0

A BEIEF EXAMINATION

VIEWS ENTERTAINED

THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS,
RESPECTING
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY, BAPTISM, AND
THE LORD'S SUPPER.

HENRY A. BOARDMAN, D. D.

PHILADELPHIA:
PARRY AND McMILLAN.
1857.

PREFATORY NOTE.

It fell in my way, some months since, in the ordinary dis
charge of my pastoral duty, to deliyer a series of Lectures on
the interview between our Saviouk and the Woman of Samaria.
The following Lecture was the third one of the course. I have
reason to helieve that it was useful to some of my own congre
gation, and to others with whom I have no personal acquaintance.
It has been repeatedly borrowed for the perusal of members of
the Society of Fbiends, and, in certain instances, returned with
expressions of interest and even of approval, which have been
peculiarly gratifying to me.
This circumstance has had no little weight with me, in decid
ing to send the manuscript to the press. I am conscious of no
other motive in publishing it, than a desire to do good. To the
Society whose sentiments are here briefly controverted (I hope
in the spirit in which Mr. Gurney and others have controverted
our sentiments), I am bound by ties both of respect and of con
sanguinity; and I have, from my childhood, had among them
some valued personal friends. I feel that I am a " debtor"
to them ; and this Lecture is submitted to their candid perusal

iv Prefatory Note.
in the hope that some of those into whose hands it shall fall, may
be induced to re-examine the questions here presented, by the
sure light of God's Holy VyoRD. To his blessing I commend this
humble tract ; with the prayer that he may send the Spirit of
truth to guide us all into the truth.
Philadelphia, April 13, 1857.

LECTUEE.

"GOD IS A 3PIKIT; AND THET THAT WORSHIP HIM MUST WOESHIP
HIM IN SPIKIT AND IN TRUTH." — .TOHN IV. 24.
We have considered this passage in its bearing
upon that style of worship, which has so multiplied
rites and ceremonies as to assimilate Christian
churches to the Jewish temple. There is an oppo
site extreme against which it is also necessary to
guard. No sentence in the New Testament has been
more relied upon to show that the New Dispensation
discountenances and even forbids " all typical rites in
the worship of God," the reference being especially
to Baptism and the Lord's Supper. With these or
dinances the customary services of the Sanctuary,
regarded as stated or habitual services, are associated
as being in alleged contravention of the whole spirit
of the Gospel. Because God requires a spiritual
worship, no baptism is to be recognized except the
baptism of the Spirit. The Lord's Supper is spiritual

6 The Two Sacraments.
communion with Christ. An official ministry, with
a fixed routine of services, consisting of prayer and
the reading of the Scriptures and preaching, is in
compatible with the true design of the Gospel, which
precludes some of these exercises altogether, and
allows the rest only on occasions when they are
prompted by a distinct impulse of the Holy Spirit.
"No verbal administrations properly consist with
worship, hut those which spring simply and imme
diately from the influence of the Holy Spirit."*
These few points may suffice to indicate the ground
assumed by those who repudiate all religious rites.
That such views should be promulgated by any
society professing to acknowledge the authority of
the New Testament, is even more remarkable than
that eiforts should be made to re-impose Levitical
ceremonies upon the Church.
It is surely most inconclusive reasoning, to argue
that God will not sanction any rites in the public
worship offered him, because he will be worshipped
in spirit and in truth ; and to contend that inasmuch
as he abolished the Jewish ritual, he thereby for
bade all forms in the Christian church. Where has
he presented it as the only alternative, " an imposing
* Gurney's " Peculiarities of the Society of Friends," Chap. v.

