^':'!;<>i:V-i^ 'M. m ■•.: I?-'-'? v., t . ^ •li. ^^'S^'t'tr^ ^^ «'i«?g'r lb V, '■■■■ ■« '^"■^*.i ^ 'I' f *•-• . k ^ },V«e(K(tT7i»«<«Wl4rt> I ^ f f 'l^' ^'?»^! N ' l^ r . y ^: f V '»; ^. *b LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. ©|ap* -_lnjn|ng|t !f 0,— biiei f .THS. ^ LNITED STATES OP AMERICA. The Baptist Position AS TO The Bii, tlie Mi aid tie Oriances, WITH A SPECIAL DISCUSSION OF CHRISTIAN UNION. By E. J. Forrester, Pastor Baptist Churchy Greenwood, S. C. BALTIMORE : R. H. Woodward & Company 1893- ^\ Copyright, 1S93, by E. J. Forrester. DEDICATION. To that People who always and everywhere have stood for the sovereign authority of the Bible, this little volume is dedicated by one who is glad to be among them. CONTENDS. Preface 7 Introduction by Chas. Manly, D.D., President of FuRMAN University 9 The Pillar and Ground of the Truth 12 The Baptist Position as to the Bible: The Bib It Sovereign Authority 24 The Baptist Position as to the Church : (a) Regenerated Membership 40 {b) Officers 57 (r) Independency 73 The Paptist Position as to the Ordinances : 7. Babtism: (a) The Act 90 (b) What it is For.. 109 (c) Who Ought to be Baptized 129 (d) When and Why the Two Great Changes . . 151 2, The Supper: (a) Three Great Ideas Underlying the Institu- tion 169 (b) Who Ought to Observe it 181 Discussion of Christian Union : What Christian Union is and is not ; How to Pro- mote ^ it and not to Prom^ote it 206 PREKACE. The discourses embracecMn this volume were delivered in the Baptist meeting-house at Greenwood, S. C. The last was delivered first. On becoming pastor of the Baptist Church there, in the latter part of 1891, I found an arrangement which did not seem to be the best conceivable. Somehow, it had become the custom to close two of the three houses of worship in town every Sunday night. That, by some people, was called Christian Union. The second Sunday night in January, 1892, it was announced that there would be preaching every Sun- day night at the Baptist Church, and that the next Sunday night the subject of discourse would be Christian Union. The town was there. It is hoped that this explanation will put the reader in sympathy with the preacher as he goes through that discourse. With regard to the other discourses, let it be said that the purpose to undertake a series of that sort was formed about the time the one on Christian Union was preached. For various reasons the preparation and delivery of themt was deferred till this winter. Shortly after they were begun the Baptist Courier discovered what was going on, and made dtmand upon me for the manuscript. I agreed to furnish the series for that paper. As the publication in it was drawing to a close, brethren whose judgment and piety must command confidence began to suggest that the discourses would do good if put into prominent form in a volume. If it turns out so, I shall be very grateful. E. J. Forrester. Greenwood, S. C, March 11, 18Q3. INTRODUCTION. The circumstances that occasioned the discourses con- tained in this volume are sufficiently explained by the author in his preface. The demand for their publication is not sur- prising, for essentially the same circumstances exist in many communities in which there are Baptist churches, but where the Baptist position is either not understood or is wholly ignored, and these discourses have impressed many who have read them as especially suited to call attention to the Baptist position and to make it easily intelligible. The author would not for a moment countenance the infer- ence that never before had our essential denominational principles been attractively or effectively presented ; very far from it ; but it is certain that, for the widest usefulness, truth must be placed in a great variety of lights, and those discussed in this volume are of such importance that they deserve to have every advantage that can be afforded by variety of statement. To Baptist churches everywhere, whose members con- stantly need instruction, and to thoughtful Christians of other denominations, the truths herein presented are commended as worthy of earnest and devout attention, that the Baptist position in reference to important practical matters may be both understood and appreciated. Chas. Manly. Greenville, S. C. THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH 12 THE TRUTH. THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH. I HAVE announced that I would preach a series of discourses upon those doctrines for which Baptists are distinguished. I do not conceal from myself the fact that, in entering this field, I am entering one with regard to which there is a great deal of sensitiveness. Why this sensitiveness should exist I do not know. It is not so with regard to differences of opinion in other matters. A man might come into this audience and hear me take up some opinion of his on missions, or other religious subject, and grind his argument to pow- der, and his good sense and good humor might preserve him from being offended; but only let me take up some point upon which he and I differ denominationally, and, although I deal more gently with the argument by which he supports his opinion in that matter than I deal with his other argument, his good sense and good humor at once desert him and he is mortally offended. This sensitiveness has had a wide influence upon PILLAR AND GROUND. I3 Baptists. It has made them shy about preaching their distinctive principles. I am nearly forty years old, and I have heard only two sermons in my life from Baptist preachers on baptism. I have been a preacher for fifteen years, and have yet never de- voted a sermon to the subject of baptism. I do not think my case is an exceptional one. There are people w^ho say we ought not to preach the doctrines which distinguish us as a de- nomination. This cry comes from the spirit of intolerance that beat and imprisoned our Baptist forefathers. That spirit comes now in the guise of an advocate of Christian courtesy. Away back in the early history of this country, when in some sections there was an established church, that spirit of intolerance was clothed with power to tor- ture our fathers for preaching their doctrines, and it used its power. But those heroes of the Lord came out of prison and from under the lash with apostolic faithfulness and daring, believing that they ought to obey God rather than men, and they preached their faith until they drove the church establishment out of the land and secured the inser- tion in the Federal Constitufion of a clause forever forbidding such establishment in these United States. The spirit of intolerance, thus shorn of its 14 THE TRUTH. power to torture, continued its persecution by at- tempting to ignore Baptists on account of their small numbers and their lack of wealth and cul- ture. And now, when they have ceased to be few, and have become three millions of baptized believ- ers in this country, and when they have ceased to be poor and uncultivated, and have more money invested in educational institutions in the United States than any other denomination of Christians — now that same old spirit of intolerance comes in still another guise, saying: ^'H'sh, h'sh — don't mention your doctrines ; it is a breach of Christian courtesy!" Please understand me. I do not mean that all who speak thus are intolerant. By no means. It is a case where many, many people take up the cry without knowing its origin or what is back of it. We often see this principle illustrated in human affairs. How many thousands there are in any great political party who take up the slogan of the party without understanding the principles and traditions of the party. In the political contest in our State this year, the smallest proportion of the people on either side, I am pervaded, understood that what they saw was really the working out of forces that were embedded in the foundation of our State gov- PILLAR AND GROUND, 15 ernment. The vast majority on both sides were acting in a drama which they did not fully under- stand. Pardon me, I am not talking politics ; I am illustrating a principle. I say the spirit of intolerance that tortured our Baptist fathers when it had power to do so, and that ignored them when it could no longer torture them, now, unable longer to ignore them, comes in the guise of an advocate of Christian courtesy and tells us we must not preach the doctrines for which they suffered on pain of being set down as disturbers of the peace of Christian commu- nities. This series of discourses will not be controver- sial in purpose. They are designed for the edification of this congregation, especially the younger members of it. Wherever an appeal to scholarship shall be found necessary to the settle- ment of any question, they will represent the best there is in the wide world. The appeal will be made invariably to pedobaptist scholarship. There is as good Baptist scholarship as any other under the shining sun, but my appeal will not be to that. The style of the discourses will be simple, suited to the comprehension of the youngest who will feel an interest in the subjects discussed. There will l6 THE TRUTH. be no harshness of tone or temper. A calm, straightforward discussion of Baptist doctrines will be given. If any wish ta hear that sort of dis- cussion, they will have an opportunity. If any do not wish to hear that sort of discussion — it is a free country. Brethren will allow a word of counsel. There may be one, or two, or three (I do not know that •it will be so, but there may be some) who will have criticisms and complaints to make. If so, just be kind enough to make them to the pastor. If you wish to do the most possible harm by such criti- cisms and complaints, air them on the streets; but if you wish to do the only possible good that can be done by them, bring them to the pastor. Again: Some of you may be getting nervous about the pastor's popularity. You think he is going ^Ho hurt himself by preaching these sermons. I imagine I can almost hear your hearts beat now! But don't you lie awake of nights fretting about the pastor's popularity. He is not going to lose an hour's rest on that account. He is not in the business of seeking popularity. He is only trying humbly to do his duty. There is no man who more highly prizes the esteem of his neighbors, but if that' has to be procured or PILLAR AND GROUND. I7 retained at the cost of declining to do what he conceives to be duty, the price is too great and will not be paid. Let me give you this aphorism: The only part of the popularity of the Baptist pastor that will be of any service to the Baptist church will be his popularity in the Baptist church. My further remarks will be based on i Tim. 3, 15: ''The church of the living God the pillar and ground of the truth." Let me say a few words in explanation of the term of the text. What does the Apostle mean by ''the truth?" Certainly it is not truth about anything and every- thing. He means what he elsewhere calls the truth as it is in Jesus, that truth which was so dear to His heart, and for which He suffered so much and finally laid down His life. What does he mean by "the church?" Not the meeting-house at Ephesus, where Timothy was laboring. It is true, he says, "The House of God, which is the church of the living God." But his language is figurative. He does not mean a literal house. Israel was often spoken of as the "house of Israel," by which was meant the people of Israel. So here the house of God means the people of God, and we are to understand "the church of the living God" to mean God's people^ l8 THE TRUTH. Christians everywhere — the spiritual body of Christ. What is meant by the church being ^'the pillar and ground of the truth?" Does not this same apostle say: ''Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ?" And does he not also tell .the Ephesian Christians that they ''are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone?" Is that not equivalent to saying that the truth is the pillar and ground of the church? Is he not inconsistent, then, when he says that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth? No. The foundation holds up the house, and the house holds up and upholds the foundation. The house, by its standing, speaks forth the character of the foundation. If the foundation were insufficient the house would not stand. We are to understand from the language of the text that the church is to hold up and uphold the truth. I. It is to hold Mp the truth. This it must do in life. It must live a life of purity^ of gratitude, of joy, of love. It must, in some worthy measure, reproduce among men the life of its Lord. The church must hold up the truth also in the oral proclamation of the gospel. Our ministry is PILLAR AND GROUND^ I9 a product of the spirit of preaching in the Church of Christ. All the real preaching done in this pulpit is, in a sense, the work of the entire church of Christ. When Spurgeon preached with such marvelous power he was not representing himself alone, but the whole Christian world. He repre- sented you and he represented me — he was a pro- duct of the spirit of preaching in the church. And so it is with all preaching. *^Like people, like priest." When the spirit of preaching runs low in the church there will be a dearth of preachers. ''Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest that He will send forth laborers into His harvest" — that the spirit of preaching may grow in the church. The church must hold up the truth in the ordi- nances as well as in life and in preaching. ''We are buried with Him by baptism into death; that, like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in new^ness of life." Baptism symbolizes repen- tance. When a man by repentance has died to the world, to his past course of sin, he is then ready to be buried by baptism. His death is set forth by his burial. He is raised from the watery grave; and that symbolizes the fact that he is to live a new life — a life in Christ and for Christ. 20 THE TR.UTH. The ordinance of the Lord's supper, like baptism, enshrines precious truth. "This do in remem- brance of me." "Ye do show the Lord's death till He come." "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." By this ordinance we not only remember Him for our edification, but we also set forth the great truths that without the shedding of blood there was to be no remission of sins, and that the new life which the emergence from the baptismal grave symbolizes must be nourished by the Bread of Life which came down from heaven. It will be seen, therefore, that in the ordinances of His house we have the great doctrine of sin and salvation, the truth as it is in Jesus, presented in symbols; and as we observe these ordinances we are holding up the truth to the world He would save. If you have been saved by Him, it is your duty to be baptized, and to participate in the ob- servance in the ordinance of His supper. 2. // is also the office of the church to uphold the truth — to defend it. She must defend the truth against assaults from without. One of the com- monest assaults is made upon the ground of the bad lives of many who profess to be Christians. The enemies of the church make much of their opportunity at this point. When they make much PILLAR AND GROUND. 21 of it, you are to defend the truth ! Who is it that is not living as they ought? Do not take them all together, but one at a time. Who is the offender? Is he not a better man than he was before he made profession of religion? If so, why not be fair enough to credit religion with the improvement? If he has not improved, let it be remembered that the Christian religion does not propose to make a man better upon the mere profession of it. It is not strange that a man should profess a good thing and not practice it. Has it not been well said that ' 'hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue." It is to be expected that men will oftener profess virtue and practice vice than they will profess vice and practice virtue. Besides, consider how many, many people there are who profess the religion of Christ and are much better than they were before. Against assaults of whatever sort from without, the church is to defend the truth. She is, furthermore, to defend it against misap- prehensions from within. Here I come to the line along which my series of discourses will move. There is not, in the conception of these discourses, the remotest suggestion that those from whom we differ are not Christians, members of the spiritual body of Christ. T-hat they are members of that 22 THE TRUTH. spiritual body is a part of the conception. That is implied and assumed. The discourses are not to be on the line of defense of the truth against assaults from without, but against misapprehensions from within. THE BAPTIST POSITION AS TO THE CHURCH. 24 THE BIBLE THE BIBLE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY. T TAKE up to-day the first and fundamental doc- ^ trine of Baptists, which is that concerning the Bible. In his second letter to Timothy, 3d chap- ter, i6th and 17th verses, Paul says: ^^All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be per- fect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Paul thought that the inspired word of God, as Timothy possessed it, was all that Timothy needed for a religious guide. That is the doctrine of Baptists with regard to the Bible. They believe that the inspired word of God is all that men need as a religious guide — as a guide to religious faith and practice. They believe that God has given men a revelation; that the Bible is that revelation; and that the man of God may be thoroughly fur- nished by that revelation. They hold, therefore, that the Bible is the sole, sufficient, sovereign rule of faith and practice, of doctrine and duty. With regard to Christian institutions, they hold, of SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY. 25 course, that the New Testament is the sovereign authority. The old Testament gives us valuable information, in its history, of God's dealings with His ancient people ; it gives us revelations of His character; the morality of its decalogue is universal and perennial in its binding force. But while the Old Testament is worth so much as a revelation of God's character and as a history of the preparation for the coming of the Saviour, we can never go back to it for instruction about Christian institu- tions. To do that would be to ignore the great fact of progress in God's revelation, and it would be to go back among the shadows for the substance. The Baptist doctrine concerning the Bible, then, is this: The Bible — and, as to Christian institu- tions, the New Testament — is the sole, sufRcient, sovereign religious authority. Does some brother ask, in astonishment, whether that doctrine is peculiar to Baptists? Why, yes, brother, it is a fact; that doctrine is peculiar to Baptists. Can there be any harm in preaching that ^'Baptist peculiarity?" There are people that say that we must not preach our ' 'peculiarities." I am per- suaded that people who talk that way have not thought the matter through. I think they do not understand all that is implied in what they say. 26 THE BIBLE They have not considered that, if Baptists hold important views, they ought to set forth those views, at proper times and in proper ways; and that, if they have not important views w^hich distinguish them from other denominations of Christians, they ought to cease to be Baptists and disband. The same rule, I am sure, applies to all denominations. Any denomination that has views which justify separate existence, is bound to promulgate those views. If those views are of sufficient importance to justify a separate existence, they are important enough to create a duty for their promulgation. If they are not of sufficient importance to make it the duty of those who hold them to promulgate them, then they are not of sufficient importance to justify those who hold them in maintaining a sepa- rate organization as a denomination; and it is the manifest duty of such denomination to disband and allow itself to be absorbed in some other denomi- nation which does stand for doctrines worth pro- mulgating and that justify its separate existence. The man who says that denominational peculiar- ities . should not be preached, is virtually saying that his denomination has no right to a separate existence. That is what he is saying, without knowing that so much is implied in what he says. SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY, 27 That is what he is saying, no matter to what de- nomination he belongs. It is a thousand pities that men should talk that way. My advice to all such talkers, if I had an opportunity to advise them, would be : Either think more on the subject or talk less. I am sure that, if they would think the matter through, they would take the right view of it; and then they would talk right about it. They w^ould see that the very same reasons which justify the separate existence of any denomination make it the duty of that denomination to teach the distinc- tive doctrines upon which its existence rests. I said that the doctrine that the Bible, and, as to Christian institutions, the New Testament, is the sole, sufficient, sovereign authority in religion, is a doctrine peculiar to Baptists. They and they alone, among the great historic denominations, have never appealed to anything but the Bible for any part of their faith and practice as Christians. I should not wonder if this statement were regarded by some people as a reflection upon those who are not Baptists. But I am sure nothing is farther from my purpose than to cast reflections upon other Christians — other members of the spiritual body of Christ. There are many, many people not Baptists whose feet I would gladly wash, not 28 THE BIBLE as an ordinance of Christ's church, but as a loving ministry to those who bear His precious image. But Baptists must have their due. No man must take their crown. They themselves must know where they stand and what they stand for in this old world of ours. Their position must be inter- preted to them. Having thus disclaimed any desire or purpose to reflect upon Christians who are not Baptists, in my statement that to hold to the sole and absolute authority of the Bible in religion is a Baptist pecu- liarity, I proceed to justify my statement as one that is correct. The Romish church does not consider it any re- flection upon her to say that she appeals to other authority besides that of the Bible. She appeals to what the church has done or believed in the past — to the decisions of councils and popes. Ac- cording to her own language, she appeals to the Bible and tradition — not to the Bible alone, but to the Bible and tradition. She exactly reproduces for Christendom the position held by the Jewish teach- ers at the coming of Christ. They laid great stress upon the ' 'tradition of the Elders,'' insomuch that Jesus said to them: ''Thus have ye made the com- mandments of God of none effect by your tradition ;" SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY. 29 and again: '*In vain they do worship Me, teacli- inix for doctrines the commandments of men." The Romish church does not shrink from this position of placing tradition alongside of the Bible as of equal authority with it. She stands unfalteringly at that end of the line. She takes her position there boldly. She knows where she stands, and is quite willing that all the world should know it. At the other end of this line stand the Baptists, utterly discarding tradition as having any authority whatever for determining what they shall believe or practice in matters of religion. They say: ''The Bible alone has authority; we shall have a 'thus saith the Lord' for our doctrines and ordinances and church organization; we will have no other authority." These, now, are the antipodal positions— these are the two ends of the line ; and, as the Romish church stands alone at one end, so the Baptists stand alone at the other. The other great historic derLominations stand along between these two positions. I suppose that all the denominations would warmly claim that they stand with the Baptists regarding the authority of the Bible. The great church standards put the supreme authority of the 30 . THE BIBLE Bible as one of their articles. Martin Luther said: ^^The foundation of Articles of Faith is the word of God." The famous saying of Chilling- worth is familiar: ^iThe Bible, the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants." The Creed of the Church of England says: ''Holy scripture con- taineth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any man that it shall be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." The Westminster Confession, the standard of Presby- terianism, has equally as clear a deliverance re- specting the authority of the Bible. I suppose, therefore, that all the great denominations would protest against the assertion that the doctrine of supreme authority for the scriptures is a Baptist peculiarity; and they would support their protest by pointing to their creeds- — noble declarations of evangelical faith. But still I affirm, knowing full well what I say, that this doctrine is a peculiarity of Baptists. I shall not go into any extended and tedious proof of this affirmation. Enough is enough; and I will give enough. I confine myself to two points. I. The first proof is drawn from Pedobaptist SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY. 3 1 appeal to creeds. A creed may be an admirable thing. I am not saying that a creed may not have its place. As I have already said, some of the creeds of Christendom are noble expressions of evangelical faith. But the creed, if kept in its proper place, can be no more than an expression of beliefs. To exalt it into the position of an author- ity is to abuse it. When I lay my hand upon a creed, and say: ''This document is a concise state- ment of what I believe the Bible to teach with regard to the great leading subjects treated by it, and, therefore, this is an expression of my religious faith," I am on safe ground. There can be no objection to any man or any company of men set- ting forth what they believe to be the teaching of the Bible. But when I lay my hand upon a creed, and say: ''This contains the teaching of the Bible on the subjects here treated, and you must accept the creed or be put down as a heretic," then I have gone too far. I have set up another standard than the Bible as the test of orthodoxy; I have put in that place a human interpretation of the Bible, an interpretation made, perchance, two centuries ago; I have denied you the right to interpret the Bible for yourself, and the privilege of entering with me upon a fresh examination of the scriptures to see 32 THE BIBLE whether these things be true; I have said you must take the interpretation of others or be .read out of the kingdom as a heretic — in short, I have set up the creed, 7iot as an expression of beliefs in zvhieh you and I are agreed^ but as an authority by whichy where zve differ ^ you shall be adjudged heterodox and I orthodox. Now, this last is what all the great historic denominations have done. They have made creeds the test of orthodoxy. The Church of England has its thirty-nine articles, its Romish liturgy, and its high church canons. As a con- dition of ordination, its clergy must subscribe to those articles; and, while they may not preach in accordance with the articles, they must be sure to put all honor on the prayer book. About two hundred years ago, Benjamin Keach, an English Baptist preacher, wrote a little book containing an expression of Baptist views. It was a modest little primer. It was condemned as ^'seditious and venomous" and *' contrary to the Book of Common Prayer and the Liturgy of the Church of England"- — contrary, not to the Bible, mark you, but to the Book of Common Prayer and the Liturgy of the Church of England. It is well known that an appeal to SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY. 33 the Westminster standards is final. If its ministers speak not according to the Confession and the Catechism, they are regarded as condemnable, and are condemned. Likewise, in the Methodist church, a question of orthodoxy is setded by reference to the Book of Discipline. What is true of the denominations mentioned is true of all those organized about a great historic creed. The creed, instead of the Bible, becomes the test of orthodoxy, and the final appeal. In contrast to all these sects, the Baptists have always persisted in maintaining the true use of creeds. They have no authoritative creed to whose wording all must bow. Nor have they any authoritative church directory to which all church custom must conform. And yet no sect in Christen- dom presents to the world a spectacle of greater unity of faith or uniformity in practice than is presented by this great denomination, existing in thousands of little ecclesiastical commonwealths scattered all over the world and placed in all sorts of circum- stances. This phenomenon of unity and uni- formity is a marvel which other denominations can not understand. It is due to the fact that we have no authoritative creed, but insist upon going directly and anew to the Bible for the settlement of all questions that arise in our church life. 34 THE BIBLE 2. The second proof of my affirmation is drawn from the practice of infant baptism by the Protest- ant Pedobaptists. In the second quarter of this century, a movement was begun in the Church of England that has gone into history as the ^'Tracta- rian Movement," so called because the promoters of the movement advocated their views in a series of tracts. Those tracts, written by . Church of England clergymen, appeal to infant baptism as a proof that the church accepts the authority of tra- dition, holding that this rite is practiced upon tradition alone, and that concerning it the scriptures teach nothing. One of the greatest teachers American Congregationalism ever produced said: *'If anybody ask me. Where is your text for bap- tizing children? I reply. There is none. And if I am asked. Then why do you baptize them? I say. Because it is found to be beneficial." One of the best scholars and ablest commentators American Congregationalism has ever produced said with regard to infant baptism: '^Commands or plain and certain examples in the New Testament rela- tive to it I do not find; nor, with my views of it, do I need them." A great Lutheran scholar and his- torian, after fully and freely conceding that infant baptism did not come from the Bible, advocates re- SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY. 35 taining it, but says that, to do so, 'Hhe doctrine of Biblical baptism mttst be reformed.