional arrange- 
 ment how this ai:>pellate jurisdiction sliall be distributed 
 and regulated; subject of course to the principle of a 
 larger reviewing the doings of the smaller part, and 
 consequently of the highest appellate jurisdiction be- 
 longing to the highest court which is allowed appel- 
 late jurisdiction at all. 3, That in matters of original 
 jurisdiction every court has, prior to any constitutional 
 distribution of power, all the power that slyij court has. 
 The presbytery does not derive its powers from the 
 session, nor the synod from the presbytery, nor the 
 general assembh' from synods or presbyteries in an 
 ascending scale, nor the synod from the general as- 
 sembly, etc., in a descending scale. But as fevery 
 court is a presbytery composed of presbyters of two 
 classes, it is clothed with all the powers of government. 
 So that a session might ordain and send out mission- 
 aries, and the general assemby might examine and re- 
 ceive members into the communion of the church, if 
 these powers had not been distributed in the constitu- 
 tion. The sphere of the several courts, therefore, in 
 matters of original jurisdiction is not determined by 
 the places they occup}' in the scale, but by the defini- 
 tions of the constitution. This is an important princi- 
 ple to the freedom and independence of the courts. 
 
 The dictum by which the unity of the church, the 
 power of the parts, and the power of- the whole over 
 the particular parts, are expressed is as follows: "The 
 power of the whole is in every part, and the power of 
 the whole is over the power of every part." The power 
 of the Presbyterian Church of the United States is in 
 the general assembly, the synod, the presbytery, the 
 session, and the power of the general assembly is over 
 the power of the synod, presbytery and session. This 
 last ex^Dression is intended to preserve the rights and 
 powers belonging to the lower courts (guaranteed by 
 the constitution). The general assembly has no power 
 directly over the part, but only over the p)0Vjer of the 
 
The Deacon's Office. 197 
 
 part, which impHes that the part has a power. Com- 
 pare the civil commonwealth. The Commonwealth of 
 Virginia appears in all its parts or courts as a party 
 and judge in every criminal cause, and as a judge only 
 in every civil suit. This fact is the ground of the pro- 
 visions for appeals, complaints (bills of exceptions), 
 references (change of venue), etc. See the action of 
 Assembly, 1879, on the overture of Atlanta Presbytery 
 on worldly amusements (answer to third question). 
 
 XIX. 
 
 The Deacon's Office. 
 
 The communion of saints is implied in the very no- 
 tion of an organized church having its polity and its 
 ordinances of w^orship. But this communion {xon^ojvm) 
 is most impressively exhibited in two ordinances, both 
 of which are emphatically denominated by the word 
 communion, to wit: the Lord's supper and contribu- 
 tions in money, or its equivalent. (Acts ii. 42-45 ; 1 
 Cor. X. 16 ; 2 Cor. viii. 4 ; Heb. xiii. 16 ; Eom. xv. 26, 
 27.) Both of these belong to the worship of God. 
 No^ definition of worship can be framed which can 
 be justly appHed to the Lord's supper, that will not 
 apply also to these contributions. There is no more 
 glorious act of worship descril^ed in the Bible than that 
 in the last chapter of the First Book of the Chronicles. 
 
 This view of contributions accounts for the import- 
 ance ascribed to them in both Testaments. They are 
 the tokens, and, in some respects, the most unexcep- 
 tionable tokens of the reality of the communion of 
 saints. Considering the power of the feehng of mine, 
 who can read that the primitive Christians were not 
 accustomed to say, "that aught of the things which 
 they possessed was their own," but that "they had all 
 things common," can doubt that a new principle was 
 at work in their hearts, a principle not earth-born, but 
 descended from heaven. Still more manifest did this 
 
198 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 become when the Gentile Christians contributed to the 
 relief of their Jewish brethren. Here there was no 
 bond of blood to prompt tlie beneficence; rather was 
 there the bitter prejudice of race. No wonder that the 
 great apostle was willing to travel all the way to Jeru- 
 salem to seal the gift to the recipients; that is, to ex- 
 pound its comprehensive spiritual meaning, and to im- 
 press upon their hearts the reality and the glory of 
 the communion of saints. (Acts xi. 29, 30 ; Rom. xv. 
 25-28; 1 Cor. xvi. 1-4; 2 Cor. chaps, viii. ix.) 
 