The Two Sacraments. 7
ceremonial like that of the Hebrews, or a purely
spiritual worship ?" The theory that we are examin
ing, virtually assumes that there could have been no
spiritual worship under the Mosaic economy. But
no serious- minded person would utter so injurious a
charge against the ancient saints.
That the old system as distinguished from the new,
was characteristically a ceremonial system, is con
ceded on all hands. Equally certain is it that that
system has been " done away." But on what autho
rity is it asserted that, in abrogating the Levitical
rites, the Saviour determined to organize the church
without any ril^s ?
It has been alleged, that baptism was practised
among the Jews before the advent; and also that the
breaking of bread and the pouring forth of wine,
with the giving of thanks, was a part of their ritual
order in celebrating the Passover; and hence, the in
ference has been drawn, that baptism and the Eucha
rist were actually included in that Levitical scheme
which the Saviour annulled. It is difficult to speak
of a representation like this without using strong
expressions. For one can hardly conceive how an
ingenuous person, intent only upon learning the
truth, could seriously propound a speculation so
palpably at variance with the facts. On the same

8 The Two Sacraments.
night on which he was betrayed, Jesus instituted the
supper with the utmost solemnity, and enjoined upon
his disciples the perpetual observance of it. " As
often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do
show the Lord's death till he come^'' (1 Cor. xi. 26).
This was not the paschal service. It was after that
service. He ordained it now for the first time. His
disciples had never celebrated it before. He bids
them celebrate it till he should return. And yet,
on the very slender pretext that there was a some
what similar use of bread and wine in the Passover
ceremonial, the Lord's supper is claimed to have been
one of the Levitical rites, which the Saviour himself
abolished I So, again, as to baptism-. The last com
mand he gave to his disciples as they stood around
him upon Mount Olivet at the moment of his ascen
sion, was, to " go into all the world and preach the
Gospel to every creature, baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost." And yet, because the Jews had been in the
habit of baptizing proselytes, baptism with water (it
is alleged) was essentially a Mosaic rite, and as such
the Saviour designed to abrogate it.
Such opinions have their refutation in the simple
narrative of the evangelists.
If the attempt to show that water baptism was

The Two Sacraments. 9
a purely Levitical rite has failed, no better success
has attended the effort to prove that the only baptism
recognized in the New Testament is the baptism of the
Spirit. Of course we all hold to the reality and the
necessity of this baptism. But we cannot admit that
it was simply this baptism the Saviour had in view
when he uttered the parting command just quoted.
Nor did his Apostles so understand him. They cer
tainly may be supposed, after they themselves had
been baptized with the Holy Ghost, to have been
qualified to put a proper interpretation upon his
words. And it is clear to demonstration that they
understood him as directing them to baptize their
converts with water. Not to enter into the discus
sion of this question at large, look at the case of
Cornelius (Acts x.). While Peter is preaching to
him and his household, the Holy Ghost falls on them.
This, according to the system I am controverting,
was all they required — all that the new dispensation
admits — the baptism of the Spirit. But how did the
Apostle judge? "Then answered Peter, Can any
m.a.n. forbid water that these should |iot 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." In other words, perceiving that they
had been baptized with the Spirit, he makes this a

10 The Ikuo Sacraments.
reason for baptizing them with water. They gave
evidence of being born again; therefore, they were
entitled to be baptized, and so, formally admitted
into the visible church.
Again, when Philip and the Ethiopian treasurer
were studying the Scriptures together in the chariot,
the tatter said to Philip: "See, here is water, what
doth hinder me to be baptized?" How would a
" Friend" have answered this question ? How must
he have answered it in consistency with his prin
ciples ? " Thou needest no baptism with water ; all
thou requirest is to be baptized with the Spirit."
But what was Philip's answer ? " If thou believest
with all thine heart, thou mayest" — which was equi
valent to his saying : " If thou hast received the bap
tism of the Spirit, thou mayest be baptized with
water." He instantly professed his faith in Christ,
and thereupon the chariot was stopped, and "they
went down both into the water, both Philip and the
eunuch, and he baptized him" (Acts. viii.).
These and other cases of the kind are so unequivo
cally stated in tlje New Testament, that there is only
one method in which the argument they supply can
be met, viz., by denying that the example of the
apostles is binding upon us. This ground is boldly
taken. The apostles, it is argued, continued to be