^' In order to retain 'infant baptism, we must reform the doctrine of BibHcal baptism! In other words, to carry out our wishes we must reform the Bible whenever it does not conform to our wishes! Indeed, the case has reached the point where any candid and schol- arly defense of the rite must appeal to the Fathers or something outside of the scriptures. The Catholics understand this thoroughly, and have always understood it. In the time of Charles II, there was in London a Baptist preacher named Ives, who was a very able debater. The king invited him to come to court and hold a discussion with a Catholic priest. He also asked Mr. Ives to put on the robe of an English clergyman. The Baptist preacher did not see that the king intended a deception and a little fun ; and he complied with what seemed an innocent request. The priest took him for a clergyman of the English Church. He pressed the priest with the point that certain doctrines of the Catholic Church were not apostolic because not found in apostolic writings. The priest replied that argument would be of as much force against infant baptism, which was also unknown in the ^6 THE BIBLE apostolic age. The Baptist preacher readily granted that, and replied that he rejected infant baptism for that very reason. The priest indig- nantly brought the discussion to a close, saying that he had been deceived; he had been invited to debate with a Church of England clergyman, while it was evident this was an Anabaptist preacher. A Romish bishop in this country a few years ago said to a minister of a Pedobaptist denomi- nation: ''We Romanists have little to fear from you ; the controversy is not between us and you ; it is with the Baptists." Over and over again Romanists have expressed themselves in a similar way. What they mean is, that Baptists are the only people w^ho can oppose them to best advan- tage, because Baptists are the only people who stand at the other end of the line from them. Bap- tists can say to them: ''You did not get auricular confession or mariolatry out of the Bible." To that they can only reply: "We accept the authority of tradition," and the battle is joined at that point, the question being whether tradition should be accepted as a religious authority. But when the Pedobaptist says to the Romanist: "You did not get auricular confession and mariolatry out SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY. 37 of the Bible/' the Romanist has only to answer: ''And, likewise, you did not get infant baptism out of the Bible;'' and the Pedobaptist can say no more, for the Catholic can show, not only that it is not in the Bible, but also when and why it arose in the history of Christianity — a history with which the Romanist is quite familiar. Let me repeat, in conclusion, that w^hile the great historic Pedobaptist denominations have placed in their creeds an article declaring that the Bible is the sovereign authority in religion, they have not consistently adhered to that doctrine, but have, unconsciously no doubt, supplemented that authority with something else, shrinking from a rigid application of the principle; and that Bap- tists, on the other hand, have unfalteringly main- tained that they need no authority but the Bible, and will have no other. From this first and funda- mental doctrine of the Baptists come all the other doctrines for which they are distinguished. The next discourse will be upon the Baptist Doctrine Concerning the Church. THE BAPTIST POSITION AS TO THE BIBLE. 40 THE CHURCH, REGENERATED MEMBERSHIP. T AM to speak to-day upon the Baptist doctrine ^ concerning the Church. I introduce the dis- cussion with two passages of scripture: ''He is the Head of the Body, the Church." Col. i: i8. ''What thou seest, write in a book, and send it to the seven churches." Rev. i: ii. The Baptist doctrine concerning the Church may be stated thus : The Church is the body of which Christ is the head; it comprises all who are in vital union with Christ. Thus conceived it is invisible in the sense that what constitutes it the Church is invisible, viz, the vital union of its members with Christ; but it manifests itself in local organizations, or churches consisting of baptized believers, having elders and deacons, and being independent of each other and separate from the State. It will be seen that the doctrine thus stated takes account of two general aspects of the Church; that is to say, its spiritual constitution and its local organization. Those two aspects are presented REGENERATED MEMBERSHIP. 4I by the two passages of scripture with w^hich I have introduced this discourse, and which rep- resent the whole of the New Testament teaching on this subject. There is, first, the mystical or spiritual body of Christ, consisting of all true believers; and then there are local organizations consisting of persons who profess to belong to the mystical body, persons who claim that they are believers, and who have been baptized. It is proper, in accordance with this doctrine of the church, to speak of the Church of Christ and also of a church of Christ; but it is not proper to say tlie Baptist Church if you mean thereby an aggregation of Baptist churches. If you say ^'the Church of Christ," meaning that body of w^hich Christ is head, you are on scriptural ground; if you say ^'a church of Christ," meaning a local organization of baptized believers, you are still on scriptural ground; but if you say '^the Baptist Church," meaning an aggregation of Baptist churches, you have no scripture warrant for your language. These local churches denominated ^ ^Baptist" are organized, we believe, according to the New Testament model. They w^ere named '^Baptists" by people who did not like them. We have no objection to the designation. It hurts no- 42 THE CHURCH. body, and is convenient. Any characteristic of those churches that distinguishes them from other Christian organizations existing alongside of them might be taken to designate them, and might be coupled with their scriptural designation as churches. Just as the New Testament speaks of the church of Ephesus and the church in Smyrna, to distin- guish one from the other, so we may speak of ''the church at Greenwood," and ''the church at Abbeville," to distinguish one from the other, and, for the same reason, of the "First Church of Greenville," and the "Pendleton Street Church of Greenville." In these cases, w^e have only used certain words to distinguish one local church from another. In a similar way, we may say the "Bap- tist Church of Greenwood" to distinguish our church from other local organizations. By doing this we are not surrendering the idea that an or- ganized church is always a local body. But that idea ivoicld be surrendered if we spoke of "the Baptist Church of South Carolina," or "the Bap- tist Church South," or "the Baptist Church of America," meaning thereby an aggregation of local churches; and, in that case, we should be adopting an idea not contained in the New Testa- ment, those holding different views from ourselves REGENERATED MEMBERSHIP. 43 being witnesses. In the New Testament the word ^'church" is used in only two senses. In one it applies to the mystical body of Christ; in the other, to a local organization of baptized believers ; in no case to an aggregation of such local organizations. Baptists are the only people who hold the doctrine of the church which I have stated. Others may hold some part of that doctrine, but none besides Baptists adhere to it in its entirety. The Romanists know nothing of a church. With them it is tlie church. They confound the spiritual constitution of the Church of Christ with its external organiza- tion. The mystical body of Christ is identical with the ''Holy Catholic Church." To be in that church IS to be saved; to be out of it is to be lost. Protestant Pedobaptists recognize the distinction between the spiritual constitution of the mystical body and its external organization, but have never perceived it as clearly nor emphasized it as strongly as Baptists. This is shown by their language with regard to the church. For example, they speak of ''the Church of England," '^the Scottish Church," "the Methodist Episcopal Church, South," "the Methodist Episcopal Church, North," "the South- ern Presbyterian Church," "the Northern Presby- terian Church," and so on; and they speak of 44 THE CHURCH. these as ' 'Branches of the Church." Now, the only branch of a church that Baptists and the Bible know anything about is an individual man, woman or child who has been regenerated by the Spirit of God and brought into vital union with Christ, the true Vine. There is no orgmiized branch. The branch is an individual, whether you think of the the church in one or the other of the scripture significations of the term, w^hether you think of it as the mystical body of Christ, composed of all true disciples, or as a local organization of persons who profess discipleship to him. It is not speaking according to the scriptural and Baptist doctrine of the Church to call an aggregation of local societies a ' 'branch of the Church." That language indicates a confused idea as to what the Church is. It points to a no- tion that organized Christendom is the Church of Christ. That, however, is not true in any scrip- tural sense. It is not true that organized Christen- dom is identical with the mystical body of Christ. There are confessedly many individuals within the limits of organized Christendom who are not in vital union with Christ, and so are not members of the Church in the sense that the Church is his body. On the other hand, there must be some REGENERATED MEMBERSHIP. 45 real disciples who have not been connected with any part of organized Christendom. This must be so at any time, if for no other reason, simply because they have not had opportunity to become so connected since their spiritual change occurred. There are, then, some members of the body of Christ who are no part of organized Christendom, just as there are individuals connected with or- ganized Christendom who are not members of the body of Christ ; and organized Christendom is, therefore, not identical with the body of Christ. Nor can it be said, of course, that organized Christendom is identical with any local organiza- tion of Christians. Thus we see that Protestant Pedobaptists have brought in a meaning of the word ''Church" not found in the New Testament, and do not hold to the simple distinction between the Church of Christ and the churches of Christ which the New Testament makes and which is firmly held by Baptists. Let it be understood, then, that Baptists, stand- mg . by the Bible, say that there are, strictly speaking, only two proper senses of the word ''Church." In one of these senses it desigrnates that body of believers of which Christ is the head. In the other sense, it designates a local organiza- 46 THE CHURCH. tion of baptized professors of personal faith in Christ. In the first sense, there can be only one church; in the other, there may be very many churches. Upon the church under the first of these aspects it is needless that I should dwell; but upon the church under the other aspect I must dwell at some length. Indeed, I can not finish the treatment in this discourse without making it much too long. I said that the Baptist idea is that a local church must be composed of baptized believers. I lay stress now upon the word '^believers," and not upon the word * ^baptized." The latter involves the question of baptism, and that will come up for treatment under the head of the Baptist doctrine concerning the ordinances. A church must be composed, then, of believers, and not of unbe- lievers, or of believers and unbelievers. The membership is not to be unregenerate or mixed. There must be a profession of faith on the part of every one who is united to a church of Christ. This is the teaching of the New Testament. The apostolic letters to the churches are addressed to people who profess to be regenerate, and who are assumed to be what they profess. They are called ^^saints," ^'sons of God," ^'faithful breth- REGENERATED MEMBERSHIP. 47 ren," **sanctified in Christ Jesus." They are told that they are the ''temple of God," and that the Holy Spirit dwelleth in them. Such ex- pressions surely could not be used in reference to the members of the apostolic churches, if they were not supposed to be regenerate. This state of things in those churches was in har- mony with the order of the terms in the Great Commission, which provides for making disciples first and baptizing them afterwards. It w^as also in harmony with the apostolic preaching, which invariably put faith before baptism. Still further, it was in harmony with what we know of apostolic practice, as for example, on the day of Pentecost they that received the word preached by Peter were baptized. The new testament teaching is that people are to believe before they are baptized and admitted to church membership. For this teaching of the New Testament Baptists have stood alone. The Roman Catholics, holding^ that their organization is the Church of Christ, in which alone there is salvation, receive all who will allow themselves to be received. The other denomina- tions generally put in their creeds a definition of the church which excludes from membership any but regenerate persons, making the church a congre- 48 THE CHURCH. gation of ''faithful," or ''scripturally regenerate" men. The definition, indeed, is liable to the charge of confusing the two senses in which the New Testament uses the word ''church," since the word is there used to denote the spiritual body of Christ, in which case it is not a "congregation," or it is used to denote a congregation of believers, in which case it is not the Church. In other words, there is nothing which, according to the New^ Tes- tament, can be, at the same time, both the Church and a congregation. And that is what these Con- fessions say, viz., that the church is a congregation of regenerate men. But my object just now is not to criticise the definition of the church as found in the creeds of Protestant Pedobaptist denominations. My pur- pose is rather to give them credit for recognizing faith as a condition of church membership. While giving them credit, however, for that, it is obliged to be said that they do not stand by their creeds. There is no exception to this remark. To be a Pedobaptist is to set aside this declaration of the creeds. To be a Pedobaptist is to believe in infant baptism; and to believe in infant baptism is to stand for mixed church membership. Pedobaptists who believe in the spirituality of the church feel REGENERATED MEMBERSHIP. 49 that infant baptism is an embarrassment, if it be admitted that baptized infants are members of the church, and hence they are not willing to regard them as members, and endeavor to place them in some other relation to the church. Here is a mighty task. These infants are either members or not members. If they are members, what becomes of the spirituality of the church ? Have not unbe- lieving people been admitted to membership in a church which is held to be spiritual and composed of regenerate persons ? If they are not members, what relation do they sustain to the church ? Why have they, without consent, been subjected to what is regarded as the rite that introduces to church membership ? There is no logical escape. The baptized infants are church members, in which case they are entided to all the privileges of church membership, participation in the Lord*s supper included; or they are not church members, in which case their baptism was a thoroughly useless performance," without significance or. benefit. If they are church members they are either regenerate or unregenerate ones. If regenerate, their regen- eration has been accomplished by baptism; if unregenerate, church membership has been con- ferred upon persons knovv^i to be unregenerate. 50 THE CHURCH. In one case, yon have unregenerate church mem- bership; in the other, baptismal regeneration. In either case, the spirituality of religion and the church is undermined. You have either no regen- eration, or a mechanical regeneration, as a condition of church membership ; and that is not in accord with the definition of the church as ''a congrega- tion of faithful (scripturally regenerate) men." To comprehend this confusion, this inconsistency between Protestant creed and practice, we must bear in mind that the Protestant Reformation stopped short of thorough work. Romish ideas were not completely eradicated. A residuum of Romanism was brought over into the Reformed churches. Protestantism did not, for example, get entirely rid of the idea that the church stands in a mediating position ; that is to say, that con- nection with the church by baptism puts one in the channel of grace — somehow or other makes his salvation more certain. The Romanish idea is that such connection with the church is necessary to salvation. Protestantism could get no farther from that idea than to hold that connection with the church by baptism puts one in the way of being saved. This explains the fact that mixed membership, through infant baptism, has been REGENERATED MEMBERSHIP. 5 I retained in the Pedobaptist denominations. A Church of England clergyman in college lectures used this language : ''Why must parents and friends be careful to get their children baptized? Because by this ordinance their original sin is washed away and they are grafted into the body of Christ ; so that if they die before they commit actual sin, they are undoubtedly saved ; and if this be neglected by their fault, they must answer for putting the salvation of the children to so great hazard. Yes, Baptists stand alone for a regenerated church membership. It is in consequence of their position in this matter that their preachers so con- sistently urge people to comxe to Christ to become Christians, instead of urging them to join the church. Any attentive hearer must observe this difference between the preaching and especially the conversation of Baptist and Pedobaptist preachers. Baptist preachers have little to say about the church and joining the church; Pedo- baptist preachers have much to say about the church and joining the church. A Baptist preacher would be considered entirely unbaptistic if he should ask any person to join a church in order to induce some relative or friend to jom. 52 THE CHURCH. Baptists wish people to become church members because they have already become Christians, and only when they have already become Christians, and not because somebody else has become a church member or induce somebody else to become a church member. Anyone who knows the facts knows that Baptists are different from other Christians at this point. He knows that ministers and members of other denominations often urge people to become church members on the ground which I have just mentioned and others like it, and that they even urge members of one denomi- nation to pass to another in the hope of inducing some relative or friend who is not a church member to become one. Baptists stand out against anything of that sort as very wrong and very hurtful teaching. Any such teachinj^ as that is putting the church in a mediating position between God and men; it is holding that church membership puts men in the channel of grace; it is undermining the spiritual nature of the church ; and it logically leads to a special priesthood, and to all the other errors of Romanism. It is not said that this leads, as a matter of fact and practice, to all the errors of Romanism. Protestants are kept back from that; and they are kept back., no REGENERATED MEMBERSHIP. ^3 doubt, very largely by the influence of Baptist teaching. What I do say is that this idea of joining a church before becoming a Christian in order to put oneself in the channel of grace logically^ leads to all the errors of Romanism. It does ; that because it makes the church a mechanical, external thing, destroying its sfjiritual character; and as soon as you have done that, you have put into the idea of the church the germ of all Romish errors. Baptists stand like a rock, and have ever thus stood, against being joined to a church before being joined to Christ. With them it is, ^'Come to Christ first, and then come into church membership." Of course, the objection is raised that Baptists have unconverted members in their churches. Baptists do not deny that. They have never claimed that their churches have no unconverted members. Nor do they conceive that the ex- istence of unconverted members in their churches is any argument against their doctrine that only regenerated people ought to be admitted to church membership. They hold that a church organized according to the New Testament model is com- posed of persons who profess faith in Christ, and who are to be presumed to possess the faith they 54 THE CHURCH. profess until their conduct disproves their pro- fession. That some members are unregenerate does not prove that Baptists are not following the apostolic model ; for there were unregenerate members in apostolic churches. That some mem- bers of Baptist churches are unregenerate only proves that we are not omniscient, and have no means of determining with absolute certainty who are regenerate and who are not, and can only make a creditable profession of faith the condition of church membership. If Baptists were obliged to do so, they could easily show that it is better to require a profession of faith as a condition of church membership, even though this bar should be overridden by a much larger number of unre- generate men. They could show that to abolish this condition would be to take a position which not only logically leads out to identifying the church with the whole community, but which has actually led to that over and over again in history ; they could show that it would be to take a position that leads out to identifying the church with the world, as did Charles Kingsley when he held that ^^the church is the world, lifting itself up into the sunshine ; the world is the church, falling into shadow and darkness," or as did a very able REGENERATED MEMBERSHIP. 55 American Methodist preacher when I heard him say in New Jersey that ''wherever there is any goodness, there the chmxh is." But Baptists are not so much concerned to show that it is best to require a profession of faith before church membership, as they are to know that this is the New Testament order. To show that is no trouble. People who hold that Christianity has properly developed away from the New Testament type of church organization, and who are therefore not concerned to find their t3^pe of organization in the New Testament, freely testify that we have the right idea of the New Testament model. Says a high English authority: ''Were the question put to a person of plain understanding, unacquainted with the controversies w^hich have arisen on the subject, what, according to the apostolic epistles is a Christian church, or how is it to be defined ? he would probably, without hestation or difficulty, reply that a Christian church — as it appears, for example, in St. Paul's epistles — is a congregation or society of faithful men or believers, whose unseen faith in Christ is visibly manifested by their profession of certain fundamental doctrmes, by the preaching of the Word, by the administration and reception of the two sacraments, and by the exer- 56 THE CHURCH. cise of discipline. He would direct attention to the fact that the ordinary greeting of St. Paul, at the beginning of each epistle, is to the saints and faithful brethren, constituting the church of such a place, fellow heirs with himself of eternal life; and that throughout these compositions the members of the church are presumed to be in living union with Christ, reasonings and exhortations being addressed to them, the force of which cannot be supposed to be admitted, except by those who are led by the Spirit of God; in short, that the members of the Corinthian or the Ephesian church are addressed as Christians; and a Christian is one who is- in saving union vv^ith Christ." He also says: ''Thus it appears that what it has become, in some quarters, the practice to designate as the dissenting view is, in fact, nothing but the teaching of scrip- ture, as well as the conclusion of reason." These words were wTitten by the Church of England Author, Litton. Baptists need look for no better testimony that their view of the membership of apostolic churches is the scriptural view. I can go no farther now with the discussion of the Baptist doctrine concerning the church. In the next dis- course, I will discuss the officers of a church, as I have to-day discussed its membership. OFFICERS. 57 OFFICERS. T^HE letter to the Phillipians opens with these ^ words: ^^Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." The task set for this hour is to maintain that, according to the New Testament, the officers of Christian churches are bishops and deacons. Two offices there are; and the discussion will be brought under two general heads. THE BISHOPS. That there were bishops in the New Testament churches nobody doubts. The matter in question is their relation to the churches and their relative position among the church officers. There is a question of official equality and a question of official authority. I. Were the bishops officially superior to the elders ? That is the question of official equality. That there were elders is just as evident as that there were bishops. He who runs may read it. 58 THE CHURCH What, now, is the testimony of the New Testament upon this question of official equality ? Paul's salutation to the Philippians leaves out the elders — at least, that is what it seems to do. But the omission points to the truth with regard to the question of official equality. ''Bishop" and ''elder" are two words used to designate the same officer. Iv proof of that, I will cite three other passages of scripture. In Acts 20: 17, Luke tells us that Paul sent from Miletus to Ephesus and called "the elders of the church." In the 28th verse of the same chapter, Luke records that Paul, address- ing those elders of the Ephesian church, said: "Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the- Holy Ghost hath made you overseers." The word translated "overseers" here is the same as that translated "bishops" in the salutation to the Philippian church ; so that the same men are called "elders" by Luke and "bishops" by Paul. In the 3d chapter of ist Timothy, Paul gives special instruction as to the qualifica- tions of "bishops" and "deacons," but says nothing about "elders." We must, of course, suppose that the omission of instruction with re- gard to "elders" is to be accounted for by their being identified with either "bishops" or "dea- OFFICERS. 59 cons." The passage in Acts, already cited, shows that they were identified with the ''bishops." In the 1st chapter of his letter to Titus, Paul dis- tinctly identifies the elders with the bishops when he says : ''For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee. If any be blameless ^ ^ for a bishop must be blameless." These passages of Scripture seem to make it very plain that the New Testament churches knew nothing about bishops as a special class of minis- ters oflScially superior to the elders ; or, in other words, that they knew nothing of what is now known as Episcopacy. That is the way it looks to us. But we are Baptists, and do not believe in Episcopacy. May we not be looking at these Scriptures with prejudiced eyes? In answ^er to that question I will quote what is said by some of the best scholars who do believe in Episcopac}^ Litton says : "Every attempt to establish a dis- tinction between the presbyter [elder] and the episcopus [bishop] of Scripture wall prove fruit- less ; so abundant is the evidence which proves that they were but different appellations of the same official person." Dr. Jacob says that elders and 6o THE CHURCH deacons ^'were established in the churches by the apostles themselves ; while the episcopate, in the modern acceptation of the term, and as a distinct clerical order, does not appear in the New Testa- ment, but was gradually introduced and extended throughout the church at a later period." Dr. Lightfoot one of the most learned and most trust- worthy of the many able Church of England commentators on the New Testament, says : ^'It is a fact now generally recognized by theolo- gians of all shades of opinion that in the lan- guage of the New Testament the same officer in the church is called indifferently bishop and elder." These Episcopal scholars are obliged, in all scholarly candor, to see and admit that the New Testament contains no Episcopacy, and that the Episcopal form of church government is a later development. Our interpretation of the scriptures at this point is thus sustained by Episcopal scholars themselves, and therefore, cannot be charged with being a Baptist interpretation ; and so it is seen that bishops are not officially superior to elders, but are identical with them. 2. The question of official equality being dis- posed of, that of official authority comes up. What position did the bishops or elders hold in the OFFICERS. 6l New Testament churches ? Were they merely teachers, or merely rulers, or were they both teachers and rulers ? The name ^^episcopus," bishop, meaning ^'overseer," indicates that the office was not simply one of teaching, but involved some duty of administration, superintendence, government. Giving instructions as to the quali- fications proper for a bishop, Paul says that he must ^^rule his own house well, having his chil- dren in subjection with all gravity — for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God ? Language such as that surely indicates that the elder's office is more than a teaching office. There is the same indication in the language of the apostle when he says, ''Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor." Much more could be said to show that the elder was not merely a teacher. Was he, then, merely a ruler ? By no means ; else Paul would not have said that he must be ''apt to teach," nor that he must hold fast "the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." The office involved both teaching and government. Baptist churches reproduce the New Testament elders in their 62 THE CHURCH pastors. The word ' 'pastor" most admirably meets the case. It means ''shepherd ;" and, as a shepherd feeds and directs and defends his flock, so the Christian pastor, according to the Scriptural conception of elders, is to feed, direct, and defend his church. In his address to the Ephesian elders, Paul brings out exactly this idea of their office as that of pastors, or shepherd. He says : Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to shepherd the church of God. Peter does the same thing when he charges the elders to "shepherd the flock of God." The Baptist pastor, then, is a New Testament elder, or bishop, with both the teaching and ruling function of that officer. A thorough discussion of pastoral authority would take me too far for my present purpose. An indication of what would be said, if I had time, may be given. It would have to be said that there is here nothing of the arbitrary. Peter enjoins upon the elders not to conduct themselves as "lords over God's heritage." AndyetinHeb. 13: 17, the people addressed are told to "obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves," where the reference is evidently to the elders. The elders, OFFICERS. 63 then, must not be arbitrary, autocratic, domineer- ing; and, at the same time, the churches must be obedient. Put alongside of that the two facts that the New Testament lodges in the churches the powder to elect their pastors, and gives pastors no power to enforce authority. Now there emerges this conception of the pastor's position: Ideally^ his authority is absolute, and ought to command implicit obedience — he is the under-shepherd, and, in that position, represents Christ, the Great Shep- herd and Bishop of our souls; but really his authority is limited by his personal deserts, by his approach to Christ in wisdom and goodness; and obedience must be won through the confidence of the church in his wisdom and goodness. Since the pastor's position is ideally so high, or, in other words, since any particular pastor is in an office to which the scriptures have attached authority so great, and since the scriptures have lodged in each church the power to fill that office with a man of its own choice, the church ought to be disposed to follow his leadership most heartily. It may learn that it cannot wisely follow; but it ought to be dis- posed to do so, for the sake of the office he fills, and when it learns that it cannot wiselv follow, the scriptural remedy is at hand. Since the pastor's 64 THE CHURCH authority is really limited by his wisdom and good- ness, and obedience must be won through the con- fidence of the church, he ought to strive to be worthy of the confidence of his brethren. Before we pass from the consideration of the eldership, the plurality of elders must receive atten- tion. It is true, beyond question, that the apostolic churches generally had more than one elder each. Out of this fact two questions may arise: i. Was the plurality of elders a perpetual regulation, so that our churches must have more than one elder apiece or be out of harmony with the New Testa- ment model ? 