 It was in this form, "in relieving each other in out- 
 ward things according to their several abilities and 
 necessities" {Con. of Faith, Ch. XXVI., Art. 2.), that the 
 communion of saints was first and most conspicuously 
 exhibited in the primitive church ; and it was in con- 
 nection with this form that the deacons first appeared, 
 (Acts vi. 1-6.) They were the deacons of ''tables," as 
 the apostles were deacons of " the word." The saints 
 had communion with each other in the apostles' teach- 
 ing and in breaking of bread and in prayers (Acts ii. 
 42) ; but they had also communion with each other in 
 " ontward things "; and this form of communion is that 
 which the narrative enlarges upon in the succeeding 
 verses (44, 45), and reverts to in ch. iv. 32-37. The 
 prime aspect, then, of the office of deacon is that of a 
 representative of the communion of saints. The Avord 
 may be and is preached where there are no saints, and 
 therefore no communion; it is conceivable also that 
 ruling elders may exercise their authority in a dead 
 church ; but deacons have nothing to do, except in a 
 church which has life enough to show itself in a min- 
 istr}^ to the saints. 
 
 This circumstance demonstrates the dignity and 
 spirituality of the deacon's office. Albeit concerned 
 mainly with " outward things," it is with the outward 
 things of a spiritual body that the office is concerned, 
 and spiritual qualifications are indispensable to a right 
 administration of them. Hence we find Paul, in pre- 
 
The Deacon's Office. 199 
 
 scribing tLe qualifications of cliurcli officers in tlie third 
 chapter of his First Epistle to Timothy, saying as much 
 of those of the deacon as of those of the elder, if not 
 more. It is not a little remarkable that a deacon 
 should have been chosen rather than an apostle to see 
 that it was God's plan to abolish the Mosaic form of 
 the true religion, and to establish one which should be 
 spiritual and universal. The celebrated saying of 
 xVugustine, " If Stephen had not prayed, we should not 
 have had Paul," was perhaps more com]3rehensive in 
 its scope than the great thinker supposed. The prayer 
 of the dying martyr was perhaps the means, not only 
 of the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, but of bringing 
 him upon the scene as Paul the apostle of the (}entiles. 
 Certain it is that the charges against Paul, by which 
 the Jews thought themselves justified in seeking to kill 
 him, were the very same as those which led to the mur- 
 der of Stephen. (Compare Acts vi. 11-14 with xxi. 
 28; XXV. 8.) It is also not a little remarkable that 
 while the account of the death of James, the brother 
 of John, one of the three apostles who were admitted 
 to special intimacy with the Lord, is dispatched in one 
 short sentence (See Acts xii. 2), the account of the 
 deacon's death is given in detail. A dozen verses 
 would embrace all that is said of James in the New 
 Testament; two chapters, one of them long, are occu- 
 pied with Stephen, the deacon ; and every reader of 
 church history knows what a prominent part deacons 
 have played in it. It is not a small office. Paul prob- 
 ably had Stephen in his mind when he wrote the sen- 
 tence (1 Tim. iii. 13), "They that have served well 
 as deacons gain to themselves a good standing and 
 great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." 
 But the sam ^ ma}- be true now, if deacons will take the 
 pains to unuerstand their office, and seek grace from 
 God to perform its duties and to improve its privileges. 
 That special condition of the early church in Jerusa- 
 lem which gave occasion to the appointment of 
 
^00 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 deacons was temporary and local, and was designed to 
 be so. We know not how long it lasted, probably not 
 long. It is easy to see that a permanent condition of 
 tliat sort would have resulted in many and great evils, 
 unless prevented by a continued nnracle, and there is 
 no trace of such a condition in any of the Gentile 
 churches. Nevertheless, '' the poor were not to cease 
 out of the land " ; they were to have the gospel preached 
 unto them ; and to the end of time the ministry to the 
 necessities of the saints should continue to be needful. 
 The office of deacon was therefore intended to be per- 
 petual. 
 
 But it would l)e taking too narrow a view of the 
 office to confine its exercise to this kind of ministry. 
 The communion of saints "in outward things" is more 
 extensive than can be adequately exhibited by the re- 
 lief of the poor in a single congregation or in a single 
 city. A single congregation, or all the congregations 
 united in a single city, is not the church universal, or 
 even the church of one state or country. The commu- 
 nion, therefore, " is to be extended as our Confession 
 says, (Ch. XXVI., Art. 2) "unto all those in everyplace 
 who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus." The rule 
 holds still, that "by an equality the abundance of one 
 part should be a supply for the want of another part." 
 (2 Cor. viii, 14.) "Our committees of Home Missions 
 and Education are but great central deaconships of 
 charitable ministrations, by which in these things the 
 burdens of the church may be equalized; the richer 
 provided with the means of helping the poorer, and 
 the unity and union of the church at once manifested 
 and strengthened. And it is but a slight variation of 
 the same principle that is developed in the work of 
 Foreign Missions, in which the church unites in sup- 
 porting her sons and daughters whom she has sent forth 
 to the nations, and in sustaining and enlarging the 
 feeble churches established amid the wild wastes of 
 heathenism." (See Dr. Bamsay's Essay on the Deacon- 
 shi'p, p. 20.) 
 