The Two Sacraments. 11
infected with Jewish prejudices; they retained vari
ous Levitical customs ; and having been faaiiliar
with circumcision and with baptism prior to their
conversion, "baptism was very naturally considered
by them as appropriate to the specific purposes of
their own ministry," and "they would, as a matter of
course, persevere in the practice of baptizing their
converts in water."* To this it is added, by way of
depreciating this ordinance still further, and showing
that it is of no binding force upon us, that the
Saviour himself did not baptize, and that Paul
avows that he was sent "not to baptize, but to
preach the Gospel."
In respect to this last argument, the practice of
the Saviour is altogether foreign from the question
at issue. The inquiry is not, whether He baptized,
but whether he commanded his followers to baptize.
It would be easy to suggest reasons which may have
led him to abstain from administering the ordinance,
if it were worth while to discuss a point which does
not properly belong to the subject in hand.
The example of Paul may be fairly quoted as
against those who magnify baptism above the preach
ing of the Word and prayer, and who even make it
* Gurney.

12 The Two Sacraments.
the specific and exclusive instrument of regenera
tion. It is quite- conclusive in dealing with these
parties to quote his declaration: "Christ sent me
not to baptize but to preach the Gospel." But it can
avail nothing to those who object to water baptism
altogether, for it is certain that he did sometimes
administer this ordinance (1 Cor. i. 14-16), and
equally certain that where he did not baptize his
converts, they were baptized by other ministers
under his sanction.
The other argument, that the example of the
Apostles is not binding upon us, proceeds upon
very dangerous ground. The question is, " Did the
Saviour institute baptism with water as a permanent
ordinance in his church f" In support of the affirma
tive of this question, we cite his last command to his
Apostles, and show by their practice how they under
stood it. On the opposite side it is contended, that
when he directed the twelve to baptize the nations
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost, he had no reference to water bap
tism, but simply to the baptism of the Spirit. That
it must require some nerve even to suggest a con
struction of these words, which does so much violence
to them, will be conceded by all who are accustomed
to read the Saviour's teachings without considering?

The Two Sacraments. 13
how they are to tell upon favorite theories. Allow
ing that the whole Jewish ritual was now to be re
placed by a spiritual worship ; that the word baptism,
with its derivatives frequently occurs in the New
Testament in a sense purely metaphorical ; that there
is no mention made of water in this passage ; and that
Jesus had himself contrasted the baptism of the Spirit,
the privilege of his own followers, with the water
baptism of John:* of what weight are these con
siderations, to set aside the clear, obvious import of
this command? The simple meaning of baptize is
to wash with water. There is not the slightest inti
mation that the Saviour used the word here in a
figurative sense. The presumption that he did so
use it, is a sheer gratuity, proceeding upon princi
ples of interpretation, which, if generally applied,
must destroy the Bible as a rule of faith and prac
tice, by making it the oracle of whatever sentiments
it may suit the interests of individuals and sects to
have it utter.
The example here presented is, indeed, a very sig
nificant one. For we not only have the Saviour's
language, but the interpretation his Apostles put
upon it. It is not denied that they understood him
* Vide Gurney.

14 The Two Sacraments.
to refer to water baptism; and that they went forth
in every direction, baptizing all their converts with
water. The adverse scheme, then, is loaded with
these /owr assumptions.
1. It assumes that our Saviour did not intend that
his disciples should baptize with water, although he
gave them no hint that he referred to any other bap
tism. 2. It assumes that his disciples and followers were
clothed with power to baptize with the Holy Ghost. If
he did not command them to baptize with water, of
course he commanded them to baptize with the Holy
Ghost. It is the common faith of the readers of the
New Testament — certainly of all evangelical Chris
tians, of whatever name — that it is a Divine prero
gative to dispense the Holy Ghost. It was the grand
distinction between the baptism of Christ and that
of John the Baptist, as stated by the latter, " I indeed
baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with
the Holy Ghost and with fire." And accordingly, he
said to the Apostles after his resurrection, "Ye shall
be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence."
Where is the scriptural proof that this baptism could
be conferred by one mortal upon another? The
very idea is revolting to every sentiment of the re
newed heart. And among all the flagrant impieties