2. Were there two distinct classes among the elders, the one a teaching and the other a ruling class ? With regard to the first of these questions, it is enough to say that, if our Lord had intended that his churches should always have more than one elder apiece, he would have given instructions as to how many more. That there were more in the apostolic church was surely no arbitrary regulation which would be met by just a7iy number more than one. There must have been some reason for the regulation. In the absence of any authoritative declaration, we are left free to suppose that the reason was found in the necessities of the times. That being the case, OFFICERS. 65 we have one elder in a church or more as there is need. As to the question of ruling elders constituting an official class distinct from preaching elders, it may be said that this 'distinction is an invention of John Calvin in the sixteenth century, and there is only one pa^^sage of scripture that gives even the semblance of a ground for distinction. That passage is i Tim. 5, 17: *'Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine." It ought to be said, in the first place, that it is not wise to base a doctrine or an important ecclesiastical regu- lation upon a single passage of scripture, unless the meaning of that passage is clear and unmis- takable. This thoroughly sound and generally accepted principle forbids that a class of ' 'ruling elders" should stand on this passage of scripture, for the meaning of the passage is not clear and un- mistakable. In the second place, it must be said that the preponderance of probability is convinc- ingly against the meaning of the passage that sup- ports the bench of ruling elders. That interpretation requires pecuniary support to be given to the ruling elders (for that is the meaning of ' 'double honor"), whereas there is nowhere else in the New Testa- 66 THE CHURCH ment provision for pecuniary support to any but preaching elders ; it requires us to attach no im- portance to the fact that while Paul carefully lays down qualifications for deacons and preaching elders, or bishops, he nowhere saj^s what should be the qualifications of ruling elders; it requires us to ignore the fact that immediately after the apos- tolic times the churches had no such office, that, while they had every other office and ordinance appointed by the apostles, and in the course of time introduced many that were not so appointed, they did not have the office of ''ruling elder." These considerations force us to a different inter- pretation of the passage — an interpretation which makes the distinction marked by the word ''espe- cially" a personal instead of an official one. The distinction is not between different classes of per- sons, but between different persons of the same class. • "The elders that rule well" constitute the general class that are worthy of ample support; and those of that class who not only "rule well," that is, show themselves very efficient in the oversight of the church, but also "labor in the word and doc- trine," that is, give themselves to the yet higher task of preaching, are especially w^orthy of ample support. This interpretation is in keeping with OFFICERS. 67 the evident use of the word ^'especially" as else- where used in the scriptures; for example, right here in the 8th verse of this same 5th chapter of 1st Timothy, where we read: ''If any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." It is readily seen that "his own" des- ignates the general class of one's relatives, and ''those of his ow^n house," introduced by "spe- cially," does not designate a new class, but only particularizes certain persons included in the general class distinguished as "his own." So it is in the case of the elders. Those that "rule well" are the general class spoken of as worthy of ample support, and certain persons in that general class are particularized because they preach as well as rule efficiently. It may be worth while to say that the interpreta- tion which I have given to this passage cannot be called a ^<^//^j^ interpretation. I will give you the words of two distinguished Presbyterian authors. One of them says: "It cannot, I think, be cer- tainly concluded from this passage, that the ruling elders who did not teach or preach were regarded as a separate class or order of permanent officers in the church. There seems to have been a bench 68 THE CHURCH of elders selected on account of age, piety, pru- dence and wisdom, to whom was entrusted the whole business of the instruction and government of the church, and they performed the various parts of the duty as they had ability." The other author says: *'Some keen advocate for presby- tery, as the word is now understood, on the model of John Calvin, have imagined they discovered this distinction in the words of Paul to Timothy. Here, say they, is a two-fold partition of the officers comprised under the same name, into those who rule and those who labor in the word and doctrine, that is, into ruling elders and teaching elders. To this it is replied, on the other side, that the especially is not intended to indicate a different office, but to distinguish from others those who assiduously apply themselves to the most important as well as the most difficult part of their office, public teaching; that the distinction intended is, therefore, not official but personal; that it does not relate to a difference in the power conferred, but solely to a difference in their application. And to this exposition, as by far the most natural, I entirely agree," OFFICERS. 69 THE DEACONS. Let it be said broadly, that the duties of deacons are secular. Deacons are, by virtue of office, in no sense preachers. In the 6th chapter of Acts we have an account of the appointment of seven men who were to help the apostles by relieving them of the w^ork involved in the daily distribution of a large common fund. These men w^ere appointed, not to preach, but to relieve the preachers of a certain secular care. It is not certain that the appointment of the seven was the appointment of deacons in the technical sense. But whether that w^as so or not, the seven formed the model, their appointment introduced the idea of the deaconate; and the idea w^as that of a class of officers who should help the preachers by taking charge of the temporalities of the church. It is in accordance wath this idea that aptness to teach is not put by Paul among the qualifications of deacons as it is among those of elders. To make the deacon a sort of undeveloped elder, as is done by all Episcopal forms of government, is certainly without warrant in the scriptures. The deacon may preach, if he can; but he preaches, not because he is a deacon, but because he is a Christian. 70 THE CHURCH Again, deacons are not, by virtue of their office, the special disciplinarians of the church. They have to do with discipline simply as Chris- tians and members of the church, and not as deacons. In so far as discipline is the work of any officer of the church, it is the duty of the pastor. He is to have the oversight of the church in all its interests ; and the conduct of its members is one of its interests. In matters of discipline as in other matters, it is often the duty of the pastor to advise the church ; it is also true that the con- duct of the scriptural work of the church is largely left in his hands ; in order that his own judgment may become clear with regard to points where his advice is needed, and in order that he may make no mistake in his conduct of the affairs that are left in his hands, he will often find it beneficial to consult wise men in the church. The deacons may be the wisest men in the church ; if they have been wisely chosen, there will be none wiser. The pastor, therefore, may consult them with regard to his own w^ork ; but he will consult them, not as deacons, but as wise brethren. As deacons they have nothing to do with the discipline of the church. The same remark might be made with regard to the whole spiritual OFFICERS. 71 department of the work of the church as distin- guished from the secular. The spiritual function belong to the pastoral office. The pastor has a duty to perform with regard to the work of the deacons, that is to say, their work comes under that general oversight which he is bound, as the bishop, or overseer, to give to all the interests of his charge. But the deacons have no official duty with regard to the pastor's work. They have a duty, but it is not official — it is the duty which devolves upon them as members of the church. Let me repeat that the deacon's office is seciila7\ The deacon's are to take special charge of the temporalities of the church. They are to take in hand all the property of the church ; they are to create and administer a treasury sufficient to carry forward the work of the church ; they are to con- sider themselves the financial agents of the church in the broadest sense, and are to act in accordance with that conception of their office. I must not close without saying that, in standing for only two offices in their churches. Baptists are upon the impregnable rock of holy scripture. The highest biblical scholarship of the world will accord them that distinction. The best that the advocates of other offices can say for them is that 72 THE CHURCH. they have developed out of the two contained in the New Testament. We will take the testimony of scholarship as to the fact of New Testament example, and will discard the development. The next discourse will be upon the independency of the churches and their separation from the State. INDEPENDENCY. 73 INDEPENDENCY. T INTRODUCE the discussion of Church Inde- ^ pendency with two passages of scripture. Our Lord, anticipating the time when his churches should be established, and knowing that church members would sometimes have unpleasant differ- ences, gave direction as to the proper management of such difficulties. His instruction on that point is recorded in Matt. i8: 15-17: ''If thy brother shcdl trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou has gained thy brother. But, if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And, if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church; but, if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." Again, being before Pilate, a king and yet a prisoner on trial for his life, Jesus said: '^My kingdom is not of this w^orld; if my kingdom were of this world, then would m}^ servants fight that I should not be delivered unto the Jews." John 18: 36. 74 THE CHURCH. Baptists believe that scriptural churches are independent of each other and of the State. Upon these two features of church independency, I am to speak to-day. THE CHURCHES INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. Speaking generally, we may say that there are three forms of church government. These are Episcopal, Presbyterial and Independent. The highest development of the Episcopal form is found in the Roman Catholic Church, with the bishops, archbishops, and, at the top, the pope. The Protestant Episcopal and Methodist Episcopal come in as a good second and third. The purest form of the Presbyterial government is found in the Presbyterian Church of this country. The Baptists are the representatives of Independency pure and simple. It is very generally supposed that the Congregationalists of this country divide that honor with the Baptists. That, how^ever, is a mistake. Congregationalism seeks to combine self-govern- ment of the churches with what it calls the ^^obliga- tion to preserve church communion, '^'^ In its effort to realize this '^ church communion," it institutes ^'organs of fellowship," viz: conferences, conso- ciations, councils, and the like. These bodies INDEPENDENCY. 75 decide such questions as whether a certain church shall be in fellowship with other congregational churches, and whether a certain man shall be ordained to the ministry. Baptist churches, on the other hand, decide for themselves what churches they wdll fellowship; and they set apart for the work of the ministry those whom they regard as called of God for that work. What would the Baptist churches of this section think, if the Baptist preachers of the section should meet and set apart a man for the ministry, without any church action? They simply would not recognize any such preacher as a Baptist preacher. But Congregationalism ordains men to the ministry in that way. When, how^ever, a Baptist church wishes to ordain a minister, it decrees that ordina- tion — it ordains him. It usually calls in ministers from other churches to endorse its action by laying on their hands. Before laying on hands, they usually examine the man to see whether they are willing to endorse his ordination. Their endorse- ment is all there is in their taking part in the public ceremony of laying on hands. The essential thing is the action of the church designating the man as an elder, an action which the church chooses not to regard as completed until other 76 THE CHURCH. elders have endorsed the candidate. A comparison of Congregationalism with the pure independency of Baptists will show that the Congregationalists have a form of government that mixes just a little of the Presbyterial with the Independent. While Congregationalism thus combines these two forms, Lutheranism, not disposed to be particular as to the form of its government, has honored all three of the formSj giving Episcopacy pre-eminence in one place, the Presbyterial form the pre-eminence in another, and having some regard to Indepen- dency in another, but generally leaning to the Presbyterial. What, now, is the evidence that the apostolic churches were independent of each other? Time would not allow me to give all. I must go to the heart of the matter. Our Lord's words, already quoted from Matthew, touches the case. Final action in the sphere of church discipline is there, by anticipation, lodged with the local church. When the church has taken action, the matter is ended. There is no instruction to take the case to a higher court. Now, we find this anticipatory in- struction of our Lord followed by Paul in giving directions to the local churches whom he was called to instruct. Take, for example, what he says in INDEPENDENCY. 77 the 5th chapter of ist Corinthians. There was in the church at Corinth a man who had committed an infamous offense against purity. With regard to this man Paul wrote : ''I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one unto satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." To whom did Paul address these words ? To the bishop of the diocese of Corinth ? No. To the session of the church at Corinth ? No. To whom, then, did he address the words ? ^^Unto the Church of God which is at Corinth." He was addressing the church at Corinth w^ith regard to what ought to be done with one of the members of that church — he was addressing the whole church. He judged that a certain man ought to be excluded from the church. That judgment he communicated to the churchy and if the church acted upon his judgment, that action was to be taken in a confer- ence of the church — it was to be when the church was ' 'gathered together. " The act of exclusion was 78 THE CHURCH. to be the work, not of a bishop, not of a bench of elders, but of the assembled church. Not even the apostle himself could exclude that man from the church at Cornith. He would only give his judgment as to what the church ought to do. With that expression of the clearest and most positive conviction, he would leave the church to act for itself. In the 2d chapter of the 2d letter, Paul recurs to his case of discipline. His advice given in the ist letter had resulted in the exclusion of the offender. The exclusion had a happy effect in the repentance of the one excluded. Now he counsels the restoration of the penitent offender. He says: ' 'Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many; so that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, lest perhaps such a one shall be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore, I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.'' Here again he is addressing the churchy and not any individual man, nor any official order. He refers, too, to the exclusion as having been effected by the majority — 'inflicted of many," he says, that is, 'Hhe more part" of them, the majority. ''Not by an individual priest, as in the Romish church, nor by the bishops, and the clergy alone, but by the INDEPENDENCY. 79 whole body of the church." Exclusion and restoration of members, then, according to Paul's teaching, was to be effected by the church. Of course, this carries along with it the right to re- ceive members in the first instance. If all matters of receiving and excluding members were in the hands of the churches, and their action was final, it would hardly seem necessary to prove that they had full control of all their own business affairs. That, however, could be proved, if it were necessary. It could also b^ shown that the churches selected their officers. The seven were not selected by the apostles, but by the ''multitude of the disciples." When it is said, Acts 14: 23, Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in the churches they visited, the meaning is not that they selected the men who were put in that office, but as Barnes, Presbyterian authority, Alford, Episcopal authority, and Meyer, Lutheran authority, agree in holding, that they ordained the presbyters whom the churches selected — that they appointed them in the usual way of appointing officers, by the suffrages of the people. If a church is authorized by scripture to receive and exclude members and to ordain preachers, as well as to manage all of its own business affairs, it would seem that it is 8o THE CHURCH. authorized to be independent of all other churches in its government. To be sure, it is not independ- ent of its Lord and Lawgiver. It has no right to annul any of his laws. It is subject to him as its absolute sovereign. Nor is it independent of other churches in the sense that they have no rights which it is bound to respect. No one church has a monopoly of independence. Each must respect the rights of every other: but at the same time, and all the time, it can resist any attempt of any other church or combination of churches to inter- fere with its self-government. Pope, priest, pres- bytery, cofisistory, consociation, association — none have any right of government. Baptist associa- tions and conventions are only deliberative bodies of Christians, who have a common end in view and are striving together to that end. If one of these bodies should celebrate the Lord's Supper, ordain a preacher, or attempt to make a law for the crovernment of the churches, it would be con- demned and repudiated by the churches imme- diately. Are Baptists correct in their view of the apostolic model as providing for independency ? The church historian Mosheim, who did not especially love Baptists, says of the churches of the first INDEPENDENCY. 8l century that they were entirely independent, none of them being subject to any foreign jurisdiction, but each governed by its own laws." Archbishop Whately says of the apostolic churches, that they were each a distinct, independent community on earth, united by common principles on which they were founded, and by their mutual agreement, afiFection and respect, but not having any one recognized head on earth, or acknowledging any sovereignty of one of those societies over others." Here, now, is the testimony of a Lutheran church historian and that of an archbishop of the Church of England. If the testimony of an infidel secular historian were wanted, we have that in the words of Gibbon, where he says of the societies in the cities of the Romish Empire, that they ''were united only by the ties of faith and charity," and that, for more than a hundred years after the apostles, each society ''formed within itself a separate and independent republic." Mosheim, Whately and Gibbon certainly were not interested to find the Baptist church model in the apostolic order, but that is what they found. THE CHURCHES INDEPENDENT OF THE STATE. Upon the second phase of Independency, I must be very brief . Said Jesus: "My kingdom 82 THE CHURCH. is not of this world ; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight." Baptists hold that there ought to be a absolute separation of Church and State ; that the State ought to be neither patron nor ruler in matters of religion ; that, in religion, people ought to be perfectly free, so long as their religion does not involve im- morality, or injustice to other people ; that, since people are to be free in religion and not subjected to compulsion, they are not to be allowed State support for their religion, since to support one man in his religion would be placing a sort of compulsion on another. To many people in this favored republic of ours, it may seem no strange thing that Baptists should believe in the separation of Church and State. They may think that doctrine is no new thing un- der the sun. But Episcopacy is established by law in England, Presbyterianism in Scotland, Luther- anism in Germany, and other forms of religion in other countries. There are two facts I wish to state before I close. The first of these is that Baptists have always stood for soul-liberty, for absolute separa- tion of Church and State. Nowhere in their history can you find any faltering on their part INDEPENDENCY. 83 with regard to this vital question. The other fact is that Baptists have often been alone in standing for separation of Church and State. It was in the time of the great Protestant reformation. What strange imperfection there was in that reformation ! I have before referred to that imperfection. Here w^e see it again. The reformers defied the church as a body of regenerate persons, and yet were wilhng that the church should become a national institution, which men w^ould be forced to join and taxed to support. All the creeds framed by those great men give to the civil magistrate power to force men in matters of religion. What did Luther say about false teachers? ^'I am very averse," said he, ''to the shedding of blood; 'tis sufficient that they should be banished." He also said that they may be ''corrected and forced at least to silence, put under restraint as madmen." With regard to the Jews, he said, that "their syna- gogues should be leveled w^ith the ground, their houses burned and their books, even to the Old Testament, taken from them." Anabaptists were put to death by the Lutherans "for propa- gating their errors," so ran the charge, "contrary to the judgment of the Landgrave of Hcsse-CasselT And what about ' Calvin ? With regard to the 84 THE CHURCH. heretic Servetus, who had written to ask protection to visit Geneva, he wrote to another: *'If ever he enters the city, he shall not leave it living, if I can prevent it." He said also: ''It was by my prose- cution he was imprisoned;" and he expressed the hope that Servetus would be condemned to death, ''though not to the terrible one of being burned." Other great men, associates of Calvin, approved the death of Servetus, saying that to try to destroy his dreams by a train of reasoning would be only to grow mad with a madman. Here, then, were the two best known of all the great reformers — Luther, the father of Lutheranism, and Calvin, the father of Presbyterianism — here w^ere these two great reformers advocating in person what all the creeds of the i6th century maintained, viz., that the civil magistrate has the right to support religion and punish heresy. If we pass over into England, we find the same state of things there as on the Continent at that period. "Henry VIII burned Catholics and Baptists to prove himself defender of the faith. Elizabeth relighted the fires of Smithfield, like her father, to burn Catholics and Baptists." In 1638, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, in Scotland, with regard to religious controversies, forbade "all printers in INDEPENDENCY. 85 the kingdom from printing or reprinting any con- fession of faith, or protestation, or reason pro or contra^ without warrant subscribed by the clerk to the Assembly.'' In 1642, Roman Catholics were ordered to renounce their '^obstinacy" under penalty of banishment or imprisonment. John Robinson, the celebrated Puritan mmister, the father of the Pilgrims, though he and his religious associates were exiles from England from t6o8 till his death in 1625, wrote earnestly in defence of the right of magistrates to persecute error, and promote what they think to be true religion by the power of the State. Passing strange it was that even the father of the Pilgrims should write that the magis- trate ought ''to punish, civilly, religious actions,'' and that ''by compulsion" he is to "repress public and notable idolatry, as also to provide that the truth of God in his ordinance be taught and published, and by some penalty provoke his subjects universally unto hearing for their instruction and conversion; yea, to inflict the same upon them, if^ after due teach^ ing^ they offer not themselves unto the church, " When Episcopalians and Presbyterians, and even the Puritan Independents were thus holding to the union of Church and State, there came a voice 86 THE CHURCH. from the Baptist camp. It was a voice crying in the wilderness. It declared that ''the magistrate is not to meddle with religion, or matters of con- science, nor compel men to this or that form of religion, because Christ is the king and law-giver of the church and conscience." Strange words were those in that time. Brave, true words they were. They were put forth in a Confession of Faith by the Baptists of London in 1611, by men who had been in exile on account of their prin- ciples, but who had returned home, ''determined to challenge king and State to their faces, and not give way to them; no, not a foot." In this country history has repeated itself. To the Baptists belong the honor of contending for separation of Church and State when they stood alone. In New England, Congregationalism be- came the State religion. Roger Williams, a Puri- tan preacher, persecuted in Massachusetts colonj^ by his Puritan brethren for preaching Baptist doctrines, fled into the wilderness, and established the colony of Rhode Island. He put the principle of separation between Church and State into the foundation of the government of that colony. In 1638, the government was formally instituted by a solemn covenant of all to "submit to the orders of INDEPENDENCY. 87 the major part in civil things only,''' Thus did the father of American Baptists become the first legislator who ever put a denial of religious juris- diction into the foundation of civil government. In Virginia, as in other colonies. Episcopacy was established by law. In 1775, the whole denomina- tion of Baptists in Virginia united in a struggle to overthrow the establishment. This effort finally succeeded, not only in banishing that establish- ment from Virginia, but also in making it a part of the fundamental law of this country that there shall be no establishment of religion by law. In the progress of the struggle, however, a bill was intro- duced in the legislature of Virginia, providing for the taxation of the people for the support of re- ligion, the tax collected to be distributed among the different denominations. All tlie denomina- tions, except the Baptists, advocated and peti- tioned for this arrangement. The Baptists re- monstrated with all their might. Papers pro- testing against the bill were circulated by them every w^here for signatures. ^'When the Assembly met, the table of the House of Delegates almost sunk under the weight of the accumulated copies of the memorial sent forward from the different counties, each with its long and dense column 88 THE CHURCH. of subscribers. The fate of assessment was sealed." The record of the Baptists in connection with this doctrine of separation between Church and State is a glorious record. I wish I could turn all its shining pages before you this morning. I cannot. I must close this discourse, and here rest the discussion of the Baptist doctrine concerning the Church. I will next take up the Baptist doc- trine concerning the Ordinances, and will first dis- cuss the ordinance of baptism. THE BAPTIST POSITION AS TO THE ORDINANCES. 1. BAPTISM. 