The Deacon's Office. 201 
 
 ''To tlie deacons also may V)e properly committed," 
 says our Foriii of Government (Cli. lY., Art. 2), " the 
 management of the temporal affairs of the church." 
 The chiirch, like the individual Christian, has its "tem- 
 poral affairs." This phrase denotes specially the pro- 
 perty of the congregation, the house in which it stat- 
 edly worships and the ground upon wdiich it stands, as 
 well as the expenses necessarily attendant u]:>on the 
 comfortable use of it. " 
 
 This brings up the question concerning the relation 
 of the deacons to the trustees of the property — a rela- 
 tion which in many congregations, especially in the 
 cities, is far from being satisfactorily settled. In some 
 congregations, the trustees are allowed to determine 
 the salary of the pastor, for the reason that the salar}^ 
 comes from the rent of the pews, and the pews be- 
 long to the house. If this inequitable method of rais- 
 ing the salary were abandoned, as it ought to be, 
 there would be no plausible pretext left for the usurpa- 
 tion of the trustees. The officers who represent the 
 projierty, it is argued, ought to regulate the disposal 
 of the proceeds thereof. Now, when it is considered 
 that these trustees are often not professing Christians, 
 but men of the world, chosen because they are monied 
 men and men of business, and sometimes because they 
 have property in the neighl)orhood of the church 
 ])uilding whose market value will be affected by the 
 character of the vicinage, it needs no argument to 
 prove that the trustees are not the persons who are 
 most likely to seek the spiritual editication of the 
 diurch in the choice of a pastor. Others propose to 
 remedy or prevent this odious form of " patronage" 
 by having the deacons incorporated as trustees. But 
 the obvious objections to this scheme are, (1), That 
 such trustees would have no more right to usurp, 
 though there might be less temptation to usurp, the 
 
 *For the Scotch doctrine, see BainVs Digest, pp. 38, 39. 
 
202 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 prerogative of the congregation as to the pastor's 
 salar}', than the trustees of the other sort; (2), That it 
 would be contrary to the American theory of the rela- 
 tions of church and state to make ecclesiastical officers, 
 as such, officers of the state." The trustees, in the 
 eye of the law, are not representatives of the church as 
 such, l>ut of a body of citizens who have a right t(^ 
 claim from the civil authority protection for their pro- 
 perty. But deacons are ecclesiastical officers, and rep- 
 resent the church. The remedy of the evil is to be 
 found in the principle that trustees of church ])roperty 
 are intended to act only in cases of the purchase or 
 sale of property, or of invasion of right, when litigation 
 before the court becomes necessary. This is the prin- 
 ciple acted upon almost invariably in the countr}' 
 congregations of the South. It is doubtful in most of 
 such congregations if the trustees are known at all, or 
 c(mld be found in an emergency, or whether, in conse- 
 quence of omission to fill vacancies, the board has not 
 entirely expired. 
 
 That it is the official duty of the deacons to take 
 charge of the pastor's salary would probably not havt^ 
 been questioned, if the salary had not been regarded as 
 a pure affair of lousiness, and not in any just sense as 
 an expression of the communion of saints. In point 
 of fact, it partakes of the nature of both ; and this 
 is enough to justify our church in inserting the article 
 upon which the foregoing comments have been made, 
 and to refute the notion that the pastor's salary is an 
 affair of the civil officers called trustees. According 
 to our constitution, the body that calls the pastor is 
 the body that fixes the salary, and that body is the 
 body of communicants. (See Form of Governnient^ 
 
 *It caunot be denied, however, that oar Americau theory is not con- 
 sistently carried out. In Virginia, for example, whose traditions have 
 been more decided and operative than perhaps those of any other state 
 against the mingling of the two jurisdictions, a minister of the gospel 
 is ex officio an officer of the state in the matter of celebrating a mar- 
 riage. 
 
The Deacon's Office. 20B 
 
 Ch. VI., Sec. 3, Arts. 4 and 6.) The deacon, there- 
 fore, is the proper officer to take charge of the pas- 
 tor's sahiry, and the trustees ms such have nothing to 
 do with it. 
 