The Two Sacraments. 15
,of those corrupt churches which have lorded it over
the consciences of men, there are few things more
odious than the claim that they are empowered to
confer the Holy Ghost.
To elude this difficulty, it is urged that the follow
ers of Christ are here instructed to baptize with the
Holy Ghost, since it would be through their mediation
or instrumentality that this baptism should be admin
istered, even as they would be the instruments of con
verting sinners by the preaching of the Gospel. But
this will not avail. There is a wide and palpable
difference between preaching the word or using any
mere means, and bestowing the Holy Ghost. The
one must, from the nature of the case, be performed
by a creature, except, in those rare instances, where
Jehovah may see fit to become himself a messenger
to one of his creatures. The other, no less from
the nature of the case, must proceed directly from
the Deity. The Holy Spirit is, by pre-eminence,
his gift. And when we consider who the Spirit is,
the incongruity of a sinful creature being clothed
with the prerogative of bestowing him upon other
sinners, cannot but strike every mind imbued with
the least reverence for the Supreme Being. It is,
therefore, a fatal objection to the doctrine that we
are examining, that it assumes that the disciples of

16 The Two Sacraments.
Christ were clothed with power to baptize with the
Holy Ghost.
3. A third assumption chargeable upon this doc
trine is, that the Apostles, to whom the last commis
sion was addressed, and who received it immediately
from their Master's lips, were not so competent to under
stand its import as persons living eighteen centuries after
ward, and that they did actually mistake its meaning.
For it is not denied that they understood him to refer
to water baptism. And this was their interpretation
of his language subsequent to the day of Pentecost,
and when they were anointed with the Holy Spirit. It
was after the " Spirit of Truth" had come upon them,
who was to "guide them into all truth," that they
fell into this grave error, and set up water-baptism
as the initiatory rite of the Christian church. Is not
this dangerous ground ? Is it not impeaching the
inspiration of the Apostles, or impugning the accu
racy of the New Testament writers ? Can those who
espouse these views seriously believe that the twelve
were "filled with the Holy Ghost" when they so
grievously mistook their Master's teaching on a
point of great and lasting moment to the church?
If they erred here, why may they not have erred
elsewhere? What is Divine in the New Testament,
and what human ? By what tests are we to discri-

The Two Sacraments. 17
minate between the true and the false ? What cer
tainty attaches to anything pertaining to the Gospel
of Christ?
It is with a painful reluctance I give utterance to
these sentiments. I have every reason which per
sonal friendships and even hereditary descent can
supply, to cherish an unfeigned respect for a society
which bears on its roll of members names like those
of Wm. Penn, and Elizabeth Fry, and Joseph John
Gurney. But in studying the sacred Scriptures, I
can know no man after the flesh. Men, it is well
known, are often better than their speculative opin
ions ; and what is stUl more apposite here, serious,
useful, devout men may adopt erroneous and hurtful
principles of interpreting the Bible, without following
out those principles to their legitimate consequences.
With every disposition to come to a different con
clusion, I find myself shut up to the conviction that
the method of interpreting the word of God, of which
specimens have just been presented, is adapted to
strip it of aU certainty and all authority. If we may
assume that the Apostles erred in explaining their
Master's doctrines, what confidence can we place in
their competency? And of what value are their
writings to us ?
Nor is this all. If they erred, who amongst us can
2*

18 The Two Sacraments.
possibly attain to any certainty in religion? We
have, it is true, the promise of the Spirit to illumi
nate us. But we have surer evidence that they were
" filled with the Holy Ghost," than we can have, in
any given case, that we are under his plenary guid
ance. If he left them to mistake the meaning of a
simple command, couched in the plainest terms, and
relating to a point of great practical importance,
with what reason or modesty can we hope to be pre
served from error ?
In truth, is there not something strangely presum
ing and visionary in the assumption, that we are
better qualified to expound such a command — ad
dressed, let it be remembered, directly to them — than
they were themselves ? Suppose it were possible to
recall Peter, and John, and Paul (who, though not
with them on Olivet, received a similar commission
from the Saviour's lips); if we could bring these
three illustrious men back to the world again for a
little, can you imagine a scene more curious than
that of a man of this nineteenth century, no matter
of what country, tongue, or sect, standing up before
them and saying: "You entirely misapprehended
the meaning of your Master in his parting injunc
tion to you. You understood him to send you forth
to disciple the nations and baptize them with water;