2. THE SUPPER, 90 BAPTISM. THE ACT OF BAPTISM. WE have now reached the consideration of the Baptist doctrine concerning the ordinances. It is hardly necessary to say that Baptists believe that there are two, and only two, Christian ordi- nances. These are baptism and the Lord's supper. I shall not go further, just now, with the general statement of the doctrine, but will extend it as I proceed with the discussion. BAPTISM. The ordinance of baptism claims the first place in our attention. There are four separate phases of this subject which I wish to treat, and I must give an entire discourse to each phase. THE ACT OF BAPTISM. To-day let us consider the act of baptism. The question involved is whether ijitmersioji alone is the baptism of the New Testament. Baptists insist, and persist, if you please, in insisting, that there is no Christian baptism without immersion. They THE ACT. 91 contend that no other use of water, no matter when, upon whom, or by whom applied, is Christian baptism. People may be Christians, they gladly admit, who have not been immersed; but Baptists deny that such people have been baptized, however good and noble and true and Christlike they may be. In support of this position, we appeal to the New Testament, from which all Christian institutions are derived. I desire this morning to make the appeal in three parts. THE WORD '' BAPTIZEIN." In the first place, the word which describes the act of baptism and in which the command to baptize is given, must be considered, and allowed to yield its testimony. That is certainly starting at the right point. The word, as you know, is '^ baptizein." Our version of the scripture does not translate the word, but only transliterates, or anglicizes it. It was left untranslated, because something besides immersion had come to be practiced for baptism, before the version was made, and the translators wished to give all parties the privilege of translating this word for themselves. What, now, is the meaning of this word ^'bap- tizein?" How are we to find out? How do we 92 BAPTISM. find out the meaning of any word in any lan- guage? We commonly go to the dictionary. If you wish to learn the meaning of an English word you do not know, you go at once to Webster's or Worcester's dictionary, if you have one. Why do we go to dictionaries to learn the meaning of words? Because the dictionaries record what the sense, or senses, in which any given word is used in the language which they represent. The dic- tionaries do not create or fix the meaning of words, but only record what the meanings really are, as the words are used in speech and literature. We cannot now go all through Greek literature to discover the meaning of baptizein. The thing for us to do is to go to the dictionaries. But let it be born in mind that we are not to go to any Baptist dictionary. The appeal wall be to the very best; but, I assure you, not one of them, is by a Baptist author. Nobody reads Greek without owning a copy of Liddell & Scott's lexicon. This is, far and away, the best classical Greek lexicon we have. This lexicon says that baptizein means ^^to dip in or under water." It gives secondary and figurative uses of the word, but all of these grow right out of the idea of dipping, of immersion, of being wholly covered up; for example, a man is THE ACT. 93 overwhelmed in debt, or he is flooded with questions. There is not the remotest suggestion of anything like sprinkling. Again, nobody reads the New Testament in Greek without owning, if he can, a copy of Grimm's Wilki's Clavis, written in Latin, or the same as revised and translated by Prof. Thayer. This dictionary says that baptizein means ^'to immerse repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge.'' It also says that this word is used in the New Testament ''particularly of the appointed rite of sacred wash- ing, first instituted by John the Baptist, afterwards by Christ's command received by Christians and adjusted to the nature and contents of their religion, that is, an immersion in water, performed for this end, viz., that it might be a sign of vice and wick- edness washed away, and submitted to by those who, led by a desire for salvation, wished to be admitted to the benefits of the Messiah's reign." There is not one word about sprinkling in this defi- nition as found in the very best dictionary of New Testament Greek. It is not necessary that I should go further with the dictionaries. Those I have quoted are the best; they are not by Baptist authors; and the tes- timony of the others agree with these. Search the 94 BAPTISM. libraries of the world over, and you cannot find a dictionary, recognized among Greek scholars as a standard, that gives sprinkling or pouring as a meaning of baptizein. But baptizein^ with its derivi- tives, is the word that the New Testament uses to designate this ordinance of baptism. We are, therefore, permitted to hold that when our Lord says: ''Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." He commands us to immerse^ and not to sprinkle ; that sprinkling is not baptizing; and that those who have not been immersed have not been baptized. In like manner, we are permitted to hold that when Peter said: "Repent and be baptized," he meant repent and be immersed^ and not repent and be sprinkled. If it is possible to find out the meaning of any word in any language, then baptizein means to immerse^ and not to sprinkle. Prof. Moses Stuart, one of the foremost scholars this country has produced, said of this word that it means ''to dip, to plunge, to immerse into anj/thing liquid. All lexico- graphers and critics of any note are agreed in this." THE ACT. 95 NEW TESTAMENT EXAMPLES OF BAPTISM. In the next place, we must consider the circum- stances connected with the administration of this ordinance, as those circumstances are recorded in the New Testament. It does seem as if it would be difficult to suppose that the baptisms of the New Testament record were administered by sprmkling. That supposition surely can be made only by those who are already committed to sprinkling. Those who went to John, we read in the sacred record, were baptized of him ''in the river of Jordan." Why in the river ? Was it necessary to be in the river to be sprinkled ? Does not that position in the river naturally suggest immersion ? Again, we read that John w^as ''baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there." Why because there was much w^ater ? Would it take much w^ater to sprinkle people ? Is not the natural supposition the one that accords wath the meaning of the word " baptize," viz: that the people were immersed ? Of the baptism of Jesus it is said that, when he was baptized, he "went up straightway out of the water." Why did he find it necessary to go up out of the zvaterf Because he was in the water. But why was he in the water ? Because he had g6 BAPTISM. gone into it to be baptized. But is it natural that he went into the water to be sprinkled? Is it not far more natural to suppose that he went in the water to be ijnmersed, as the word ^'baptize" points out? Let us take one more case. It is Philip's baptism of Candace's treasurer : ''He commanded the chariot to stand still ; and they went down both into the water both Philip and the Eunuch ; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out^ of the water, the spirit of the Lord caught away Philip." Put before an intelligent child, un- influenced by his elders, this account of baptism, and ask him whether the Eunuch was sprinkled or immersed. I believe he would say there was no need to go down into the water unless there was to be an immersion. This ofRcer almost certainly had a drinking vessel in his chariot. It would have been enough to drive to the edo*e of the water and dip up a little, if there was to be only a sprink- ling. But the record says that they went down into the water and came up out of the water. It would certainly take a great deal of ingenuity to explain the account on the supposition that the Eunuch was sprinkled. Bishop Ellicott is one of the highest authorities THE ACT. 97 in the English Church, and he says : ^'The Eunuch would lay aside his garments, descend chest deep into the water, and be plunged under it ^in the name of the Lord Jesus.' " THE ILLUSTRATIVE USE OF BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. In the third place, we must give some atten- tion to the illustrative use of baptism in the New Testament writings. It is not strange tliat an or- dinance holding the place baptism does in the Christian system should be used to illustrate and enforce the teachings and exhortations of the apostles. This illustrative use of the ordinance carries along with it a very clear indication of what baptism was, as we shall see. Take the passage Rom. 6: 3,4: ''Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ w^ere baptized into his death? Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism into death; that, like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Paul is talking about the incongruity between the Christian life and a life in sin. He illustrates this by reference to baptism. Those whom he was addressing had 98 BAPTISM. been baptized. Now, he says their baptism set forth in symbol the fact confessed, that they had died to sin. As a dead man is buried, so they, dead to sin, had been buried by baptism. Further- more, in being thus buried by baptism they had submitted to something that bore a resemblance to the burial of Christ; and as he rose from his burial in the tomb to a life different from that which he had previously lived among men — different in the sense that, before his death life had been a terrestrial one, while it was, after his resurrection, to be a celestial one, so their emergence from the baptismal waters, their resurrection from the baptismal tomb, was to be a rising to a new walk in life. If, now, the baptism that had become established at the time Paul wrote to the Romans was not an immer- sion^ how could there be any force in the language which he here uses ? If you wish to see how utterly inappropriate and meaningless it would be on the supposition that the baptism then established was sprinklings you may see by just substituting the word ^'sprinkle" for '^baptize" in the passage I have quoted. Let us try it right now, ^'Know ye not that so many of us as were sprinkled into Jesus Christ, were sprinkled into his death. THE ACT. 99 Therefore we are buried with him by sprinkling into death, that hke as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." How can one be buried by sprinkling ? Arid where is there anything in a case of sprinkling that corresponds to the resurrection of Christ, as demanded by this illustrative argument of Paul ? But now let us try the substitution of ''immerse" for ''baptize." "Know ye not that so many of us as were immersed into Jesus Christ, were immersed into his death ? Therefore w^e are buried with him by immersion into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Neither figure nor argument is impaired in the least by the substitution of "immerse;" but both are destroyed by the substitution of "sprinkle," and the grand apostle's language is reduced to nonsense. The same destruction would be accom- plished by the substitution of "pour" instead of "sprinkle," for "baptize." Paul makes a similar illustrative use of baptism in other places, as for example, in Col. 2: 12: "Buried with him in bap- tism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the- faith of the operation of God, who hath raised lOO BAPTISM. him from the dead," Another example may be found in Gal. 3: 27: '^As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ," where the apostle is speaking of the mystical union between believers and their Lord, and repre- sents their coming into that union as a ^'putting on of Christ" — a ^ ^putting on" such as the clothing of oneself with a garment — as the garment clothes and covers the body, so Christ clothes and covers the soul of the believer; and this inward entering into Christ as a covering, was outwardly repre- sented by their entering into the baptismal water. The use of baptism in both these passages, as well as in the one taken from Romans, is based upon the fact that baptism was immersion. There is a striking passage in Hebrews 10: 22, that must be looked at in this connection: *'Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." We have sprinkling ;^^zc, and no doubt about it ! But it is sprinkling in such a way as to show conclusively that sprinkling was not baptism. What, according to this passage, is to be sprinkled? Is it the body? No. It is the heart. Can the heart be literally sprinkled? No. The THE ACT. lOI sprinkling then must be figurative. Already, in the 9th chapter of this letter, the author has written these words: ''If the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God." In the 12th chapter we find these words: ''To Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of Abel." In such a setting, the expression "having our hearts sprinkled from an evil con- science" is not hard to understand. Beyond all question the reference is to forgiveness of sin on the ground of the atonement effected by the blood of Christ. There is in this passage a washing as well as a sprinkling. What is to be washed? The body — "our bodies washed with pure water." The reference here is to baptism. The fact that the body is the thing washed shows that the washing is literal^ not figurative as in the case of sprinkling the heart, and that the refer- ence is to baptism. To what else could it refer? Your heart has been sprinkled from an evil con- I02 BAPTISM. science — that is to say, your sins have been forgiven; and now, in addition to that your body has been washed in pure water. In such a con- nection what does the ^'washing" refer to? In such a connection it is a sacred, religious washing, beyond all doubt. But the Christian system knows no sacred washing but the washing of baptism. The reference is, therefore, certainly to baptism. But does the ^^washing" mean immersion ? Beyond question. This whole imagery is drawn from the Levitical law. In that there is no such thing as sprinkling with pure water. The sprinklings were with blood; or, if with water, the water was mixed with something else, as ''the ashes of the burnt heifer." The washings, on the other hand, were performed by immersing the part to be washed in a laver, or font, provide for that purpose. In the passage before us the whole body is to be washed or immersed. In this passage, therefore, we have both sprinkling and immersion, sprinkling being used with evident reference to the purification of the soul through the forgiveness of sin upon the ground of the atoning blood of Christ, and immer- sion being used with just as evident reference to the ordinance of baptism. There are other examples of the illustrative use THE ACT. 103 of baptism in the New Testament writings which the advocates of sprinkling build upon, as they do upon the passage just explained. But all such examples, when examined^ yield their testimony in favor of immersion as the baptism established in the New Testament churches. Let us now review our argument. First, the word used in the commands establishing baptism means immersion and only immersion. Secondly, the recorded cases of the administration of the ordinance, when circumstantial details are given, can be naturally and easily regarded only as cases of immersion^ the supposition that they were cases of sprinkling or pouring being unnatural and even violent. Thirdly, the instances in which baptism is referred to in the apostolic epistles for the purpose of illustration and enforcement of truth are such as to show that the baptism that was established in the New Testament churches was immersion and not sprinkling or pouring. The argument is unassail- able. If anybody is not thoroughly unwilling to be convinced that immersion and immersion alone was the baptism of New Testament times he is bound to be convinced by this argument. If argu- ment will convince him, he must be convinced. The trouble with a great many people, however, is I04 BAPTISM. that they are unwilHng to be convinced on this subject. I must not fail to give you a few testimonies, of the scores and hundreds I might give, from Pedo- baptist sources as to the correctness of the Baptist doctrine that immersion and immersion alone is the baptism of the New Testament. Dr. DoUinger, one of the foremost Catholic scholars of the centiuy, says of Christian baptism that ''it was by immersion of the whole person, which is the only meaning of the New Testament word." ''A mere pouring or sprinkling," said he, ''was never thought of." With him all Catholic scholars agree. Says one of these : "Not only the Catholic Church, but also the pretended re- formed churches, have altered the primitive custom in giving the sacrament of baptism, and now allow of baptism by sprinkling and pouring water upon the person baptized ; nay, many of their ministers do it now-a-days by filliping a wet finger and thumb over a child's head, which is hard enough to call a baptizing in any sense." Let us now hear from two scholars of the English Church. Dean Stanley says : "There can be no question that the original form of baptism, the ver}^ meaning of the word, was com- THE ACT. 105 plete immersion in the deep baptismal waters." Bishop Lightfoot says : *^The sacrament of baptism as administered in the apostolic age in- volved a two-fold symbolism — a death or burial and a resurrection. In the rite in itself these were represented by two distinct acts — the disappearance beneath the water and the emergence from the water." I could go on quoting similar testimonies from English churchmen until you would be tired out. Among Lutheran Biblical scholars none stand above Meyer. He says: ^ ^Immersion was a tho- roughly essential part of the symbolism of baptism." Mosheim says that baptism was administered in the apostolic age ''by immersion of the whole body." With him agree Kurtz, in his Church History, and Guericke, and a host of others. John Calvin is considered very good authority among Presbyterians, and he says: ''Here we per- ceive how baptism was administered among the ancients, for they immersed the whole body in water. Dr. Philip Schaff is about as well known among the Presbyterians of America as Dr. Jno. A. Broadus is among the Baptists; and Dr. Schaff, in his history of the Apostolic Church, says: "As to the outward mode of administration of the ordi- I06 BAPTISM. nance, immersion and not sprinkling was unques- tionably the original normal form." In another place, he says: **The baptism of Christ in the River Jordan, and the illustrations of baptism used in the New Testament, are all in favor of immer- sion rather than sprinkling, as is freely admitted by the best exegetes. Catholic and Protestant, English and German. Nothing can be gained by unnatural exegesis. The aggressiveness of the Baptists has driven Pedobaptists to the opposite extreme." When w^e come to the Methodist side of this great Christian famil}^ of ours, we fall upon a curious bit of history. John Wesley — every Meth- odist knows who he was! John Wesley kept a diary. In that diary, under date of February 21st, 1736, is this record: ''Mary Welsh, aged eleven days, was baptized according to the custom of the first Church, and the rule of the Church of Eng- land, by immersion. The child was ill then, but recovered from that very hour." Under date of May 5th, 1736, occurs this entry: ''I w^as asked to baptize a child of Mr. Parker's, second bailiff of Savannah; but Mrs. Parker told me, neither Mr. P. nor I will consent to its being dipped! I answered, if you certify that your child is weak, it will suffice (the rubric says) to pour water upon it. THE ACT. 107 She replied, nay, the child is not weak, but I am resolved that it shall not be dipped. This argu- ment I could not refute, so I went home, and the child was baptized by another person." The matter, however, did not end there. On Septem- ber 1st, 1737, Mr. Wesley was tried by a jury of 44 men, found guilty, and ordered to leave the country. Of the indictment he says that, '^therein they asserted upon oaths, that John Wesley, clerk, had broken the laws of the realm, contrary to the peace of our sovereign lord the King, his honor and dignity." According to his account, there were ten charges in the indictment. The 5th of these was: ''By refusing to baptize Mr. Parker's child, otherwise than by dipping, except the parents would certify that it was weak, and not able to bear it." The other charges were as trivial as that. But just think of John Wesley, the father of Methodism, being put on trial before a jury for refusing to sprinkle a baby! I must bring these testimonies to a close with a quotation from an eminent Congregational scholar. As to the fact that immersion was the primitive act of baptism, he says : ''No matter of church history is clearer. The evidence is all one waj^, and all church historians of any repute agree in accepting I08 BAPTISM. it. We cannot claim even originality in teaching it in a Congregational Seminary. And we really feel guilty of a kind of anachronism in writing an article to insist upon it. It is a point on which ancient, mediaeval, and modern historians alike. Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran and Calvinist, have no controversy. And the simple reason for this unanimity is that the statements of the early fathers are so clear, and the light shed upon these statements from the early customs of the Church so conclusive, that no historian who cares for his reputation would dare to deny it, and no historian who is worthy of the name would wish to." In a case of law, if the witnesses for the defence testify in favor of the prosecution, the truth about the matter is easily learned, and a verdict is speedily reached. Surely that principle holds good with the question before us as to what was the act of baptism in the New Testament dmes. The advocates of sprinkling for baptism now testify that immersion v/as the baptism of the apostolic age. It would be interesting to show how the change from immersion to sprinkling was eifected. I shall do so in a future discourse. Next Sunday, I wish to speak upon The Meaning of Baptism. WHAT FOR. 109 WHAT BAPTISM IS FOR. AS I spoke last Sunday upon the Act of Bap- tism, so I promised to speak to-day upon the signilScance of it. As the question then was : What is Baptism ? so now the question is : Why should people be Baptized ? what does it mean ? what is it for ? what is the use of it ? IS BAPTISM ESSENTIAL. Let me begin the answer to the question as to why people should be baptized, by repeating another question that you often hear people asking. The question is this : ^'Is baptism essential ?" What is meant by that question ? Without some explanation of it, no single answer could be given. The answer must be : "Yes and No.'' Whether the correct answer is "yes" or "no" de- pends entirely upon what is meant by the question. The question, as commonly put, is incomplete. A thing, in order to be essential, must have some counterpart — there must be some other thing to which it is essential. It is like an adjective in the no BAPTISM. comparative degree. You can't say one thing is ^'better" without having in mind some other thing than which it is better. There must be a second term to the comparison. So it is with the word '^essential." There must be a second term — some other thing to which the particular thing of which you are speaking is essential. Now then, what is that other thing in mind when the question is asked : ''Is baptism essential ?" If it is salva- tion, then the answer is "No." BAPTISM IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION. That is the view held by Baptists; and they claim that their view is the Scriptural one. They say that the New Testament, beyond all reasona- ble doubt, links the promise of salvation to a certain spiritual condition, to a certain attitude of souL which may be called repentance, or faith, or regeneration, or conversion, accordingly as it is looked at in one way or another. They hold that it is to this spiritual posture, and not to any external performance, that the promise of salvation is joined. This is done so clearly in the general tenor and drift of the New Testament teaching and in such a multitude of particular passages, that the very few passages in which some saving WHAT FOR. Ill efficacy seems to be attributed to baptism must be interpreted in such a way as to bring them into harmony with all the other passages and the general tenor of the teaching. We find no trouble in so interpreting .them. If these few passages stood alone, they might easily convey the idea that baptism has some saving value; but standing as they do in the clear light that is shed upon them from the rest, it is quite out of the question for sober interpretation so to understand them. While baptism is not essential to salvation^ there are some things to which it is essential. Two of those I shall now proceed to speak of, and thus shall answer the question as to why people should be baptized. BAPTISM IS ESSENTIAL TO THE MOST IMPRESSIVE REPRESENTATION OF THE GREAT CENTRAL TRUTHS OF OUR RELIGION. That is one meaning of it. That is one reason why people should be baptized. Of course, it must be understood that in speaking of baptism, in this connection, and in all this discourse, I mean immersion. We saw, last Sunday, that only immersion is the scriptural baptism; and we are standing on scriptural ground, and looking at this 112 BAPTISM. whole subject from the scriptural standpoint. Bap- tism as thus understood, I say, is essential to the most impressive representation of the great central truths of our religion; and that is one reason why we should be baptized. What are the great central truths of our religion ? Let us see. That in our natural condition we are lost sinners; that Christ Jesus is the Saviour of sinners, and as such died, was buried, rose again, and ascended to heaven ; that those who are saved by him undergo a spiritual change which involves a death to sin and a newness of life; that those who pass through this change are so united to Christ that because he lives they shall live also, and as he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, so they will rise from the dead and ascend to heaven. Is not that tlie Creed of Christendom ? Is there one article in it to which any who calls Jesus ^^Lord," would object ? I think not. Nor do I think any intelligent evangelical Christian would hesitate to say that the truths I have named are the great central ones. Now, what is the most adequate and the most impressive representation of those truths ? Need I say anything upon the great and recognized value of ^'object lessons?" All successful teachers WHAT FOR. 113 avail themselves of this appeal to the eye, and this use of the concrete. What would your boy or girl learn about arithmetic or algebra without '^examples?" Let the principles, the abstract truths, be stated ever so clearly and fully, it is precious little the pupil would learn, if that state- ment were all he had to learn from. The presenta- tion of the subject would be regarded as very im- perfect and very lacking in impressiveness. The ^'examples" would be essential to the most impressive presentation of the abstract principles involved. You might describe a horse to a man who had never seen one, and you might make your description very minute and very accurate; and yet what a dim and poor conception he would have of a horse upon even such a description as compared with the conception he would have if you concluded your description by having a horse led out before his eyes. An editorial may be well written; but a cartoon by Nast would make an im- pression that columns of clear, well written editorial would fail to make. I return to the question: ''What is the most adequate and impressive representation of the great central truths of Christianity? Let us narrow the question to the exact point that is involved in each 114 BAPTISM. individual case of baptism. What is the most impressive confession of faith that can be made by any new-born Christian? He is about to make his confession before the world. If he is to make it most impressively how shall he proceed? We are to suppose that those before whom he makes it have already heard a verbal statement, in one form or another, of the great truths which this convert is ready to confess. Shall they be restated, and the convert be required to say that he believes in those truths, and that henceforth his life is to be a Christian life? Or shall he simply say in public that his life is henceforth to be a Christian life, and shall the great truths to which he thus declares his adherence be left unexpressed and to be understood by those who hear the confession? Shall this convert thus go forth as a Christian, and shall it be held that he has made the most impressive confession of faith that is possible? Cannot the great truths of his confession be gathered together and put into some single act^ some ''objectlesson," some pictorial representation? The question has been answered with authority. The Divine Founder of our religion, he around whom all its truths center, has ordained baptism as the symbol that shall enshrine all these glorious truths. WHAT FOR. 115 I close the consideration of this first point with the eloquent words of another : '^Wouldst thou symbolize thy death in sin and thy resurrection to holiness? Then be buried by baptism into death ; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so thou also mayst walk in newness of life. (Rom. 6 : 4.) Wouldst thou symbolize thy total defilement and thy desire for total purification ? Then arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins. (Acts 22 : 16.) Wouldst thou symbolize thy belief in a buried and risen Mediator, and thy participation in his death and resurrection ? Then be buried with him in bap- tism, wherein also arise with him. (Col. 2 : 12.) Wouldst thou symbolize thy confident expectation that thou shalt share in his blissful immortality ? Then submit thyself to baptism — descending into the liquid tomb and emerging ; for, if thou art planted together with him in the likeness of his death, thou shalt be also in the likeness of his resurrection. (Rom. 6:5.) Oh, glorious symbol this of the Christian's Creed ! He may tell me in words all that he believes about himself and about his Lord. He may tell me of his sins and of his hopes — his tears for the past and his resolves for the future. He may tell me all that Jesus has Il6 BAPTISM. done for him, and all that he intends to do for Jesus. But when I see him silently submitting himself to holy baptism, I read a more eloquent story, told in a language which all peoples of the earth can understand ; which changes not with the flight of years which no oratory can rival ; which carries the head, because it first carried the heart ; which is the truth of God expressed in the act of man. Not that there is anything in the ordinance which savors of regenerating or sancti- fying tendency ; for baptism is a symbol^ not a power ; a shadow, not the substance. And it shadows forth, at the same instant, the most mo- mentous events in the history of Christ and in the history of the Christian ; all that Christ has suffered and done for us ; all that we mean to suffer and do for Christ; all that we are by nature ; all that we hope to be by grace. Verily, none but a God infinite in counsel could have devised a rite so sim- ple and yet so dense with meaning and glory ! To him be all the praise !" BAPTISM IS ESSENTIAL TO OBEDIENCE. That is the second point of which I wish to speak. The question involved is whether Christ intended that his disciples should, to the end of WHAT FOR. 117 time, be baptized — whether any should be baptized, and whether all to the end of the age should be baptized — whether the rite of baptism is divinely- instituted, and whethet it is of perpetual obligation. It ought not to be difficult to settle that question. In the settlement of it, these facts are decisive: First, Christ himself submitted to baptism. He was baptized by John in Jordan. The oft-discussed question as to whether John's baptism was Christian baptism does not come in here. The point is that Christ submitted to an external rite called baptism, saying the while, indeed, that thus it became him ''to fulfill all righteousness." Secondly, Christ baptized others — ''When, therefore, the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John ^ "^ he left Judea, and departed again into Galilee." It is true that the evangelist puts in the qualifying clause:- * 'Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his dis- ciples." But that does not materially affect the case. It is a thoroughly recognized principle that "what one does through another, he does himself;" that is to say, while he does not actually perform the deed with his own hands, he is chargeable with the responsibility of it. So in the case before us. Baptism being administered by the disciples of Il8 BAPTISM. Jesus under his eye, and by his approval, he was responsible for it — it was, so far as responsibility was concerned, his own act. The evangelist evi- dently did not mean, by the qualifying clause, to disclaim for Jesus any sanction of what his disciples thus did. The intention was simply to state the case as it was, to make the record accurate. Thus we see that Jesus was himself baptized, and that, during his own public ministry, he baptized those who came to him, administering the rite by the hands of his disciples. Now, furthermore, in the third place, we find that, when Jesus was about to ascend into heaven, he commanded baptism. That w^as a part of the ''Great Commission." If we pursue our -exami- nation of the sacred record after his ascension, we shall see how the inspired apostles regarded the matter. It was not long before there was a great ingathering of souls under the preaching of Peter on the day of Pentecost. Convicted of sin, they said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles: ''Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said unto them: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins." He did not say simply, "Repent" as if the inward disposition were all. WHAT FOR. 119 and the external rite nothing. No; but the injunc- tion was, ''Repent and be baptized." When the Philippian jailer was converted, he was baptized under the eye of Paul and Silas. It is worthy of mention, in