 Another question to which importance has been 
 given by discussions in the church is concerning the 
 reLation of the deacon to the session. How far is the 
 deacon responsible to the session in the performance of 
 his official duties? It is, of course, conceded on all 
 hands that in the case of criniinal conduct he is re- 
 sponsible to the session — the court to which, accord- 
 ing to the constitution, all original jurisdiction, except 
 in the trial of ministers, belongs. It must be con- 
 ceded also, that money contributed for a specific pur- 
 pose, say Home or Foreign Missions, cannot, in good 
 faith, be diverted from that purpose, by either ses- 
 sion or deacons, without the consent of the contribu- 
 tors. In reference to all other funds, it would seem 
 that they are under the direction and control of the 
 session. The public purse must be nnder the control 
 of the government. In free civil commonwealths, the 
 government is distributed into different branches ; and 
 the power of the purse, for obvious reasons, is lodged 
 with that l)ranch which more immediately represents 
 the peo]ile from a\ liom the money is derived by taxa- 
 tion. But it belongs to the government. So in the 
 church. The government is not, indeed, distributed 
 into branches as it is in the state, neither is there any 
 taxation ; but the rulers are the representatives of the 
 l)eople as chosen by them, and the people consent that 
 their voluntary offerings shall be controlled by them. 
 To give the deacons, wIk^ are not rulers, power to dis- 
 pose of the revenues as against the elders, would be 
 virtuall}' to create an linperhim rn rtiijyerv) ; for the 
 power goes wdtli the purse. Hence we find the con- 
 tributions of the primitive church laid " at the feet of 
 the apostles." (Acts iv. 35, 37 ; v. 2.) It is in ac- 
 cordance with this view that our Form of Government 
 
204 ECCLESIOLOGY. 
 
 provides (Cli. IV., Sec. 4, Art. 4), that "a complete 
 account of collections and distributions, and a full 
 record of proceedings, shall be kept by the deacons, 
 and submitted to the session for examination and ap- 
 proval at least once a year." 
 
 Another question which has been del^ated in our 
 church concerns the relation of the deacon to the 
 courts above the session. Is he exclusively a congre- 
 gational officer? Or, may he be employed also by the 
 presbytery, the synod, and the general assembly? Is 
 there anything, either in the nature of the of- 
 fice or its relation to the congregation, to forbid the 
 management by it of the Foreign Missionary or any 
 other of the schemes of the Assembly ? If not, why 
 not commit such of these schemes to a board of dea- 
 cons, and set free the ministers of the word for their 
 high calling ? Did not the apostles insist upon the 
 appointment of deacons "to serve tallies," in order that 
 they might give themselves to the "service of the 
 word"? The answer to these questions may be given 
 in a series of propositions : 
 
 1. It is plain tliat the originjd deacons were not con- 
 fined in their ministrations to a single congregation 
 (Acts vi.), unless we suppose with the Independents 
 that there was but one congregation in Jerusalem. 
 
 2. If a deacon may extend his ministrations beyond 
 the bounds of his own congregation, the principle is set- 
 tled, and it becomes a question merely of expediency 
 how many congregations may be embraced within their 
 scope. Their scope may embrace all tlie congrega- 
 tions represented by a general assembly. 
 
 3. There may be cases in which the collection and 
 disbursement of the people's offerings demand, for 
 their full effect, the accompaniment of instruction 
 which can be best given ou\j by ministers of the 
 word. In such cases ministers may be associated 
 with, or even take the place of, deacons. Instances of 
 this sort Ave find in Acts i. 29, 80 ; xxx. 4, compared with 
 
The Deacon's Office. 205 
 
 xxiv. 17; Kom. xv. 25-28; 2 Cor. viii. 1(3-24; and 
 Paley's Hone Panlitup, Cli. II., No. 3. Paul seems to 
 have attached so much importance to the contributions 
 mentioned in these passages as to justify his leaving 
 his work among the Gentiles and his taking laborious 
 journeys to Jerusalem, in order to expound their spir- 
 itual significance and to seal to the recipients the pre- 
 cious fruit. How far these principles apply to any or 
 all of the Assembly's schemes, it is for the Avisdom of 
 the church to decide ; but it is the author's conviction 
 that the tendency is now to excess in the employment 
 of ministers of the word, and to a return to plans which 
 the church, many years ago, formally repudiated as 
 wrong in principle and injurious in results. 
 
 Touching the qualifications for the deacon's office, 
 two places of Scripture may be compared : Acts vi. 3, 5 ; 
 1 Tim. iii. 8, 9. The differences here may be ex- 
 plained by the difference between a temporary condi- 
 tion of the church, in which gifts of the Spirit were 
 prodigally and generally bestowed, and a condition of 
 the church designed to be permanent, in which gifts 
 are conferred with a more sparing hand. The 
 proportion between the gifts generally bestowed and 
 the special gifts for the exercise of oftice is in both con- 
 ditions about the same. The rule for the guidance of 
 the church in all time is, no doubt, that given in the 
 third chapter of the First Epistle to Timothy. 
 
DATE DUE