The Two Sacraments. 19
whereas, what he meant was, that you should not
use water at all, but baptize them with the Holy
Ghost." Can you imagine, I say, anything more cu
rious, I might almost say more ludicrous, than a
scene like this ? And yet we have the substance of
the thing whenever the claim is advanced by any set
of men and for whatever end, that they understand
the utterances of Christ better than the Apostles did.
4. The fourth assumption alluded to as involved
in the scheme is, that the example of the Apostles in
this matter is not of necessity binding upon us; and the
fact of their baptizing with water, does not establish
our obligation to conform to this usage. That the
Apostles might have observed some customs which
are not obligatory, upon us, may be conceded with
out affecting the present question. This question is
as specific as it is important. Our Saviour gave a
command respecting baptism, which, it is admitted by
all, is of perpetual obligation. Did he, in this com
mand, contemplate water baptism? We examine,
in the first place, the proper meaning of the words
and phrases he employs, and are satisfied that what
he enjoined was water baptism. We turn, then, to
those upon whom he laid the command, and who had
a deeper stake in ascertaining its import than any
other human beings ; and we find that they and their

20 The Two Sacraments,
contemporaries, without exception (in so far as the
annals of that day have come down to iis), interpreted
his words of water baptism. Under these circum
stances, and contemplating their example in this
aspect, we maintain that we are bound to conform to
the usage they initiated, that we must interpret and
obey the command as they did.
And here we rest the argument, to show that our
Saviour instituted baptism with water as an ordinance
of perpetual obligation in his church; and that no
man nor sect may lawfully annul, disparage, or ne
glect it, on the ground that the present is a spiritual
dispensation, and that God will be worshipped " in
spirit 'and in truth.'-^
The same train of argument so obviously applies
to the command respecting the Eucharist, that it
would be superfluous to traverse the ground a se
cond time in presenting it. There is one fact, how
ever, of too much significance to be omitted here.
These two ordinances, it is claimed, were part and
parcel of the Mosaic economy, and, as such, were
not designed to be perpetuated under the Christian
dispensation. And yet, the institution of the Lord's
Supper was made the subject of a special revelation
to the apostle Paul, after the Savi.our's ascension. (See
1 Cor. xi. 23.) " For T have received of the Lord that

The Two Sacraments. 21
which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus,
the same night in which he was betrayed, took
bread," &c. It will not be denied that the new dis
pensation had commenced some time before this
communication was made. How inexplicable, then,
on the theory we are opposing, that the Saviour
should have revealed to his apostle all these particu
lars respecting the institution of a rite which was
not intended to be handed down to after-times: and
how mysterious that this very apostle should have
been left under the illusion that the churches were
on no account to neglect the due observance of this
ordinance; and that he must carefully instruct them
how to celebrate it. Can any one believe that this
was an "illusion?" and if so, can you assign any
motive for the revelation?
To urge, in reply to all this, that living, as we do,
under a spiritual dispensation, we do not need the aid
of these ordinances, is a plea altogether inadmissible.
Where God has spoken, as He has in this case, there
is an end to argument and speculation. However
undesigned, there is great presumption in saying
that we do not require rites which He has seen fit to
prescribe for our observance. We could have no
right to take this ground, even though we might not
be able to trace the connection between these ordi-

22 The Two Sacraments.
nances and the ends proposed to be accomplished by
them. The veneration we owe to the Deity imposes
it upon us as of prime obligation that we should
believe all his measures to be dictated by the high
est wisdom, however inexplicable they may be to
us. In the present case, there is scarcely room to
invoke this principle; for the existing arrangement
is shrouded in no such mystery. To a few minds
peculiarly constituted or trained in a certain way,
¦positive religious ordinances may seem to "be a su
perfluity, having no proper adaptation to promote
the spiritual growth and comfort of the soul. It is
equally certain that the great mass of the race, in so
far as they have been brought under the sway of
Christianity, have found these ordinances eminently
suited to their moral necessities, and invaluable as
"means of grace." The allegation, then, that they
are "not needful," is open to two grave objections:
1. It assumes that God is less competent than man
to pronounce on what may be the best method of
training a sinful race for heaven; and 2. It conflicts
with the common experience of mankind.
It would require too much time to examine the
other particulars in which (it is contended) the ordi
nary worship of the Christian denominations contra
venes the command to worship God "in spirit and in