this connection, that the great apostle to the Gentiles, when the scales fell from his eyes under the hand of the divinely appointed Ananias, of Damascus, he ''arose and was baptized." The apostolic letters also bear unmistakable signs of having been addressed to churches whose members had been baptized, thus showing, beyond question, that baptism was established in the kingdom of Christ upon earth, at that time, as an initiatory rite. What has already been said ought to be quite sufficient to show, not only that baptism was divinely instituted, but also that it was intended by the Lord to be perpetuated to the end of the world. There are, however, two other consider- ations for its perpetuity which I wish to mention. One of these is drawn from the place which baptism holds in the "Great Commission." How does that grand marching order read ? Go ye therefore, and disciple all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- I20 BAPTISM. manded you; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Observe two things: First, the command to baptize is linked to the command to disciple. The two are made co-exten- sive. The command to baptize extends exactly as far as the command to make disciples. That is true of the extent in time as well as in space. It ought not to be doubted that the command to make disciples extends to the end of time. If that extends to the end, the command to baptize extends to the same limit. If anybody should be so daring as to doubt that these commands to make disciples and to baptize them were not intended by the Master to be perpetual, his doubt would be most effectually precluded by the promise with which the "commission" is sealed. That is the second thing to be observed. Said the Saviour: "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." The /ri^/^/i-^ was to hold good to the end, and so the commands were to be binding to the end. The other consideration I wish to mention, as showing the perpetuity of the ordinance of baptism, is drawn from the connection with the Lord's Sup- per. In I Cor. II : 26 we read: "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." That language leaves WHAT FOR. 121 no room whatever to doubt the perpetuity of the supper. It will be shown when I come to the dis- cussion of the supper in this series, that as baptism symbolizes death to the old life and entrance upon a new life, so the supper symbolizes the nurture and growth of the new life. Baptism is regenera- tion in symbol, and the Supper is sanctification in symbol. Now, it is manifestly natural to suppose that, if the symbol of sanctification was to be per- petuated, the symbol of regeneration was, in like manner to be perpetuated. Any other supposition would be exceedingly unnatural. I do not think it necessary to go further with the arcrument to show that it is the wish of our Lord, that to the end of time, people, upon becoming his disciples, should be baptized. Much more might be said; but it is unnecessary. Let it, therefore, be granted that Jesus commands baptism. That being true, it follows, of course, that baptism is essential to obedience. TWO QUESTIONS. Before closing the discussion of to-day, I wish to answer two questions that might arise in the mind of some one by way of objection. I St. It might be inquired: ''Why do you 122 BAPTISM. Baptists make so much of baptism? ' Suppose it is freely granted that baptism is essential to obedience; baptism then becomes only one of many duties — and why lay so much stress upon this one duty?" That, now, is one objection to Baptist teaching on the importance of baptism, as the objection lies in the minds of a great many people. It requires little scrutiny to discover that there is here a complex conception. There are two ideas. One is that baptism is no more im- portant than any other duty. The other idea is that Baptists make more of baptism than is made of it by other Christians who baptize. Is it true, then, that baptism is no more important than any other duty ? Is it true that to neglect to be baptized, when one has become a disciple, is no worse than to neglect just any other duty that might be named ? If there is any one here to-day who so views the matter, I ask him to consider these facts: I. It is a duty that requires to be performed only once. That single and simple fact gives distinction to baptism. Let the point be illustrated by the last filial act that a child may perform for his parent — a reverent burial. He may have ne- glected some duty to that parent while living, but he could, in a manner, redeem such neglect by taking WHAT FOR. 123 special care to perform the duty when it came up again. If, however, he neglects that last service, which can be performed but once, there is no way to redeem his neglect. The fact that it can never again be performed gives special blameworthiness to his neglect of the service. But that is not all; it is made specially blameworthy also by the other fact that he is required to perform this service Imt once. Other duties recurred often ; this came but once. So it is with baptism as compared with ordi- nary duties. They recur often; it is required but once. By that fact it i^ distinguished, and for that reason to neglect it is specially blameworthy. 2. Baptism is linked to discipleship as no other duty is linked to it. You look again at that ''Great Commission," so far as we know our Saviour's last words before his ascension to heaven. What do you find ? Among other things, this remarkable fact: While laying upon his disciples the great work of discipling the nations and of teaching them to observe all things commanded by him, he singles out baptism of all other duties^ and makes speci- fic mention of that. Do I go wrong when I call that a remarkable fact ? Why did he not say: Disci- ple all nations, and teach them all their duties — all things whatsoever I have commanded you? 124 BAPTISM, Why single out baptism for special mention, if it was of no more importance than the other duties involved in all things whatsoever commanded? 3. Baptism is linked to salvation as no other duty is linked to it. When the convicted ones on the day of Pentecost asked: *^What shall we do?" Peter replied, ^'Repent and be baptized." Peter's Lord before him had said: ''He that believeth and be baptized shall be saved." This linking of baptism to salvation, in the scriptures, has led some people to contend that baptism is essential to salva- tion. That is an unwarranted contention. But the fact which we here observe certainly places baptism in a unique position among Christian duties, and forbids that we should regard it as being on a level with just any other duty. 4. Baptism alone, in all the sacred record, was solemnized by a manifestation of God in his triune character. The occasion was that of the baptism of Jesus. Here stood the Adorable Son, dripping with the baptismal water into which he had just been plunged by the Baptist. Looking up, he saw the heavens opened, and the Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity, like a dove descending upon him. Then came the voice of the Father, saying, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am WHAT FOR. 125 well pleased." Is there no significance in this singular fact that *'once only, in the history of the world, has God in his triune character manifested himself to his creatures, and that was on the occasion of baptism?" ''Never before," says Dr. H. H. Tucker, ''never since, has the world witnessed such a spectacle. Once the world was visited by more than twelve legions of angels, but these were only the messengers of the throne, and not its occupant. Gethsemane was a place of lonely agony. Calvary resounds with the cry, 'My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me?' But in baptism the triune God has set his earthly throne, for there only has he been manifested to the world. ^ ^ Why was baptism singled out for such amazing display? We may not be able to say, but the fact stands up as a witness with a voice louder than ten thousand thunders as God's testimony in honor of baptism." The other idea involved in the objection w^hich we are now considering is that Baptists make more of baptism than is made of it by other Christians who baptize. When I say "other Christians who baptize," I mean those who practice what they regard as baptism. But is it true that Baptists make more of baptism than those other Christians 126 BAPTISM. do? Is it true? Do they not insist upon what they regard as baptism just as strenuously as Baptists insist upon what they regard as baptism ? Don't they ? Will any Pedobaptist church receive a member without what that church regards as bap- tism ? Will it ? And is that not exactly the position of every Baptist church you ever heard of ? It simply will not receive into its membership any person without what it regards as baptism. Is not the difference, right here, between the Pedobaptist and the Baptist simply and only a difference of opinion as to wliat is baptism, and not a difference of stress laid upon baptism ? Now, is that not the true state of the case so far ? But let us go a little further. Do we not find as we push the inquiry that really the Pedobaptist lays more stress on baptism than the Baptist does ? The Baptist waits until a person makes a profession of religion before Baptism is admmistered; the Pedobaptist forces the ordinance upon unconsenting babes. Who lays more stress upon this rite ? The Baptist is charged with ritualism ; but does not the charge of ritualism lie at the door of the Pedobaptist ? 2d. Another objection to the Baptist teaching may come in this form: ''Do not you Baptists lay too much stress on the mode of baptism ? WHAT FOR. 127 May not something besides immersion answer the purpose ? To that, objection Baptists reply, to begin with, that they do not admit that there is any ''mode of baptism" in any other sense than mode of immer- sion. The mode or manner of immersion may differ within narrow limits, as for example, the candidate might be lowered with the minister's right hand or his left hand, or he might be lowered face up or face dowm. But the mode or manner of baptism, which is immersion, cannot be so varied as to cause it to be other tlian immersion without causing it to cease to be baptism. Baptists reply, further, that since baptism, as instituted by Christ, was an immersion in water, the command of Christ to be baptized cannot be obeyed without an immersion in water — that anything but im- mersion, submitted to for baptism, is not baptism, as contemplated in the command to be baptized, and that such submission to a rite is not obedience to the command. They reply, still further, that nothing but immersion symbolizes the truths con- tained in the believer's creed as he emerges from his old life in sin and enters upon the new life of race; and that, therefore, while it ought to be enough for determining what a Christian must do 128 BAPTISM. to know that, if something else is substituted for immersion, the divine command to be baptized is not obeyed, yet it is a matter for gravest considera- tion that the divine mind, searching for some symbol which could gather up and body forth the great truths of a new-born Christian's confession of faith, selected from the wide universe of sym- bols tJiis particular one of immersion of the whole body in water, and that to make any change from immersion is either to ignore the symbolism which the divine eye saw in that particular thing, or it is to attempt to improve upon the selection made by the divine mind — an improvement which it is hard to discover in sprinkling or pouring. Baptism, then, is essential to the most impressive bodying forth of the great truths of a new-born Christian's confession of faith. For such purpose it was divinely selected and appointed ; and it is essential to obedience on the part of disciples of Christ, it having been divinely enjoined as a per- petual ordinance in his church. Such is the signi- ficance of baptism. That is what it is for. That is the use of it. Next Sunday I hope to take up the subjects of baptism. WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. I29 WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. ACCORDING to the announcement of last Sun- day, I am to speak to-day upon the question as to who ought to be baptized. Baptists hold that believers alone are entitled to the ordinance. They regard this as the true position to hold, because they believe that the New Testament provides for the baptism of none but believers. My purpose this morning is not to make an exhaustive argument in support of this position; for you might consider that exhatcsting as well as exhaustive. I intend only to make the argument conclusive. It is a very easy task which I thus propose to myself. There is no better place at which to begin the argument than the summit where the Great Com- mission was uttered. We place ourselves by the side of the Great Master who has finished the work he came to do, has lain in the tomb, has risen from the dead, and is about to ascend to heaven. To the disciples whom he has called and trained he says: '\Go ye, therefore, and disciple all nations, 130 BAPTISM. baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatever I have commanded you ; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." The first question I ask is this: What relation do those words of the Lord seem to establish between discipleship and baptism? Suppose we had no other guide to the settlement of that rela- tionship; suppose the question were entirely new, and we had nothing but those words of the Master to indicate whether discipleship or baptism should come first — what do you think would be the con- clusion of any plain, straightforward, sensible mind? Would it not be a queerly constructed intellect that would come to any other conclusion than that to make disciples is the first thing con- templated in the commission, to baptize them is the next, and to instruct them for Christian living is the third? I think there is no doubt that the instruc- tion given by our Lord to his disciples in this case naturally makes the impression that he intended that people should become Christians before they should be baptized. You will please observe that my contention here is only that such would be the simplest and most natural understanding of the WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. I3I order of the terms in the Great Commission. I do not say that the order we observe there would be entirely conclusive, if we had only that from which to learn our Lord's intention. We do not need to rest all on that. We proceed with the argument. How did the apostles understand their Lord ? Fortunately, we get our first opportunity to look into their minds for a settlement of this question under the most favorable circumstances. It is on the day of Pentecost. If they could have misunder- stood him upon this most important subject at any other time, surely not at this. This is the time of the wonderful manifestation of the Holy Spirit whom the Lord promised to send to lead them into all truth. Under the power divine there displayed, many were convicted of sin and made to cry out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do ?" Then it was that Peter, speaking for all the .apos- tles, and speaking in the recollection of the Saviour's commission and under the flood-light of the Holy Spirit's illumination, said: "Repent and be baptized." He did not say: Be baptized and repent. No, he put repentance first. His order was the same as that observed by the Master in his parting directions. This fact deepens our impres- sion as to the intention of the Master. It confirms 132 BAPTISM. US in the conclusion that he intended the order laid down in the Commission to be authoritative and mandatory, as well as the things commanded. This order became established. In all the New Testament record we find no departure from it. Wherever repentance or faith is spoken of in connection with baptism this order is observed. Wherever the ordinance is administered there is express declaration or clear indication of faith preceding it. Witness the cases of Saul of Tarsus, the Centurion Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer, and . others Let us go one step further. If we need any- thing more to make the argument conclusive, we have what we want in the design of baptism. We considered, last Sunday, the symbolism of baptism. We saw how it symbolized death and resurrection, and was intended by the Master to be a confession of faith — to declare to the world the belief of the baptized in the great central truths of Christianity, and to declare his death to sin and his purpose to walk in newness of life. The particular point that is suited to my argument just here is the fact that baptism was mtended to declare the death of the baptized to sin, and his purpose to walk in newness ot life. In this aspect of it, baptism was WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. I33 intended by the Master to be a symbol of regene- ration, an outward sign of an inward grace. Now, manifestly, if it Was intended to be an outward sign of an inward grace, it was not intended by the God of truth to be administered where the inward grace did not exist. Remember, now, that the ordinance has no power to corifer grace. It only signifies the grace already conferred. It does not regenerate, but only signifies regeneration already accomplished. That, we have already decided, is 'the scriptural view of it. Now, then, if that is true — if the Lord intended that baptism should not regenerate, but signify regeneration already accomplished; that it should not confer this inward grace, but serve only as an outward sign of the inward grace already conferred — if the Lord intended that^ then is it not seen how incon- sistent we should be making him, by supposing that he intended the ordinance to be administered in any case where the inward grace of regeneration had not already been conferred ? How could he be supposed to appoint baptism as an outward sign of an inward grace, and, at the same time, intend that it should be administered where there was no inward grace to signify ? Appoint it as a sign, and then direct it to be administered when the 134 BAPTISM. thing signified does not exist! Give it a. meaning, and then order it to be administered in such a way as to destroy that meaning! No, the Lord of truth did not do anything of the sort. The argument I make for believers' baptism, then, is this: In the Great Commission, under which we do all our Christian work, Jesus put discipleship before bap- tism. On the dav of Pentecost, in the midst of that ■J ^ matchless manifestation of the Holy Spirit's presence and power, the apostles put discipleship (repentance, which for this argument is the same thing,) before baptism. The same precedence we find given to discipleship all through the sacred record. This fact makes it sufficiently clear that the Saviour put discipleship and baptism into the Commission in the order which he intended they should always hold. This conclusion, thus made sufficiently clear, is put beyond all question by the design of baptism as an outward sign of an inward grace. I do not wish to be tedious. The argument might be much extended and elaborated. I do not regard that as necessary. I believe it must be conclusive in the shape in which I have put it, if one is disposed to yield to the force of anything. The onl}^ doctrine out of harmony with this of WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. 135 believers' baptism which we need to consider, is that which brings infants to the ordinance. The doctrine of believers' baptism which we have been considering, would seem effectually to exclude the baptism of adult unbelievers, and along with them, infants as well. I say infants as well ; for, if it excludes infants, there could surely be no doubt about the exclusion of adult unbelievers. The infants would be the last to be excluded. In other words, the baptism of infants has a stronger and wider hold upon Christendom than the baptism of adult unbelievers. There are some good people who believe in having the unconverted to join the church (and to be baptized) '^to get religion." But those who believe in that are fewer, by far, than those who believe in infant baptism, and they are of those who believe in infant baptism; that is to say, those who hold to the baptism of adult unbeliev- ers are a part and only a part of those who hold to infant baptism. The baptism of infants, therefore, as being a practice more widely extended and more firmly rooted than the baptism of adult unbe- lievers, I shall now take up, with the intention of showing that it has no scriptural ground whatever to rest upon, and that hence its existe^ice is to be considered no argument against the doctrine of believers' baptism held by Baptists. 136 BAPTISM. I will give the argument for infant baptism as stated by Dr.- Philip Schaff. That ought to be considered fair by the great body of Pedobaptist Christians. I give the argument in his own words. I. Here is his first point: ^*The general com- mand to baptize all nations may naturally be interpreted to include the baptism of infants; and the mention of the baptism of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2: 41) and of five households (Acts 10: 48; 16: 15; i Cor. i: 16; 16: 15, where the presence of children in some is far more probable than their absence in all), joined to the reiterated assertion that the promise of the remission of sins and of the Holy Spirit was to the believers and \kv^\x children (Acts 2: 38, cf. 3: 35), make out a strong probability, to say the least, that infants were baptized by the apostles." You will observe that there are four items in this first part of the argument. (a) In the first place, he says that ^^the general command to baptize all nations may naturally be interpreted to include the baptism of infants." The question at once arises, however, in some of our minds as to where we may find the '' command to baptize all nations." I suppose the Great Com- mission is intended. The command there couples WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. 137 ^'making disciples" with baptizing. It seems to me that the natural interpretation of this command would cause us to understand that baptizing is to be co-extensive with ''making disciples;" that it is to extend so far and no farther. That is really the meaning. The conception is exactly this: The baptizing is to follow right along behind the mak- ing of disciples, the connection between the two being so close, indeed, that the baptizing is to be considered the consummation of the making of disciples. According to that conception, none are to be baptized except those whose baptism may be the consummating act of making disciples of them. To be sure, this is not to be construed in such a way as to involve any regenerating efficacy in bap- tism. The true idea is to be found in another direction. Baptism is a confession^ as we have seen; and the thought of the Master was that a man is not a disciple in the fullest sense until he has made a confession of his discipleship. The confession of his allegiance consummates that allegiance; and baptism is the confession required. You are, no doubt, wondering how this interpreta- tion includes the baptism of infants. It most emphatically excludes them. The view of the passage which I have thus presented I find to be 138 BAPTISM. in harmony with Meyer, the great German Luth- eran commentator, who says: ^^hifant baptism cannot possibly have been contemplated in 'baptiz- ing,' nor of course, in all nations, either." Again he says. ''The 'hearing of faith' (Gal. 3: 2) and the 'faith of hearing' (Rom. 10: 17) are understood, as a matter of course, to have preceded the bap- tism." You will remember that Meyer was a Pedobaptist; and also that as a scientific interpreter of the New Testament he has had no superior in the centurv. •J (b) Dr. Schaff's second item in the first part of the Pedobaptist argument is, "the mention of the baptism of the three thousand on the day of Pen- tecost." It is somewhat difficult to see what force that has as an argument for infant baptism. Where is the point of the remark ? Surely it is not a variation of the 'old exploded notion that three thousand could not be ivtmcrscd in one day. That was once held by some to be a very valid argu- ment against immersion, as if it took any great deal more time to immerse than to sprinkle, since the most of the time consumed in baptizing is con- sumed in repeating the formula, which must be done, of course, in the case of sprinkling as well as immersion. Is it possible that the baptism of WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. 1 39 the three thousand at Pentecost is brought forward in favor of infant baptism on the ground that infants are smaller than adults, and therefore re- quire less time to be baptized ? Would it, indeed, be unkind to suppose that. Then let us not make the supposition. The only other possible ground for bringing forward the three thousand, in this connection, that I can think of, is the idea that in so large a company of people to be baptized at one time there must have been some infants. But why infants ? Within a few months, I have my- self listened to preaching in the midst of an audience of five thousand people and not an infant among them. Suppose the conditions of Pentecost had existed there — suppose an apostle had been preaching to that crowd, and it had been the first time they had ever heard the gospel, and the Holy Spirit had come upon them in pentecostal power — would it have been strange, if there had been three thousand of those people applying at once for baptism ? There are many cases in the history of Christianity where thousands have been baptized in a day. I mention in this connection only one case. It is a modern one. It is one in which there was certainly no infant baptized. It was the baptism of 2,222 in the Baptist mission among the Telugus 140 BAPTISM. in the year 1878. If anything more were needed to set this argument at rest, it could be found in the scriptural account of the three thousand. Here are the words : ''They that gladly received his word were baptized ; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls ; and they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer." Is it not marvellous that the baptism of people of whom it was said that they gladly re- ceived the word of the preacher, and continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers — is it not marvellous that the baptism of such people should be brought forward in support of the baptism of infants, just because there happened to be three thousand of them ? (c) The third item in the Pedobaptist argument, as presented by Dr. SchafT, is the mention of the baptism of ''five households, where the presence of children in some is far more probable than their absence in all." Why, indeed, is it more probable that there should be infants in some of those households than that they should be absent from all? Is it a thing so uncommon to find households without infants that the me«ntion of the baptism of WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. I4I five households, in all the New Testament record, should create a presumption that infants were baptized, when the invariable order was repent first and be baptized afterwards? But let us look at the cases cited. The first of them is the com- pany to which Peter preached in the house of Cornelius at Caesarea. Here is what the record says: *^ While Peter spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Cor- nelius had called in his kindsmen and friends in anticipation of Peter's coming, with regard to which he had been instructed in a vision. Peter preached the word of the Lord to these Gentiles ; the Holy Spirit fell upon them; and they were baptized. What earthly support for infant baptism in that? The second case cited is that of L3'dia. This woman was a seller of purple, from Thyatira. 142 BAPTISM. Paul and Silas found her and other women at a place of prayer outside the city of Philippi. Lydia was converted and baptized. Her house- hold, also, were baptized. Were there any infarits among those baptized? The record does not say that Lydia had any children at all. She had a ^^household," but that does not necessarily mean that she had children. The idea of business is made very prominent in the account. She was a seller of purple. That household may have been a business family. It is not uncommon even now to see a w^oman without children conduct a business in which she engages other women. If Lydia had children of her own, they may have been grown daughters. Only women are spoken of in the account of those who were at the place of prayer. Remember also that Lydia was away from her home. She was only sojourning at Philippi to prosecute her business. That fact would naturally lend itself to the supposition that her household consisted of grown daughters or other women associated with her in her business. The next case cited is that of the Philippian jailer. But the record says of this case, that 'Hhe word of the Lord" was spoken ''to all that were in his house," and also that he ''rejoiced, believing in God with WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. I43 all his house." The jailer and all his house heard the word, they all believed, and they all rejoiced. If there are any infants who do all those things, we welcome them to the baptismal waters! The last case cited is the baptism of the household of Stephanas. There are two allusions to this case in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. In one place (i : 16) he says: ''I baptized also the household of Stephanas." In the other place {i6: 15) he says: ^'Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." You will see at a glance, what the case is worth in support of infant baptism. All we know about the household of Stephanas is that they were baptized by Paul upon his first visit to Corinth, and that, five years later, when he was writing to the Corinthian church, he referred to this Christian family by saying that they had addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints, and that special deference ought to be paid by the other members of the church to such as these. If any infants were baptized in that family, they certainly had given themselves ^'to the ministry of the saints" at a very early age, and had won the right to special deference while still very young ! 144 BAPTISM. On this whole subject of household baptisms, I will quote some words from Meyer. He says: ^^If in the Jewish and Gentile families which were converted to Christ there were children, their baptism is to be assumed in those cases when they were so far advanced that they could and did confess their faith on Jesus as the Messiah; for this was the universal, absolutely necessary qualification for the reception of baptism. If, on the other hand, there were children still incapable of confessing, baptism could not be administered to those to whom that which was the necessary presupposition of baptism for Christian sanctification was still wanting." (d) The fourth item in the Pedobaptist argument as presented by Dr. Schaff is ''the reiterated assertion that the promise of the remission of sins and of the Holy Spirit was to the believers and their children." We are referred to Acts 2: 38, and told to compare that with 3: 25. The first passage runs thus: ''Then Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit; for the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. I45 God shall call." That passage, now, to support infant baptism! The people were exhorted to repent and be baptized; and the assurance was given that they would receive the Holy Ghost; and the ground upon which this assurance was given, was that ''the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are afar off; even as many as the Lord our God shall call." ''Your children;" that is, your descendants^ not infants ; for that is all the word translated "children" means. "To all that are afar off;" that is the heathen Gentiles — the promise is made to them too. But the promise is limited on one side by the condition, "repent and be baptized;" and it is limited on the other side by "as many as the Lord our God shall call." And yet that passage is brought forward as a support to infant baptism! If it proves that infants, without repentance, are to be baptized, it also proves that "all that are afar off" are to be baptized, without repentance. When we compare 3: 25, the argu- ment is not improved. 