The Two Sacraments. 23
truth." But a few words may be allowed on the
subject of the ministry.
Every one must be aware of the strong disappro
bation with which those we are now arguing with
regard the institution of an officia], permanent min
istry in the church. They hold that it is highly im
proper to educate men for the ministry, to ordain them,
to install them, or to support them. "The faculty of
the Christian ministry (it is maintained), is a gift of
the Spirit, which cannot be rightly exercised other--
wise than under the direct and immediate influence
of that Spirit." If it is the will of the Spirit that
an individual should address his brethren, he will
manifest it to him at the time by a secret and power
ful impression on his mind, instructing him not only
when he is to speak, but what he is to say. When,
as he patiently waits before God, "he apprehends
that the secret command has gone forth towards
him, vocally to address either the congregation in
preaching or the Almighty in prayer; he obeys the
mandate of his Lord, and speaks as the Spirit gives
him utterance."* It is only in this way and under
these circumstances that either preaching or praying
is proper as a part of public worship. The spiritu-
* Gurney.

24 The Two Sacraments.
ality of the New Dispensation involves the plenary-
presence of the Holy Spirit as a Revealer and an In-
spirer* equally as in the days of the Apostles. God
prepares ministers now precisely as he did then.
They only may preach whom he inspires to preach.
And whether one is thus inspired or not, he must
judge for himself by his own inward exercises.
On these principles there «an, of course, be no
regular and successive ministry. A theological edu-
•cation, or any education, prosecuted with a view to
the ministry, is not simply inexpedient, but unwar
rantable — an invasion of the Spirit's prerogative.
Any one, male or female, may be called by the Spirit
to exercise the gifts of ministry at any moment, and
on his conviction that he is so called, his brethren
must defer to him as one. who is taught of God, and
charged with a Divine message to them.
If it were proposed to discuss this topic, it would
be obvious to suggest how liable individuals must be
to mistake their own feelings for the inspiration of
the Spirit. A theory held by so many intelligent
and devout believers, should be treated with respect.
But even they cannot fail to have, observed that the
* I use these terms because I know of no others which express
with the same precision what is intended by them.

The Two Sacramento. 25
principle On which it rests, of immediate inspiration
and revelation, has been the heart and core of that
fanaticism whose disastrous effects, in various ages
and countries, they have been among the foremost to
deplore and censure. The most august and solemn
character in which a fellow mortal can approach me
is that of a legate from God, intrusted with a message
to me. My instant and urgent demand is, "Show
me your credentials" When this requisition was
addressed to the Apostles, they could point to the '
signs and wonders wrought through their instru
mentality. Let the pretended messenger from hea
ven authenticate his commission in a similar way,
and I will acknowledge him — provided there be
nothing in his communication incompatible with the
written revelation God has already given us; for
" He cannot deny Himself," Or, if a miracle be not
wrought, let there be some other evidence equally
unequivocal, that he who stands before me is "a man
sent from God." Of what force would it be for him
to say: "I have a full conviction that God has in
structed me to speak to you ; the impression on my
mind to that effect is irresistible, and I must deliver
iny message." The natural and conclusive reply
would be, "Your impressions and convictions may
satisfy you, and you may do right to endeavor to
3

26 The Two Sacraments.
obey them. But they can be of no weight with me.
Men have had an equally strong persuasion that they
ought to propagate the most pernicious doctrines, or
to do the most atrocious things. If Gt)d has com
missioned you to come-with a message to me, he must
have given you some credentials less equivocal than
your own " impressions." Produce them, and I will
hear you.
This demand, it strikes me, would be perfectly
reasonable ; and I see no way in which it could be
met. It appears to me to furnish a very conclusive
argument against the theory with which we are
dealing. "But may not the argument be turned with equal
effect against the common doctrine of the ministry?"
Certainly not; at least, so far as the Protestant
churches are concerned. For the ministry set up no
claim to inspiration. They make no pretensions to
new and direct revelations from God. All they at
tempt is to explain and enforce the written word ; to
preach what is there recorded, and expound what
every one has ia his possession. Not only so, but
they send every hearer to the Bible, to examine for
himself, as the Bereans did, whether the teaching of
the Sanctuary accords with the law and the testi
mony, and to receive or reject it on his own respon-