2. Here is the second part of the Pedobaptist argument as stated by Dr. Schaff : "Christ's treat- ment of children whom he blessed, and pronounced to be members of the kincrdom of heaven. Why, then, should they not also be fit to bear the sign 146 BAPTISM. and seal of such membership ? All baptism is in idea an infant baptism, and requires us to begin life anew in a truly childlike spirit, without which no one can enter the kingdom of God." What a mixture of truth and error is here ! (a) In the first place, it is said that Christ pro- nounced the little children ^'members of the kingdom of heaven." That is not what the record says about that beautiful incident of Christ blessing the children. The Great Teacher did, indeed, say that the kingdom of heaven is composed of people who are like children. His teaching in that connection was that in order to be a member of the kingdom which he came to establish a man must become childlike in s-pirit. That was a very differ- ent thing from saymg that those particular children, who were brought to him, or that any other par- ticular children, were actually members of the kingdom; and it was a very different thing from saying that children as a class are members of the kingdom. (b) It is said, in the second place, in this part of the Pedobaptist argument that ''all baptism is in idea an infant baptism." That is true. The scrip- tural idea is that a man ought to be baptized as soon as he is born again^ and therefore while he is WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. I47 a '''babe in Christ.'''' But where is the shadow of support in that truth for the baptism of one who is not a ''babe in Christ ^^' but only a babe in Adam? 3. The third and last part of the Pedobaptist argument as stated by Dr. Schaff is now given : ''The analogy of circumcision which began with adult Abraham, and then extended to all his male children. Baptism is the initiatory rite of intro- duction into the Christian church, and the sign and seal of the new covenant, as circumcision was the sign and seal of the old covenant (Rom. 4 : 11). The blessing of the old covenant was to the seed as well as to the parents ; and the blessing of the new covenant cannot be less comprehensive. In- fant baptism rests upon the organic relation of Christian parents and children (i Cor. 7 : 14). It is a constant testimony to the living faith of the church, which descends not as a heirloom, but as a vital force, from parent to child." (a) The first appeal in this part of the argument is to the account of circumcision as found in Rom. 4:11. A candid consideration of that statement will show that infant baptism is excluded by it, in- stead of supported. The whole force of the apostle's argument there hinges upon the fact that Abraham was circumcised, not before^ but after 148 BAPTISM. he believed. It was, therefore, his faith, and not his circumcision, or any other rite or ceremony or work of law, that was reckoned to him for righteousness. He received this sign of circum- cision as a seal of the righteousness of faith; and the design of this was that he might be ''the father of all that believe, though they be not circumcised." If that passage proves any- thing at all about baptism, it would prove that baptism ought to come after faith ; but the fact is it proves nothing at all about baptism. About the only relation between baptism and circumcision is that both are initiatory rites. One was initiatory to membership in the Jewish commonwealth ; the other is initiatory to membership in a Christian church. Because they are both initiatory, it does not follow that the same classes of persons are to be subjected to baptism as were subjected to circumcision. To argue that way is like arguing that, because a certain ceremony is initiatory to membership in the Order of Odd Fellows and bap- tism is initiatory to membership in a Christian church, therefore the same classes of persons are to be initiated to membership among the Odd Fel- lows and in the Christian churches alike. It is said that ''the blessing of the old covenant WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. I49 was to the seed as well as to the parents, and the blessing of the new covenant cannot be less com- prehensive." No; it is not less comprehensive. The difference is in the seed. One was natural, the other is spiritual. (b) The second appeal, in this last part of the Pedobaptist argument, is to i Cor. 7 : 14: ''For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." The argument from this is that the con- nection between parents and children is such that the piety of the parents makes the children holy, and so, fit subjects for baptism. The fatal objec- tion to that appeal is that it proves too mMch. If the holiness, or sanctification, here s.poken of by Paul was of such sort as to make the subject of it a proper person to be baptized, then the unbeliev- ing wife or husband would be so prepared as well as the children; for the statement is distinctly made that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sancti- fied by the husband, and this is the reason why the children are not unclean. The question Paul is discussing has no reference whatever to baptism. It was the question as to whether a person upon 150 BAPTISM. becoming a Christian should put away the unbe- lieving partner, on the ground that such partner was not hallowed by faith in Christ. The apostle's argument is that, for the same reason, one would be obliged to discard the children, and as the rea- son was not regarded as in force for the children, so it should not be regarded as in force for the partner. I have examined the Pedobaptist argument as stated by Dr. Schaff. You have already made up your mind as to whether it has stood the examina- tion. There is no better argument. You may be sure Dr. Schaff presented the argument fairly. I have already quoted Meyer as saying that faith was the invariable prerequisite of baptism in New Testament times, and that therefore infants were not baptized. I shall detain you to hear only one more testimony. It is from the great Pedobaptist church historian, Neander. At one time he wrote: '^It is certain that Christ did not ordain infant baptism;" at another time he wrote: ''We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apos- tolic institution." Next Sunday I shall show when and why the change occurred from immersion to sprinkling, and from believers' baptism to infant baptism. THE TWO GREAT CHANGES. 151 WHEN AND WHY THE TWO GREAT CHANGES. SO far, in the discussion of Baptism, we have considered three questions, viz: What is Baptism? What Baptism is for? and Who Ought to be Baptized? Our appeal has been to the New Testament as the true and only source of Christian institutions. We have carried these questions to that fountain qf authority for settlement. We have interpreted the Oracles for ourselves, to begin with; and then we have appealed to the leaders in the science of interpretation who differ from us in practice, to say whether our interpretation is correct. Unhesitatingly and unequivocally they have said: You are right. Upon two propositions we can now stand and challenge refutation from any quarter. These two propositions are; i. Immersion alone is the baptism of the New Testament; 2. There is no trace of infant baptism in the New Testament. With regard to these two propositions, we are not in the position of a man who announces a doctrine as in accord with scripture teaching, and then 152 BAPTISM. brings, in support of the doctrine, only his own interpretations and arguments from scripture. No; our position is far in advance of that. We lay down these two propositions ; we make our appeal to the sacred record, and draw out our argument; and then we call upon the scholars of world-wide reputation, whose practice on these points is different from our own, to say whether we are right in our interpretation; and from a mighty chorus of voices comes the testimony: You are right! This being our position, no man, except from the ignorance of sectarian bigotry, will say that our interpretation is simply a Baptist interpre- tation prompted by dogmatic prepossessions. We are in the delightful position of a prosecution at law seeing all the leading witnesses for the defense testifying to all that the prosecution contends for. It is a well-known principle among rhetoricians that a proposition may be over-refuted. The point is that you may so overwhelmingly refute your opponent's argument that he will be vexed instead of convinced. It is not pleasant for him to think he has been contending for what was so transparently incorrect. As I am not addressing these discourses to opponents, I do not need to be on my guard against vexing opponents by crushing THE TWO GREAT CHANGES. 153 refutations of their arguments. There is, how- ever, this related consideration which I must reckon with, viz: that some who sympathize with the views which I have been inculcating on the sub- ject of baptism may be wondering how in the world Pedobaptist practices are so widely preva- lent while it is made so plain that the Baptist view of the subject is the Biblical view. They may feel like asking how the great Biblical interpreters whom I have quoted can thus testify that immersion is the baptism of the New Testament, and that there is no trace of infant baptism in the New Testament, and at the same time give their support to sprink- ling and to infant baptism. They may even question whether there is not some mistake about the state- ments on this subject attributed to these men. Such questions may very naturally arise. According to the presentation which I have made of the subject, sprinkling and infant baptism have not a solitary inch of ground to stand upon in the Bible. I realize that; and, realizing it, I stand by the pre- sentation I have made; and furthermore, am ready to answer the questions which so naturally arise out of this complete destruction of standing ground in scripture for these Pedobaptist practices. To the suggestion that the Pedobaptist scholars 154 BAPTISM. quoted may never have written the words attributed to them on this subject, the answer is simply that they wrote these words, if they ever wrote any- thing. Some of their works I possess, and others I do not possess. Where I possess the works of an author, I have quoted from him directly ; where I do not possess his works I have quoted from other perfectly trustworthy authors who did possess the original. If, therefore, these scholars ever wrote anything, they wrote the words quoted from them. It would certainly take a great deal of hardihood to deny that Meyer wrote his great work on the New Testament. But if he wrote that work, then in it, while commenting on Acts i6 : 15, he wrote : ''The baptism of the children of Christians, of which no trace is found in the New Testament, is not to be held as an apostolic ordinance, as, indeed it encounted early and long resistance ; but it is an institiitio7i of tlie chzu'ch^ which gradually arose in post-apostolic times in connection with the develop- ment of ecclesiastical life and of doctrinal teaching, not certainly attested before TertuUian, and by him still decidedly opposed, and, although already defended by Cyprian, only becoming general after the time of Augustine in virtue of that connection." Likewise it would require considerable hardihood THE TWO GREAT CHANGES. 155 to deny that Calvin wrote his Celebrated Institutes. But if he wrote those, then, in the 19th section of the 15th chapter of the 4th book, he wrote : * ^Whether the baptized person is wholly immersed, and that three times or once, or whether water is only poured or sprinkled upon him, is of no conse- quence. In that matter churches ought to be free according to the different countries. The very word baptize^ however, signifies to immerse^ and it is certain that immersion was observed by the ancient church." If he wrote a commentary on Acts, then in commenting on the 38th verse of the 8th chapter, with regard to the baptism of the Eunuch, he wrote : '' 'They descended into the water.' Here we perceive what was the rite of baptizing among the ancients, for they immersed the whole body ; now the custom has become established that the minister only sprinkles the body or the head." Although you may be satisfied that the Baptist view is conceded by Pedobaptist scholarship to be in accordance with the teaching of the Bible, you may be at a loss to account for the Pedobaptist prac- tice. You ask: When and why were the two great changes made ? To answer this question is the task I now undertake. The first reference, in Christian literature, to 156 BAPTISM. anything besides immersion as baptism is found in a very small document, now familiarly known among scholars as ''The Didache." This is called by Dr. Schaff ''The Oldest Church Manual." He says that it "claims no apostolic authority;" that "it is simply the summary of what the unknown author learned either from personal instruction or oral tradition to be the teaching of the apostles, and what he honestly believed himself." The date of this writing is unknown. It is generally put in the second century. At some point . between the year 100 and the 3'ear 200, then, we come upon the first reference to the possible substitution of something else for immersion. In the 7th chapter of the Didache directions are given on the subject of baptizing. Proper instruction is first to be given to those who are to be baptized, ^and then the ordinance is to be administered. "Baptize," says the writing, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water." By "living water" is meant a stream, running water. "But if thou hast not living water, baptize into other water," continues the Didache; "and, if thou canst not in cold, in warm. But, if thou hast neither, pour water on the head three times, into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But THE TWO GREAT CHANGES. 157 before baptism let the baptizer and the candidate for baptism fast, and any others who can ; and thou shalt command him who is to be baptized to fast one or two days before." You will observe two things. First, there is no infant babtism here. The candidate, according to this document, must be instructed, and he must •fast, before he is baptized. Secondly, the pouring here provided for is only in cases of necessity. It must be done only when there is not sufRcient water for an immersion. The next reference to a departure from the scrip- tural requirements of immersion is found in a letter of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, who lived from 200 to 258. The question had been asked him whether those who had been poured upon, in cases of sickness, were to be regarded as legitimate Christians. The question had reference to Nova- tian, who, at Rome, about the year 250, in a dan- gerous sickness that was expected to end his life, had the baptismal water poured upon him as he lay in bed. Cyprian discussed the question, thus pro- posed to him by Magnus, at some length, and con- cluded that the pouring in such cases was valid. Such cases as that of Novatian is known in church history as '' clinic baptism," from the fact that the 158 BAPTISM. ordinance was received b}^ the candidate in bed. So irregular was this clinic baptism considered, Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, wrote concerning No- vatian: ''All the clergy and a great many of the laity were against his being chosen presbyter, be- cause it was not lawful, tliey said, for any one that had been perfused, as he had been, to be admitted to any office of the clergy." Thomas Aquinas, who died in 1274, ^^^ ^^^ ^^'^^ to appeal to the New Testament in support of pouring or sprinkling. He said, however, that ''the symbol of Christ's burial is more expressively represented by immersion, and for that reason this mode of baptizing is more common and more commendable." Be pleased to take special note of this wonderful fact over which we are now passing, viz: that in the one thousand years from Cyprian, the cultured Bishop of Carthage, to Thomas Aquinas, the "Angelic Doctor" of the Romish Church, there was no appeal by churchmen to the New Testament in support of sprinkling or pouring. It was in the age of Cyprian that pouring began to be practiced at all; and it had to plod its slow and weary way through the centuries until Thomas, of Aquino, arose, before it could find an advocate w^ho would venture to appeal to New Testament authority on its behalf. THE TWO GREAT CHANGES. I59 It was not till 131 1 that sprinkling was authorized by a church council. It was the council which convened that year at Ravena. The deliverance of the council on that subject was in these words: ''Baptism is to be administered by triune aspersion or immersion." The candidate, according to this decree, was to be sprinkled or immersed three times. Mark the fact, not only that this was the first time sprinkling was authorized by a church council, but also that this council represented only one province. It was not a general council of the church. It was not till the middle of the fifteenth century that sprinkling and pouring became common. Then the practice obtained only in the Western or Romish Church, the Eastern or Greek Church still holding to immersion. The year 155 1 saw the first admission of pouring to the English prayer book. The provision, as altered, read thus: ''The priest shall dip him in the water, discreetly and warily; but if they certify that the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it." This was the second prayer book of King Edward VI. He and his* sister. Queen Elizabeth, were both immersed. Perhaps the most curious bit of history in con- nection with the change from immersion to l6o BAPTISM. sprinkling is the action of the Westminster Assembly, which convened in the year 1643. It is from this assembly that Presbyterianism received its doctrinal standards. The assembly were preparing a directory. With regard to bap- tism, it was proposed to say: ''The minister shall take water and sprinkle or pour it wath his hand upon the face or forehead of the child." Some members of the assembly were not satisfied w^th that statement. Dr. Lightfoot, who was a member, kept a journal of the proceedings; and here is his account of the discussion that occurred August 7th, 1644: ''Then fell we upon the work of the day, which was about baptizing of the child — whether to dip or sprinkle him. And this proposition, 'It is lawful and sufficient to besprinkle the child,' had been canvassed before our adjourning, and was now ready to vote. But I spoke against it as being very unfit to vote that it is lawful to sprinkle when everyone grants it. Whereupon it was fallen upon, sprinkling being granted, whether dipping should be tolerated with it. And here fell we upon a large and long discourse whether dipping w^ere essential or used in the first institution or in the Jews' custom. Mr. Coleman went about in a large discourse to prove tauvelch to be 'dipping THE TWO GREAT CHANGES. l6l over head,' which I answered at large. After a long dispute it was at last put to the question whether the directory should run: 'The minister shall take water and sprinkle or pour it with his hand upon the face or forehead of the child;' and it was voted so indifferently that we were glad to count names twice: for so many were unwilling to have dipping excluded that the vote came to an equality, within one, for the one side was twenty- four, the other twenty-five, the twenty-four for the reserving of dipping, and the twenty-five against it. And then grew a great heat upon it; and when we had done all, we concluded upon nothing in it, but the business was recommitted." On the fol- lowing day, after still further discussion, the article was fixed as follows: ''He is to baptize with water, which, for the manner of so doing, is not only lawful, but also suflicient and most expedient, to be by pouring or sprinkling water on the face of the child, without any other ceremony." In the age of Cyprian the question was raised, for the first time, whether pouring should be allowed as a substitute, in cases of necessity, for immersion which all recognized to be the scriptural baptism; by the Westminster Assembly, fourteen hundred years afterwards, the question was raised whether l62 BAPTISM. immersion should be allowed, and the question was decided in the negative by a majority of one! Turning now to the rise of infant baptism, we find the first distinct reference to it by TertuUian, who lived, in North Africa, from about the year 150 to about 220. He referred to it to oppose the practice. In his treatise on baptism he writes : ''Our Lord, indeed, says : ^Do not forbid them to come to meJ^ Therefore, let them come when they are grown up ; let them come when they understand, when they are instructed whither it is that they come ; let them be made Christians when they are able to know Christ." We cannot, of course, tell how far this practice had progressed when TertuUian wrote, say, about the year 200. The probability is that he was opposing the very beginnings of it. If it had taken any extended hold before this, traces of it would have been left in the earlier Christian writings. The first defense of infant baptism we find in an Epistle of Cyprian. This was about the year 250. He was writing to a country bishop named Fidus. The question Fidus had propounded was whether baptism should ever be administered before the child was eight days old, or whether it should not follow the law of circumcision in this particular. THE TWO GREAT CHANGES. 163 Cyprian brought the question before a council. I call attention to these words of his answer to Fidus: ''This was our opinion in council that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all, which, since it is to be observed and main- tained in respect of all, we think it is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly born persons, who on this very account deserve more from our help and from divine mercy, that immediately, on the very beginning of their birth, lamenting and weeping they do nothing else but entreat." The practice of infant baptism became established in Africa under the influence of Augustine, who died in 430. There was opposition to it, however, in portions of the Catholic Church until the twelfth century. Firmly and universally established in the Catholic Church when the Reformers came along it was retained by them — the badge of a most glaring inconsistency with their fundamental doctrine of justification by faith, and, at the same time, the badge of the. greatest imperfection of their work. Looking now into the question as to why these two great changes were made, w^e find that, as 164 BAPTISM. they were made near the same time, so they rest on at least one common ground. That common ground was the belief that there was saving efficacy in baptism. This belief is unmistakable in the letter of Cyprian from which I have already quoted with regard to the baptism of infants. Chrysostom, the golden-mouthed preacher of Antioch, in the next century after Cyprian, said : * 'Although a man should be foul with every vice, the blackest that can be named, yet should he fall into the bap- tismal pool, he ascends from the divine waters purer than the beams of noon. As a spark thrown in the ocean is instantly extinguished, so is sin, be it what it may, extinguished when the man is thrown into the laver of regeneration." You will readily see how this doctrine of baptismal cleansing would be sufficient reason for the begin- ning that resulted in a complete substitution of sprinkling for immersion. Here is a man who is sick, and his sickness is supposed to be unto death. He has not been baptized. He must not be allowed to die without the saving benefit that is believed to lie in the baptismal rite. He cannot be immersed. The question arises as to whether the application of the water in some other way will not do. It is believed that to pour the water on THE TWO GREAT CHANGES. 165 the sick man in bed will effect the same cleansing from sin that would be effected by an immersion. Accordingly the substitution is made. That is what occurred in the case of Novatian already cited, the first case on record, especially mentioned where this substitution was made. You may be ready to ask how this belief in the cleansing power of baptism could effect the change to infant baptism from baptism upon a profession of faith. Alone it could not effect the change; but it was not alone. If infants had been regarded as saved when dying in infancj^, as you and I regard them, infant baptism, could not have been intro- duced. But they are not regarded as saved. Augustine, he through whose influence infant babtism was established in Africa, taught that original sin consigned infants to perdition, though they might be only a day old, if they died without cleansing from that sin. It is not difficult to see that parents who were taught such a doctrine as that would hasten to do something to save their young children. Believing that baptism had the needed cleansing power, they would naturally have the children baptized. The beginning of these two doctrines of infant damnation and baptismal cleansing are sufficient to l66 BAPTISM. account for the beginnings of the change from believer's baptism to infant baptism, and from immersion to sprinkling; and these doctrines did operate in that way, beyond doubt. Infant baptism would make progress just in proportion as belief in these two doctrines made progress. As a matter of course, when a parent believed that his infant would be lost if he died without baptism, and that baptism would confer saving grace, the question of baptizing the child was settled — it would be done. The progress of sprinkling would be somewhat different. It was necessary to sprinkle only in cases of sickness, where the sickness was likely to prove fatal, and death must not be allowed thus to come upon one who had not been baptized. For infant baptism, every case was a case of necessity; for sprinkling, only cases of dangerous sickness could become cases of necessity. The progress of sprinkling would, therefore, be slower than that of infant baptism. So it was^ as a matter of history. Indeed, it took the triumph of infant baptism to complete the triumph of sprinkling. It was after infant baptism became universal that all infants were regarded as ''weak," in order that by this legal fiction, so to speak, they might be brought under the provision in the baptismal directories THE TWO GREAT CHANGES. 167 that, ''if the child is weak, the water may be poured or sprinkled upon him." To be sure, other considerations may have oper- ated to effect the two great changes as to the ordinance of baptism; but I am satisfied that those I have mentioned are the leading ones. And now, in conclusion, I wish to say to you that neither of these considerations stands in the way of a return, by Pedobaptist brethren, to the apostolic practice in the matter of baptism. They do not believe in infant damnation; and they do not believe in bap- tismal cleansing. They are holding on to the dead forms of sprinkling and infant baptism,. after they have given up the docti'ines that brought these forms into existence ; and they are trying to sustain these forms by other doctrines from which they can never receive any support. For anybody but Catholics, the practice of sprinkling and of infant baptism is an anachronism. I wish to make this further concluding remark: By refusing to return to the apostolic practice with regard to the ordi- nance of baptism, our Pedobaptist brethren are themselves holding between them and us the greatest barrier to that external union about which they often speak with so much unction and elo- quence. It is they who are away from the l68 BAPTISM. apostolic practice at this point, their own scholar- ship being the witness; and it is hardly fair for them to expect us to follow them in that departm*e from the way laid down by the apostles. They must excuse us when we decline to go away, and when we insist that the union for which we long and pray as much as themselves, can only be brought about by their return to the way of the the apostles— a way from which the Christian church very early deflected under the influence of the tw^o errors of infant damnation and baptismal regeneration, and a way to w^iich we, in the good providence of God, have already returned. The next discourse will deal with the Lord's Supper. THREE GREAT IDEAS. 169 THE THREE GREAT IDEAS UNDERLY- ING THE INSTITUTION. COMING now to the Lord's Supper, I propose to allow two questions to determine what I shall say. These questions are: (i) What were the ideas of the Master underlying his institution of this ordinance? (2) Who should observe the ordinance? Each of these questions wall require an entire discourse. We take up the first one of them to-day. THE IDEAS UNDERLYING THE INSTITUTION. The language of scripture is in order: ^'And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying. Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the New Covenant, w^hich is shed for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new wath 3^ou in my Father's lyO THE SUPPER. kingdom." (Matt. 26: 26-29.) ''For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it and said. Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you ; this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying. This cup is the new covenant in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as 3^e eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." (i Cor. 11: 23-26.) '^The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we brake, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread." (i Cor. 10: 16-17.) In the first of these passages, we have Matthew's account of the institution of the Supper. In the second we are told by Paul that he there gives the account which the Master himself had given to him; and the apostle adds a comment of his own upon the facts. In the third passage, Paul refers to the Supper for the sake of an argument he is making on another subject, and thus incidentally THREE GREAT IDEAS. I7I gives an idea about the nature of the ordinance. In these three passages, now, we discover three ideas as involved in the general notion of the Lord's Supper. Our view of the New Testament being what it is, I think we may assume, without argument, that the ideas here found, in Matthew and Paul, are the ideas that underlay our Lord's institution of the Supper. The three ideas are: Commemoration, Confession and Communion. COMMEMORATION. ''This do in remembrance of me," said the Saviour. The ordinance, in this aspect of it, takes right hold of the heart. Here is a memorial, a keepsake, of the departed friend. ''When you come around the table, in all the future of your lives, and look upon these emblems of my broken body and of my blood poured out, you will think of me. You will think of me then as at no other time. These emblems will speak to you in a language more impressive than any other. The thoughts which they will express will not be mourn- ful, but joyous ones. They will tell you of m}^ love — a love surpassing that of all other friends — a love which showed itself in unwearied care and kindness while I lived, and that led me to the cross 172 THE SUPPER. for you. The comfort of the recollection of that love is not to be shadowed by the thought that death has intervened and torn your friend away. These emblems are memorials, not of a lost love, a dead love, but of a love that lives, and dispenses the blessings which it won in its victory over death." Thoughts such as these, v/e may believe, were wrapped in those precious words of the Saviour: '^This do in remembrance of me/' We are to come to the Supper with grateful, joyful hearts. A keepsake is this ordinance, indeed; but we are not to come to it with feelings like those with which a mother handles some precious memento of her lost child. On the contrary, our feelings are to be the gladdest, the most joyous. If we come with tears, they are to be tears made possible by a heart melted with gratitude. COMMUNION. ''The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not ^ the communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ? For we being many are one bread, and one body ; for we are all partakers of that one bread." Here is communion. It is, however, communion of the blood and the body THREE GREAT IDEAS. I73 of Christ. The meaning is that, in taking the bread and wine of the Supper, we take the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Along with these words of Paul are to be put those of the Saviour at the institution of the ordinance when he said of the bread : ''Take, eat ; this is my body w^hich is broken for you ;" and of the wine : ''Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for the remission of sins." At this point the great controversies concerning the Supper have entered. There are two questions involved. These questions are : (1) What is the conte7it of this "Communion?" and (2) How is that which is contained in the "Communion" con- veyed to the communicants ? I. With regard to the first of these questions, we may say that there are two leading view^s, between which we must choose. These are the sacramental and the non-sacramental views. Rome is the leading representative of the sacra- mental, and the Baptists are the leading represen- tatives of the non-sacramental view. The matter in dispute is whether the Supper contains any grace or is the medium through which any grace is conferred. Rome affirms, and Baptists deny. In the time of the Refoiimation, Zwingli took a 174 '^^^ SUPPER. position antipodal to Rome, denying that the Supper conveyed any grace at all. Luther got away from Rome very little at this point; and Calvin took a position which has been called ''an ingenious compromise between the realism and mysticism of the Lutheran and the idealism and spiritualism of the Zwinglian theory." Baptists hold the theory that is known in church history as the Zwinglian. They hold it because they believe that it is the scriptural view. They believe that it is contrary to the very genius of Christianity that any external or natural thing should contain or confer saving or sanctifying grace. They believe that the Saviour guarded his people against sup- posing that an ordinance could confer grace, when, on the very night of the institution of the Sup- per, he said: ''This is eternal life that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent." As baptism is a sign of the grace of regeneration, so the Lord's Supper is a sign of sanctification. Baptism signifies the new birth; it does not produce that change. So the Supper signifies that the participant is nourished in his new life by spiritual communion with Christ; it does not itself nourish that life. This spiritual communion that is signified by the Supper is THREE GREAT IDEAS. I75 referred to when the Saviour says: '^Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." (Jno. 6: 53.) 2. If our view of what is contained in the Supper is correct, then the second question involved in the controversy is answered. It is the question as to how that which the Supper contains is conveyed to the communicants; and, of course, if there is no grace to be conveyed, the question ceases to be. I presume, however, that these questions are so related that wrong views about the second had something to do with raising the first; that is to say, ii the bread and wine were supposed to be a means of communication or conveyance, there must be something to be conveyed. Did not the Saviour say: ''This is my body ?" — ''This is my blood ?" If, then, his body and blood were taken, would not grace be conferred ? Whether a wrong interpretation of these words of Jesus had anything to do with starting wrong views about the function of the Supper or not, it is certain that a wron^ interpretation was put upon the words, Rome holds, and has for many centuries held, that the bread and wine are converted into the body and blood of Christ. This is the doctrine known as "transubstantiation." The bread and wine are 176 THE SUPPER. changed into the body and blood of Christ, and so, inland by the eating of the Supper, the communi- cants are put into possession of the life of Christ in such a sense that Christ is in them and they in him. Luther taught, not that the bread and wine are actu- ally converted into the body and blood of Christ, but that the body and blood always accompany these elements, so that ''the body and blood of Christ are taken with the bread and wine, not only spiritually, through faith, but also by the mouth, ^ ^ but after a spiritual and heavenly manner." This is known as the doctrine of ''consubstantiation." As to the way in which the grace conferred by the Supper is conveyed, there is certainly no great difference between Luther's view and that of Rome. According to Schaff, Calvin taught that ''believers, while they receive with their mouth the visible elements, receive also by faith the spiritual realities signified and sealed thereby." Faith, then, in Calvin's view, is the hand which receives the blessings that accompany the ordinance. To Calvin's view as to the way in which the spiritual blessings accompanying the Supper are conveyed, we make no objection. The point at which we take issue with him is under the first question, already discussed — the question as to THREE GREAT IDEAS. 1 77 whether there are any such blessings. We do not agree with him in the view that this ordinance con- tains and carries with it a grace^ or assemblage of blessings, which faith receives into the soul while the mouth is receiving the bread and wine. We find nothing in the scripture teaching on the sub- ject to warrant such a view. To the Romish view that the bread and wine are converted into the real body and blood of Christ, it is enough to reply that there is really no sense in it, because it contradicts the teaching of the senses and sets at naught every test by which the change, if any, might be discovered. The language of the Saviour which is so interpreted as to support this view, does not require it. When he says : "This is my body," he means, ''This rep- resents my body." He often uses such language in a figurative way. He says, ''I am the door." It was not supposed that he meant that he was a literal door. No more did he mean that the bread was his literal body. As there is no warrant in scripture for the Romish view of ''transubstantiation," so there is none for Luther's view of ''consubstantiation;" and Luther's view is little more in accord with common sense than the Romish. We believe that, according to 178 THE SUPPER. the scripture teaching on the subject, the bread and wine are only emblems — that they represent the body and blood of Christ. In partaking of these emblems, we signify that we live in Communion with Christ, that our spiritual life is nourished by them as the spiritual bread. Any blessing that may come to us in connection wdth the celebration of the ordinance, comes in quite another way than either of those taught by Calvin, Luther or Rome. The ordinance is well fitted to impress our hearts. It is a vivid representation of a scene — the scene of Calvary, and of a motive — the love that led Christ to Calvary — it is a vivid representation of a scene and a motive that take hold of human hearts, if anything will. The celebration, furthermore, is an act of obedience to the Saviour. Through this impression of the heart and through this conscious obedience it is that blessings may come to us in connection with the Supper. CONFESSION. ''As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." These words clearly show that this ordinance was not instituted simply for the benefit of the commu- nicants. It was not to serve merely as a memento THREE GREAT IDEAS. I79 of an ascended and glorified friend and Lord, nor as an outward representation to oneself of his spiritual communion with his Lord. It was to do something for the world. It was to be, like bap- tism, a symbolic confession of faith. Baptism, as a confession of faith, has its central truth around w^hich all the others are grouped. So it is with the Supper. In the confession by bap- tism, the death to sin, the new birth^ the beginning of the new life, is the central fact. That gathers about it all the rest — sin, atonement by the death of Christ, the resurrection, the final glory of the saints. In the confession by the Supper, the cen- tral truth is sanctification, the nourishment and growth of the new life. That gathers about it the great fact of the life, the death, and the glory and future coming of the Lord, together with the co-re- lated facts of human sin, the atonement, and the resurrection and final glory of the saints. See how all these things group themselves around that one central truth of the ordinance. There are the bread and wine representing the body and blood of Christ, and so setting forth the truth that he is the food upon which our souls are to grow. But, at the same time, the bread and wine, by representing the body and blood of l8o THE SUPPER. Christ, set forth the great fact of his incarnation — '^the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." The bread is broken, and the wine is poured out; and that sets forth the death of Christ, and the great doctrine that without the shedding of blood there was to be no remission of sins. Thus sin is at once both brought to view and put away — both its existence and remedy are attested by the ordinance. The glory that is to follow the remedial efficacy of this atonement is set forth in the assurance of the Saviour that there is coming a time when he will drink the cup new with his people in the heavenly kingdom. He has told them to observe this ordinance, ''till he come." Here, therefore, ''they declare their unwavering conviction that he will come; that his kingdom will not be overturned by the malice of foes or the treachery of friends; that there never shall be wanting those who will celebrate his death in this simple and touching rite-, until he come again." In the next discourse, I shall take up the other question proposed, viz: Who should observe the ordinance? WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT. l8l WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE THE SUPPER. T^HE question before us this morning touches ^ the observance of the Lord's 'Supper. Last Sunday we looked at the great ideas underlying the institution; to-day we are to inquire who should observe it. The Baptist position maybe stated thus: The Lord's Supper is a church ordinance ; it should be observed under the auspices of a church ; its obser- vance should be participated in by only such persons as are members of the church under whose auspices the observance occurs, and such other persons as might become members of that church by a simple transfer of their names to its roll. My purpose now is to defend that position. For its defense I shall repel assaults that have been made upon it, and shall establish its correctness. Let us proceed to the business in hand. The Baptist position is fearfully misrepresented. The misrepresentation sometimes, I am sure, pro- ceeds from lack of information. Sometimes I am l82 THE SUPPER. afraid it proceeds from partisan malice. One of the most common misrepresentations is involved in the use of the phrase ''close communion." Indeed, all the misrepresentations may be said to meet at this point. It is sought to put a stigma upon our posi- tion by the use that is made of that phrase. All manner of ugly and irrelevant things are injected into the very innocent phrase; and, thus loaded, it is hurled at us with amazing vim and spirit. But why should Baptists be considered sinners above their brethren because they believe* in close communion? Do not their brethren also believe in close communion? Beyond any sort of doubt they do. There is no open communion. It is all close, or restricted, as opposed to open or unrestricted. I will make good that statement. Take the leading denominations of evangelical Christians in this State. The Baptists, of course, stand at the head of the column with somewhat over 80,000 commu- nicants. The Methodists come next with somewhat over 60,000. The Presbyterians come third with somewhat under 20,000. Now, my point is that none of these denominations are open communion- ists. The Baptists are charged with being close communionists, as if close communion were a sin and a shame, and as if they were alone in the sin and WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT. 183 shame of it. But they are not alone ; nor is close communion a sin and a shame. That it is right I shall show later. Just now I am to show that Baptists are not alone in practicing restricted com- munion — that, in fact, there is no unrestricted or open communion. We will suppose that the Lord's supper is being observed in a Presbyterian church. A company of Quakers are present. In case they should be so impressed by the scene as to be per- suaded that Christ intended that his people should observe this ordinance, as well as that they should maintain the spiritual communion with him thus signified, would they then and there be admitted to participation in the celebration of the ordinance in that Presbyterian church ? No; they would be excluded. Upon what ground ? Upon the ground that they had not been baptized. In vain our brethren from the ''Society of Friends" might say that they were trying to live upright and godly lives in humble reliance upon Christ for salvation; and that they did not regard water bap- tism as necessary in any sense, baptism of the Spirit being the true Christian baptism. The reply of the Presbyterian minister would be that the Presbyterian Church does regard water baptism as essential to obedience. The Quakers might say 184 THE SUPPER. they considered the substitution of Spirit baptism as taking no greater Hberty with the Lord's com- mand than is taken in the substitution of sprinkhng for the immersion which he commanded. But it would be of no use to argue the case. The Pres- byterian minister would cut the matter short by saying that the Presbyterian Church regarded sprinkling as valid baptism, and that the Presbyte- rian Church, under whose auspices the ordinance was celebrated, and not the Quaker brethren, must be the judge in the case as to what is baptism. Any but a blind man must see that the communion in that Presbyterian church is not open communion. There is restriction upon it. There is a fence around that table. Again : Let us suppose that the supper is being observed in a Methodist church. A party of Uni- tarians enter. They wish to participate in the observance. They are denied the privilege. Upon what ground ? Upon the ground that they are not orthodox. But they insist that they are the most orthodox people in the world. The Methodist minister's reply is short. He tells them plainly that the Methodist Church does not con- sider them orthodox ; and that, since this obser- vance of the ordinance is occuring under the WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT. 185 auspices of the Methodist Church, the question of orthodoxy must be judged by the Methodist Church, and not by the Unitarians. Any but a bhnd man must see that the communion in that Methodist church is not open. There is restriction upon it. There is a fence around that table. It is not necessary that I should go further in that direction. As it is with these great denomi- nations, so it is with the others. They all put re- strictions upon communion. They all hedge the table about to some extent. None are open. Robt. Hall, the great English Baptist preacher, went further towards making the communion quite open than he could get Pedobaptists to follow him, when he declared that the terms of communion ought to be only the terms of salvation. No considerable part of Christendom would go with him to any such extreme as that. All the great denominations draw back from the position to which the brilliant rhetorician of Arnsby essayed to lead them. They instinctively draw back, as though that position were destructive of all order in the kingdom of God on earth. They all draw back and set up the fences quite inside the lines of possible salvation. There is no open communion. It is all close. All the great denominations put restrictions upon it. So far there is agreement. l86 THE SUPPER. All are agreed that there ought to be restric- tions; for, as a matter of fact, all do place restric- tions upon the communion. That being the case, the question comes up as to what are the proper restrictions. 1. Baptists say that, first and foremost, the com- municant must be a Christian, We have not had the faculty of looking into human hearts given us ; and hence, what we require at this point is a Chris- tian profession. Here also there is agreement. 2. Baptists say that the communicant must be a baptized Christian. To this our Pedobaptist breth- ren say. Amen. ''Yes," they say, ''we must not have any unbaptized people at the table of the Lord; for baptism certainly precedes communion in the divine order." I am unable to detect any difference between Baptists and Pedobaptists just at this particular point. All are still agreed. 3. Baptists say that the communicant must be a ine^nber of a church. To that statement no excep- tion can be taken by the Pedobaptists. They do not invite to thesupper people who have been excluded from churches to which they formerly belonged. Nor would they invite people who, by some means, had been baptized, and had then refused to identify themselves with any church, preferring to hold that WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT. 187 there is no need for organization in the kingdom of God on earth. So far also there is agreement. Such, then, are the restrictions put upon the communion by Baptists; and we find that exactly the same restrictions are put upon itby Pedobaptists. Three external qualifications are demanded of the communicant. These are : A profession of religion, baptism, and membership in a church of Christ. If any one of these qualifications is wanting, there is no admission to the Lord's Supper. Admission is denied by Baptists, and it is equally denied by Pedobaptists. The man who wishes to commune without either one of these qualifications must look for a company who do not believe in religion, or baptisrn, or church organization. He cannot commune with any of the great Christian denomi- nations. Baptists or Pedobaptists. These three qualifications for communion may be resolved into one. That is cliMrch fellowship- Of course, there must be a profession of religion, baptism, and church membership, before there can be church fellowship. Church fellowship ma}', therefore, be said to include the three things that are demanded by all the great denominations as qualifications for the communion. No wonder if you question whether church fel- l88 THE SUPPER. lowship is really demanded by the great Pedobap- tist denominations as a qualification for communion with them. You know that a reputable Baptist would be welcomed to the communion in a Pedo- baptist church. You think that seems to contradict the statement that Pedobaptists require church fel- lowship as a qualification for communion with them. But look again: That Pedobaptist church admits that Baptist brother to their communion because there is nothing in his life or doctrine to which they seriously object. He is such a man as might pass into the membership of that Pedobap- tist church as easily as into the membership of some other Baptist church. The transfer, I mean, could be made as easily. That Baptist would be received into that Pedobaptist church without any single change of doctrinal belief. They can, therefore, have for him as he approaches the table a church fellowship of the sort that one Baptist church has for a member of another Baptist church. And that is all that I mean by church fellowship in this connection — such community of doctrine and discipline that the communicant might pass, by simple transfer, into the membership of the partic- ular church under whose auspices the supper is being observed. WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT. 189 A reputable Baptist can thus pass into the mem- bership of a Pedobaptist church. But the converse of this is not true. A reputable Pedobaptist, the most godly, indeed, cannot thus pass into the mem- bership of a Baptist church. That is so because certain doctrinal and formal requirements are necessary to entrance into the membership of a Baptist church which the most godly Pedobaptist cannot present without some change. That the Pedobaptists recognize this principle of church fellowship as a qualification for intercom- munion is beyond all question. The Methodist Discipline denies the communion to persons who are guilty of practices for which they would be excluded from the Methodist Church. That makes church fellowship a necessary qualification for the communion ; and it, properly, makes the Methodist Church the judge of what sort of people it will fellowship. Very early in this century there arose two parties in the Presbyterian Church in the United States, known as the '*01d School" party, and the ''New School" party. The contention was a doctrinal one. It continued until a breach came in 1837. The ''Old School" party, by an unconstitutional exercise of power, cut off four synods on account of their "New School" pro- 190 THE SUPPER. clivities. The next year, 1838, the '' New School," thus put out of the Presbyterian Church, formed a General Assembly of their own. For twenty-eight years the '' Old School" Assembly would not com- mune with the /'New School." In 1866, after twenty-eight years of division, the two Assemblies united, and they sealed the union by sitting down together to the Lord's table. The principle put into practice by that ''Old School" Assembly, for twenty-eight years, is the same as that recognized in the Methodist Discipline, viz., that church fel- lowship is a necessary qualification for communion. The questions upon which the division arose were of such a character that there was abundant room for differences of opinion without any disturbance of church fellowship — differences of opinion such as exist largely among Baptists without disturbing their church fellowship. But the "Old School" party saw fit to withdraw church fellowship from the "New School," and, with the withdrawal of fellowship, they declined further to commune with them. Thus we have seen that Baptists and Pedo- baptists are agreed in holding that a profession of religion, baptism, and church membership are pre- requisites of communion. We have also seen that the three requirements may be resolved into the WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT. I9I single one of church fellowship. Church fellow- ship is the only requirement demanded by either Baptists or Pedobaptists; and that is demanded by both. This demand for church fellowship is the one, only restriction laid upon the communion, and this is laid upon it by Baptists and Pedobaptists alike. In this they are agreed. There is no dif- ference. They are all close, or restricted com- munionists. '' But there is a difference somewhere ^^'^ you say. Yes, there is a difference; but the differ- ence is not described by the words ^'open" and *^ close," for all are '^ close." Where, then, is the difference ? It is found in what is demanded for church fellowship. All agree in demanding church fellowship; but there are differences as to the requirements for church fellowship. I. Baptists can not accord church fellowship to persons who have not been immersed in water upon a profession of their faith. You wall observe that there are two objections which Baptists lay against the baptism of Pedobaptists. The first is that, as a rule, their baptism is not administered upon a profession of faith, but during unconsenting infancy. If we could grant that sprinkling is baptism, we still could not allow that those who have been sprinkled only in infancy have been 192 THE SUPPER. baptized. The divine command is, '^Repent and be baptized." Our contention is that those who have been baptized only in infancy have never obeyed that plain command. The point is that even an immersion in infancy is not baptism. It w^ill not meet the case to say that he who was bap- tized in infancy has since repented, and has adopted as his own the rite which was performed for him, in the name of baptism, while he was still an infant. Baptism has no significance whatever, unless repentance is supposed to have preceded it. Fur- thermore, leaving out of view, for the moment, the fact that the com-mand to be baptized is addressed to those alone who have repented, it must also be alleged that adopting in later life a rite to which one was subjected in infancy, is not obeying the command to be baptized. That com- mand implies, and, by virtue of the very gram- matical form of it, must imply co7isent on the part of the one subjected to the rite. Without your consent, there is no obedience on your part to the. command. The rite administered upon the consent of another is not obedience from you. The second objection we lay against the baptism of Pedobaptists is that they have substituted sprinkling for immer- sion. In doing this, they have discarded that WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT. I93 which was commanded by the Master, and have substituted, not another form of the same thing, but a totally different thing. He commands im- mersion, and they sprinkle. By discarding what he commanded and substituting something else which does not carry with it the same symbolism, they have become ritualists in the matter of baptism. Baptists do not regard this question of baptism as a matter of small consequence. Nor do Pedobaptists really so regard it. If it is a matter of so small consequence that they are at liberty to substitute sprinkling for the immersion commanded by the Lord, then why are they not at liberty to discard the ordinance completely ? As a matter of fact, by subjecting unconsenting infants to the ordinance, they make more of it than do Baptists. Baptists regard the matter as one of very great import. So do Pedobaptists. Baptists claim the right to judge who has been scripturally baptized. So do Pedobaptists. Baptists refuse church fellowship to those whom they do not consider scripturally baptized. So do Pedobaptists. Baptists do not consider Pedobaptists scripturally baptized. Pedobaptists do consider Baptists scrip- turally baptized. There is one difference, Mark that down. 194 ^^^ SUPPER. 2. Baptists cannot accord church fellowship to persons who are organized for the dissemination of doctrines that are regarded by Baptists as certainly out of harmony with the teaching of the Bible. I use the word certainly with discrimination. There are some things about which Baptists, as a people, do not commit the folly of contenting. That is one reason why there is room for difference of opinion among Baptists upon so many religious subjects. Upon some subjects the Bible is in- definite. Other subjects, in some of their aspects, are quite beyond the finite understanding of mortals. In such cases, it would be folly for any set of Baptists to put their ideas of the scripture teaching into definite, intelligible forms, and then say that he who does not believe the formulas thus laid down, is no Baptist. People, therefore, hold- ing very divergent views at some points may come together in a Baptist church. But Baptists can not, I repeat, accord church fellow^ship to persons who are organized for the dissemination of doc- trines that are regarded by Baptists as certainly out of harmony with the teaching of the Bible. From that statement our Pedobaptist brethren would not dissent for themselves. They would not avow a willingness to grant church-fellowship WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT. I95 to people organized for the dissemination of doctrines regarded by them as certainly out of harmony with the scriptures. When the Presby- terian General Assembly decided that the *'Hop- kinsian" theology of the ''New School" party was not in harmony with the Bible and the Westminster Confession, that Assembly withdrew church fellow- ship from the party adjudged heretical, and with- held fellowship for twenty-eight years. It is not certain that the ''Hopkinsian" theology is out of harmony with the Bible, but the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church so con- sidered it; and upon that judgment, church fel- lowship was denied. So any of the great denomi- nations of evangelical Christians would disavow any willingness to accord church fellowship to people organized for the dissemination of doctrines certainly out of harmony with the Bible. Baptists are unwilling to accord church fellowship to such people ; and Pedobaptists are unwilling to do so. In declining to accord them church fellowship we do not pass judgment upon the question as to whether they are Christians or not. In 2 Thessa- lonians 3 : 15, Paul makes a distinction between church fellowship and Christian fellowship. He counsels the church to withdraw from a person of 196 THE SUPPER. a certain description, and yet says : ^'Count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." It may be that we cannot accord church fellowship to man, and, at the same time, we may count him a brother in the Lord. Baptists recognize this, and so do Pedobaptists. When, therefore, we all alike refuse to accord church fellowship to persons or- ganized for the dissemination of doctrines we re- gard as certainly out of harmony with the Bible, we do not pass judgment upon them as infidels, and read them out of the kingdom of God. Far be it ! Baptists disclaim that, and so do Pedo- baptists. We simply deny them church fellow- ship. In that we are agreed. Under this princi- ple, however. Baptists deny church fellowship to all Pedobaptists. They are organized for the dis- semination of doctrines which we regard as con- trary to clear scripture teaching. If they can accord church fellowship to us, it is because they do not believe that we teach doctrines contrary to the clear import of scripture. That is another- difference. Take note of that also. Under the action of this principle came all those cases of immersed members of Pedobaptist churches. These are not admitted to the communion with us for the simple reason that they are members of organi- WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT. I97 zations that disseminate what we regard as error; and, so long as they are thus aiding and abetting that error, we cannot accord them the church fel- lowship which all regard as prerequisite to com- munion. Here also are to be placed such cases as that of the Campbellites. They are not Pedobap- tists. They are heretical Baptists. They are im- mersed, but they are organized for the propagation of doctrines that are contrary to the clear teaching of the scriptures. Hence we do not accord them church fellowship, and so do not admit them to the communion. A few words may now be said as to the scriptur- alness of the position that the Lord's supper is a church ordinance and that church fellowship is the proper prerequisite to participation in it. 1. The first thing to be said is that all the great denominations of Christians agree upon that point. It has always been so. Amid all the controversies about this ordinance, there has been almost univer- sal agreement upon the point w^e are now discuss- ing. That of itself ought to be about enough to establish the correctness of the position. 2. But it may be said, in the second place, that when we look into the New Testament, we see no reason to change the verdict that has been rendered 198 THE SUPPER. by Christendom. We find the following things to be true: (i) The Saviour instituted the ordinance when only the apostles were present. If it was not committed to the apostles in some special, offi- cial sense, then why were not other disciples there? Why not all? If we had only the scene at the institution of the ordinance to look upon, we might suppose that the apostles alone were with him because this was intended by the Master to be repeated by them as his closest friends. But then the question would arise as to why he did not have his mother and the Bethany family. (2) There is, furthermore, the fact that the after observance was not confined to the apostles. We find Paul, for example, giving directions about the proper observ- ance of it in the church at Corinth. Putting together these two facts, viz., that only the apos- tles were present at the institution of the ordinance, and that it was observed as a church ordinance when Paul wrote to the Corinthians — we conclude that the Master instituted it with the apostles as an official class, as the representatives of the churches that would be established. In harmony with this conclusion is the statement of Paul to the Corinthi- ans that he had delivered the ordinance to them as Christ had delivered it to him. He was not an WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT. I99 apostle when the ordinance was instituted; but he had received special instruction about it from the Saviour — a fact which w^ould seem to indicate that it was given to him as one who would establish churches, and commit to them the things which they were to observe. Let me, then, put the argu- ment in this w^ay. It is certam that the supper was observed at Corinth under Paul's instruction, as a church ordinance — Paul's remarks seeming to exclude the supposition that it was any other'than a church ordinance. It is certain that the ordi- nance was first celebrated when only Christ and the apostles were present. This last fact, under the circumstances, would seem to indicate that the supper was committed to them, not as Christians, but as apostles, who would organize churches and commit to them the things to be observed. In the absence, among all the recorded cases, of a private or individual observance of the ordinance, we are warranted in concluding that the Christian w^orld has been right in holding that the supper is a church ordinance, and that, therefore, church fellowship is the proper prerequisite to communion. It may be held that this view of the supper, together with their doctrines about church organi- zation, would require Baptists to object to the 200 THE SUPPER. non-intercommunion of Baptist churches. But that does not follow. While the churches, according to the apostolic model, are independent, as has been shown in a previous discourse, they are also inter- dependent. They do, and must, recognize the discipline of each other, for example; and, hence, they do, and must, fellowship each other's members. They hold to the same form of sound doctrine; and they are organized for the propagation of that doctrine. Barring control of what may be called local interests, as opposed to general interests, the members of one of these churches may be as much at home in another as in his own. The celebration of the Lord's Supper is one of the general aspects of church life; and, consequently, for that, a Baptist is as much at home in one Baptist church as in another. This was the sort of church fellow- ship that obtained among the apostolic churches — a special and a general fellowship. In accordance with these relations as existing between the apos- tolic churches, w^hen Paul counseled the exclusion of a member from the church at Corinth, visiting members from Philippi would take no part in the act of exclusion ; but, when Paul administered the Lord's Supper to the church at Troas, Luke, Timothy, Sopater, Tychicus, Trophimus, Gains, WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT, 20I Aristarchus, and Secundus, who were present from Asia, Berea, Derbe, and Thessalonica, would par- ticipate in the communion. I must detain you a few moments longer to answer some of the current objections to our prac- tice with regard to the communion. I shall take only two or three as samples. One of the com- monest objections is that our practice is selfish. The answer is that our practice is just exactly as selfish as the practice of the people who originated the objection. They admit to the communion only those whom they admit to church fellowship. We do the same. Another common objection is that we expect to commune in heaven, and why not on earth ? The answer to that is that we have the same sort of communion here that we expect to have in heaven. We expect to have Clirisiian fellowship in heaven; and we have that here. We do not expect to eat bread and drink wine when we reach the celestial city. Again, it is said that this is the Lord^s table, and we ought to exclude none. The answer to that is that those who make the objection never saw the ordinance observed where there were none excluded. All denomina- tions exclude some; all put restrictions upon the ordinance. Besides, the fact that it is the Lord's . 202 THE SUPPER. table, so far from being an argument for unre- stricted communion, lays upon us an obligation to see that it is hedged according to the terms pre- scribed by the Lord. If it were our own table, instead of his, we could invite whom we pleased; but, since it is his, we must admit only those who have complied with his terms of admission. There are also some who allege as their objection to our practice, that they are denied the privilege of com- muning with some who are very dear to them. If they are in doctrinal accord with those loved ones, they can commune with them by becoming mem- bers of the same church. If they are not in doc- trinal accord with those loved ones, surely that must be a much greater hardship than being de- barred the communion. I am sure I had rather agree with my friend than sit down wath him at the same table! The other common objections are of the same general sort as these. They all miss the real point. In conclusion, I propose to lay my finger exactly on the point where the quick is to be found. Let me distinctly say, however, that I am not now about to speak of all who make objections. There are many no covered by the remark I shall make. What I want to say is this: The real ground of WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT. 203 objection, with our Pedobaptist brethren, is not that we do not admit them to the Lord's Supper in our churches. They do not care particularly to eat with us. We do not see Methodists leaving their churches to flock to Presbyterian churches on communion days; nor do we see the Presbyterians leaving their churches to flock to Methodist churches on communion days. It stands to reason that, after the novelty of the thing wore off, they would not leave their churches to come to ours on communion days. That is not the point. They are not anxious to eat with us. Here is the point: They want us to accord them that cimrch fellowship which communion implies, and which they as well as we require as prerequisite, and which they are quite willing to accord to us because they do not believe we teach doctrines contrary to the Bible. If we would only accord them that church fellow- ship, all would be well, and we should hear no more objections; but we should not have any great number of Pedobaptists at our communion table on days when they had anything going on at their own places of worship. That, now, is the real point. The point must not be obscured. Baptists must not allow it to be covered up and lost in the multitude of sentimental 204 THE SUPPER. objections that are showered upon us. There are many excellent Christian people who think there is really something in these sentimental objections. But that is because they have never had the matter laid open before them, and they have never taken the trouble to think the subject through, and get at the foundation facts and principles involved. Let me repeat, then, that the real grievance that the great Pedobaptist denominations have against us is that we do not accord them church fellow- ship, but, by denying them that, we do continually declare that they hold and teach some doctrines not in harmony with the clear import of the Bible. We most heartily hail them as brethren in the Lord, and most gladly welcome them to Chidstian fellowship. But cliurch fellowship we cannot accord them. There we stand! The Lord is our helper! The ofrace of God be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in truth and sincerity. Amen. CHRISTIAN UNION, 205 206 CHRISTIAN UNION, CHRISTIAN UNION — WHAT IT IS AND IS NOT; HOW TO PROMOTE IT, AND HOW NOT TO PROMOTE IT. That they may be one, even as we are one. John 17 : 22. T^HERE is Christian union and Christian uniqn ; ^ that is to say, there are several different things to which that name is applied. I shall here assume that when people talk about Christian union they intend to talk about the thing that is brought to view in this text. It is 07ic thing that here comes to view; and since various things are called Christian union it follows that some of the things so called are not the one thing of the text. Here is another fact you may observe, viz: That a man's idea of how to promote Christia7i union de- pends upon his idea of what Christian union is. The subject, therefore, opens up to us to-night in such fashion that I shall speak of what Christian union is and what it is not, and of how to promote it and how not to promote it. CHRISTIAN UNION. 207 I. WHAT IT IS AND IS NOT. There are excellent brethren whose idea of Christian union is that amicable relations should obtain between the different denominations of Christians in a communit}^ Surely that is a state of things very much to be desired in every com- munity ; but that is not what our blessed Master prayed for when he was nearing the cross. Now just think of it : The Christ about to be offered up for the sins of the world pra3ang the Father thatj w^hen his disciples should be split up into dif- ferent sects by reason of different interpretations of his word, they might be able to keep the peace ; that they might be able to pursue each his owm work in his own way without looking cross-eyed at each other ; without resorting to mean trickery to get ahead of each other ; without taking each other by the ear in violent controversy ! Nay, the Master meant something more than that when he prayed that they might be one, and said he gave them his glory that they might be one. There are other good brethren who think frater- nal feeling is Christian union. They seem rather to expect that you will not have this fraternal feel- ing for them, if you are not of the same ''faith and 208 CHRISTIAN UNION. order" with them ; and they show a little surprise when they find that you really do have it, and they begin to suspect that you are not a ^'very strong'^ Baptist,, or Methodist, Presbyterian, or whatever it may be. And if they are '*very strong," they wonder whether you are not a good subject upon whom to bestow a little proselyting skill. But, brethren, it is no wonderful Christian attainment that we should have a fraternal feeling for each other, though separated in creed. This is one of the first things— this belongs to the a b c of Christian life. I should be ashamed to call my- self a Christian if I did not have a fraternal feeling for all people who love my Saviour. If I did not have that feeling I should go back to the begin- ning, and seek again the forgiveness of my sins, and adoption into God's family. It was some- thing far beyond this a b c of fraternal feeling that Jesus prayed for. Fraternal feeling is not the Christian union that he yearned for as he lifted his heart to heaven on that momentous occasion. There are still other brethren, noble and good, who think that kneeliitg on the same floor ^ and sing- ing the same hymns ^ and hearing the same sermon is Christian union. Why, the most devout Christian may be joined in these performances by the most CHRISTIAN UNION. 2O9 blatant infidel, and the grossest sensualist. He sometimes is so joined; and, if that were Christian union, then there would be more of such union between him and these ungodly people than there is between the psalm singing Presbyterian and the hymn singing Presbyterian ! Brethren sometimes fondly think that this sort of union — this union of kneeling on the same floor, and singing the same hymns, and hearing the same sermon — that this sort of union is going to accomplish somewhat of that great result for which the Saviour desired the oneness of his people, viz: The convincing of the world that he is the Christ of God. But I tell you, with all the gravity of profound conviction, they are grievously mistaken. This old world is not a fool! You can say a great many hard things about it that would be true, but when you call it a fool you are wide, very wide of the mark, and perpetrate an egregious slander upon the world. That the world is much lacking in the highest wisdom is certainly true, but that it is a fool, in the ordinary sense, is far from the truth. And if you think the world is fooled when it sees different denominations of Christians kneeling on the same floor, you are the one that has been fooled. The world, somehow or other, has a 2 TO CHRISTIAN UNION. shrewd suspicion that somewhere in the neighbor- hood of half of those bowed heads have come to that place of meeting with the hope, which they dare not avow, that the meeting may somehow redound to the advancement of this or that denomination to which they severally happen to belong. Fool whom ? Not the world. The world knows that 3^ou have not given up a single distinctive doctrine by coming there, and it would not respect you if you did. It knows you have not given up one jot of your devotion to your own church by coming there, and it only respects you the more for not doing so. What else does the world know about such a performance? This: That a number of Christian people, holding widely divergent views on some points, and agreeing upon others, are actually willing to come together on common ground and keep the peace, without sheriff or constable, for one short hour — a thing which they know that gentlemen^ without any religion at all, often do. The world sees the magnificent spectacle of Chris- tian men willing to come together and be gentlemen for an hour; willing to agree to disag^^ee ! Brethren, our Master prayed for something beyond that for his people. There are yet other loving, gentle, sentimental CHRISTIAN UNION. 211 brethren whose beau ideal of Christian union is the coming of Cliristians of different sects around the same communion table. Said a Philadelphia preacher: ''The world cannot be converted until the church is united; and the church cannot be united until Baptists renounce close communion." Well, now, really, I think he ought to pass as a back number. Does not the brother know that there are no open communionists? Does he not know that Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Episcopalians are close communionists? Does he not know that these great bodies of Christians do not admit to the table any except those to whom they accord church fellowship? And does he not know that the great host of regular Baptist churches occupy tJie very same ground? All well-informed preachers who have looked into the subject with two good, straight eyes, know that such is precisely the truth. But this Philadelphia brother made another mistake besides his antiquated one, and it IS that which specially -concerns us now. It is: That to come around the same table to celebrate the Lord's Supper is the very acme of Christian union. It is here that he falls into the sentimental brother's procession. Who made the Lord's Supper a test or expression of Christian union? Did 212 CHRISTIAN UNION. the Lord himself ? How many disciples were present when he instituted that ordinance? Just eleven, if we suppose that Judas had already left the room, or twelve if he was still there w^hen the Supper was instituted. Suppose Judas was there; where was the mother of our Lord ? and where were the other disciples who fondly loved Jesus ? Did Jesus mean, by having Judas present and all these others absent, that there was more union between Judas and John, for instance, than between John and Mary ? But suppose Judas was not there, did Jesus mean that John and Peter were united while John and Mary were not ? It seems to me that to believe that he meant anything of that sort is preposterous. The fact is, the Bible defines very precisely what he intended the Supper should show. What was that ? It takes no learning to tell. It is made very plain — it is so plain that some learning might be required to make it otherwise than plain. What does the Word say the Supper was to ^'show?" Was it to '^show" Christian union? Nay. Was it to ''show" the love of his disciples for each other ? Nay. What then ivas it to ''show?" His death: "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come," i Cor, ii ; 26, I pro- CHRISTIAN UNION. 213 test that Jesus prayed for a union of his people which did not subsist as between the eleven and Judas, although they possibly sat at the same table, and which probably did subsist as between the eleven and Mary, the mother of Jesus, and those other holy women, though they did not sit together at that table. What, then, is the union for which he prayed? Let us try to learn. He made a comparison. He said: ''That they all may be one, as thou Father art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." And again: ''That they may be one, as w^e are one." He prayed that his people might be one, and that their oneness should be like the oneness of the Father and the Son in the blessed Trinity. This comparison opens up before us a scene of diversity in unity and 7niity in diversity^ that is to say, there is unity without sameness, and diversity without schism. Now, let us see if we cannot get a clear concep- tion of this comparison between the Divine and the human. Of course such a comparison must be understood as necessarily confined within limits. If it were not so confined, we should be supposing the distinction between the Divine and the human susceptible of being blotted out. I conceive that. 214 CHRISTIAN UNION. within these limits, there zx^ four imiiics possible as entering into the conception of the oneness of his disciples for which Jesus prayed. If still others are possible, they, too, ought to be included in the ideal oneness of Christians. For I hold that his conception comprehended everything of the sort that is possible within the characteristic, necessary limitation that belongs to the human. What are \^\^ four tmitics ? 1. The first I mention, as primary and as sub- tending all the rest, is Uuity of Life. It is the Christ life in Christians. That is what Jesus means when he says: ''I in them;'^ it is what Paul means when he says: '^Christ in you;" and again: ''Christ liveth in me." All real Christians have this life, and are one in that particular. It is the Christ-life in us that makes us Christians at all. Without that we are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity. 2. The second unity I mention is Unity of Spirit. ''Let this mind be in you," sa3^s the apostle, "which was also in Christ Jesus." Just in propor- tion as Christians have the spirit, the mind, the disposition of Christ are they one in spirit. And I may add that just in proportion as the Christ-life de- velops in them will they have the Christ-disposition. CHRISTIAN UNION. 215 3. The third unity I mention is Unity of Purpose, The one great purpose of all Christians ought to be to do the Master's will, and so to bring on the millennial glory. 4. The fourth unity is Unity of Doctrine and E^i- deavor, I put doctrine and endeavor together be- cause those who agree in doctrine are generally most closely united in Christian endeavor. Some will ask: ^'Do you mean to say that all Christians ought to hold the same form of doctrine?" Most certainly I do. Then the next question that may be asked is this: ^'Do you think all Christians ought to unite with yon f ." That is what these oil}- tongued declaimers about Christian union generally mean. They say all Christians ought to unite — they do say it so sweetly. Why, their mouths are honey itself; but the upshot of the business is, when 3^ou get down below the honey 3^ou find that, at heart, they mean that all Christians ought to unite zuith them! They remind you of the story of the two Baptist deacons. These two deacons had ' 'fallen out." One said to the other: ''This is all wrong, brother — this difference between us. We certainly ought to be reconciled, and I do beseech you to be reconciled, for / cannot be ! " Now, brethren, it seems to me very clear that 2l6 CHRISTIAN UNION. these ''four unities'' which I have mentioned must be comprehended in any full-orbed conception of the oneness of Christians for which Jesus prayed. You cannot think of the Father and the Son in the blessed Trinity as differing in life, or in spirit, or in purpose, or as holding divergent views of truth, or as so differing in endeavor or operation, that the operation of one, in any way, neutralizes or weakens the effect of the operation of the other. They are certainly one in life, in spirit, in purpose, and in doctrine and endeavor. A oneness of that kind is a possible human condition. So much, at least, therefore, is comprehended in the oneness for which Jesus prayed. These ''four unities" must be brought into our conception of that for which he prayed. And, I repeat, if any other unity which I have not mentioned is possible to the Holy Trinity and humanity in common, that alsD ought to be comprehended in our conception of the oneness of Christians for which he prayed. The question now naturally comes up as to II. HOW SUCH CHRISTIAN UNION IS TO BE PROMOTED. Certainly not by acrimonious controversy. That is unchristian; and, surely, we may safely say that CHRISTIAN UNION. 217 a truly Christian condition is not to be brought about by an unchristian method. The effect of such controversy is bad, and only bad. It stirs up unlovely feelings; it retards the development of the Christ-life in those who engage in it, and often in a large circle of such as become interested in the controversy; it arouses prejudice, that great foe of the truth, and so hinders, instead of helping, the truth. Nor is Christian union promoted by compromise. The coolness of some of the compromises proposed is refreshing. A high ecclesiastical dignitary, a right reverend lusty advocate of Christian union, very complacently and expectantly calls upon all Christians just to come along and stand upon a compromise platform which his deft hands have built. And, when we examine the platform, what do we find ? All the planks of his old platform that he cares anything about! It is the same old cry: ''This is all wrong — our being divided; we ought to be reconciled ; therefore you be reconciled, for / cannot." The fact is, when you talk about a compromise along here, you have not considered what you are talking about. What are proper objects to com- promise, anyhow ! Rights and policies are. Your 2l8 CHRISTIAN UNION. rights are yom's ; and you are at liberty to give them up for the sake of harmony, and there may be cases when it is your duty to do that. Your policies are simply your ideas as to the best methods for accomplishing results. If you are acting in connection with others, there may be difference of. opinion with regard to the best method. There is room for yielding — in whole or in part — on either side. But rights and policies are different from principles — right is a ver}^ different thing from rights. If you think a thing is rights you are not at libert}^ to compromise it; if you have rights you are at liberty to give them up. Al- though you think a certain policy is most expedient, for the sake of harmony in action you may properly give it up ; but if you think a certain principle is right, you are bound to stand by it, though you stand alone. How do these reflections apply to the matter in hand? Just this way: When a man proposes to me to compromise with him in the matter of reli- gious belief, he is simply asking me to do what I have no right to do and what I cannot do. I equally cannot and ought not. How can I ? I believe that God's word teaches certain things, and he believes that it teaches certain things. The sum CHRISTIAN UNION. 219 total of my belief and the sum total of his belief, when put side by side, are found to differ in ten points, we will say; and he proposes that, if I will change on five points to his belief, he will change on five points to mine — for example, if I will give up immersion as baptism, he will give up episcopacy in church government! That is child- ish! If I believe that God's word teaches immer- sion, can I change my opinion just to be in har- mony with him? and if he believes that God's word teaches episcopacy, can he change his opin- ion just to be in harmony with me? Are opinions changed in that way? Now, in all frankness, can we change our belief just to be in harmony? And, if w^e cotcld, ought w^ to do so? Conjure ourselves into believing what we do not believe, just to be in harmony? Oh, no! A man that's a man will not say so when he looks at it. We cannot really change our beliefs any such w^ay as that. It is all foolishness to suppose that w^e can. But what about a nominal , make believe union on a creed fixed up as a compromise, and not really held by any of the parties to the compro- mise ? There are two fatal objections to that. One is that it is a make-believe and a sham. The other objection is that the parties would be no 220 CHRISTIAN UNION. more united after they stepped up on that sort of a platform than they were before. In other words, if compromise were right, it would not promote the union for which Christ prayed. Still again. Christian union is not promoted by iinproper proselytism. There is a proper and an im- proper proselytism. There is no use for Christian people to indulge in any foolishness along this line. Each denomination stands for certain principles in the world, which distinquish it from all others. If any denomination does not think its distinctive principles worth contending for in all Ch7'istia7i ways, it ought to go out of business — it is guilty of what, by its own confession, is a needless schism in the body of Christ. If it does think its distinc- tive principles give it a right to exist, then it ought to propagate those principles in all Christian ways. What are some Christian ways? A public procla- mation of those principles, in a Christian spirit, is one. It is a right and duty of a Christian minister, in his own pulpit to preach the distinctive doctrine of his denomination. He is not to do this continu- ally, as if those distinctive doctrines were all of the gospel. He should try to give them about the same prominence in his preaching that is given them in the scriptures. He may expect some pros- CHRISTIAN UNION. 221 elytes in this way; and, if they come, he is enti- tled to them, and no Christian man has any right to complain of the preacher. Again, if a member of one denomination gives a member of another denomination to understand that he would like to have the doctrine of the other denomination ex- pounded, of course the desire should be gratified; and, if a proselyte is thus made, nobody ought to complain. In both the cases I have supposed, it is a perfectly legitimate proselytism, effected on Christian principles. In most striking contrast to that would be a proselytism attempted by the method of simple persuasion to leave one denomi- nation and join another. A goes to B and says: ''You join my church; it will be better for this reason or that reason or some other reason of con- venience or interest." There are two improper things about such a procedure as that. In the first place, it is impertinent. What right has one gen- tleman to assume that another does not know what church he wishes to be a member of? It is imper- tinent; and impertinence is unchristian. In the second place, it is an attempt to persuade a man to forsake what he is supposed to regard as right, for convenience or self-interest of some sort; and that, too, is unchristian. Those who are friends of 222 CHRISTIAN UNION. Christian union need not expect to promote it by unchristian proselytism. What are some of the ways in which it may be promoted? By genuine Christian courtesy is one way. I say genuine Christian courtesy. There often passes for Christian courtesy what is not g'enuinely so. I have been around just a little in my life; and some- times I have gone with my eyes open, and made some observations in my going. Here is one thing I have observed: One denomination wall treat an- • other, not as a band of brethren in w^hose welfare they delight, but as a sort of machine or animated things which they wall use to their own advantage, if they can; and if they are not right sure they can use it in that way, they will let the thing alone, lest they might get hurt. Now, any such dealing with Christian brethren is simply mean. A genuine Christian courtesy does not hurt anybody ; and it promotes Christian union. By fair7tess is another way to promote Christian union. Another thing w^hich I have observed, with great pain, as I have gone around in the w^orld, is that Christian denominations are not always fair with each other. There is sometimes a manifest desire on the part of one to place another in a false CHRISTIAN UNION. 223 position before the public. Sometimes false isstccs are made. As an example of a false issue, I refer you to the words which I have already quoted from a Philadelphia preacher with regard to what he was pleased to call the ''close communion" of Baptists. Now, if a man, through ignorance^ represents the Baptists as differing, at this point, from the great majority of the Christians of the world, I can re- spect him as a man, while I am sorry that he does not know better ; but if^for. the sake of appealing to the prejudices of others^ lie deliberately makes a false issue^ I have no respect for his manhood, to say nothing of his religion. You brethren of other denominations, I have no doubt, can readily think of cases where your churches have been misrepre- sented by others in a similar manner, and 3^ou have felt with regard to such a procedure just about as I have expressed myself. The Christian thing to do is to be scrupulously /