The Two Sacraments. 27
sibility to God. This is a widely different thing from
making every one who essays to exercise the minis
try, an inspired teacher.
Aside from this, the question whether our Saviour
instituted a perpetual ministry in the church is a
simple question of fact. Turning to the record, we
find it stated that in his last command to his disciples,
already quoted, he directed them to " go into all the
world and preach the Gospel to every creature ;" add
ing, for their encouragement, "Lo, I am with you
always, even unto the end of the world.'^ The Apostles,
as soon as they were anointed by the Spirit, began
to "preach the Gospel." They organized churches,
and appointed men, styled indifferently " elders" and
" bishops," to preach the Gospel to them. These offi
cers were instructed to ordain others to succeed them
in the exercise of their preaching and governing
functions. These historical facts are too notorious
to be denied. We have, then, the clear, palpable
authority of the Saviour's command, and the exam
ple and teachings of the Apostles, to show that there
was a permanent, ofificial ministry in the church.
We dare not claim for this ministry the awful
prerogatives ascribed to their ministers by the Society
whose -vie-ws have been noticed in this lecture. We
do not believe ministers are inspired. We do not

28 The Two Sacraments.
regard them as standing on the same ground with
the Apostles. Our ideas of the ministry, in its legiti
mate sphere and proper functions, fall far below the
lofty range of this theory, But we believe the office
to rest upon a scriptural warrant, as we certainly feel
it to be vital to the true prosperity of the church.
That unworthy men, who have no Divine call, often
assume this office, no one will deny. But the coun
terfeit does not disproY.e the existence of genuine
coin. In respect to the pecuniary support of the ministry,
it was observed, a moment or two since, that the ad
vocates of an exclusively spiritual dispensation, dis
card this idea from their system. Theoretically they
do, but practically they do not.
The obligation of the church on this point is so
explicitly laid down in the New Testament, not by
way of inference or recommendation, but by positive
rule, that all argument may be waived here except
the denominational one. Let it suffice that our entire
doctrine is conceded in statements like the following :
" We freely acknowledge, that there is an obligation
upon such to whom God sends, or among whom he
raiseth up a minister, that, if need be, they minister to
his necessities; and that it is lawful for him to receive

The Two Sacraments. 29
what is necessary and convenient."* " If at any time
the ministers we plead for be called of God, so as
the work of the Lord hinder them from the use of
their trades, they take what is freely given them by
such to whom they have communicated spirituals ;
and having food and raiment, are therewith content."*
" The general rule is to be admitted, that the preacher
of the Gospel, during the periods when his time is ex
clusively devoted to his ministerial functions, may pro
perly derive his sustenance from those among whom
he is thus engaged."f And again, as to the usage of
the society, " When they (ministers) are travelling
from place to place, and when their whole time is thus
exclusively devoted to the work of the Gospel, the
necessary supply of their outward wants is not with
held from them."f This is not only reasonable and
scriptural, but it is the identical doctrine and prac
tice of our own and other churches. The principle
is, that when men, who are " called of God", devote
their whole time to the work of the ministry, they
are entitled to a support from the people among
whom they labor. So we preach, and so we prac
tise. So they preach, and so they practise. They
find the principle not incompatible with a spiritual
* Robert Barclay, t Gurney.
3*

30 The Two Sacraments.
economy and spiritual worship. Why, then, inveigh
against the principle as incorporated in our system,
as one which must necessarily vitiate our reUgion
and our worship ? That the principle is liable to
abuse in all societies is very certain. But the objec
tion is made to the principle itself, not to the mere
abuse of it. And we must in candor say, it is not
made with a due regard to consistency.
To allege that in the one case there is only an "oc
casional" and " temporary" appropriation to meet the
expenses of ministers while on a journey, or, in any
event, while they are devoting all their time to spirit
ual things; and in the other, a stated, uniform stipend
designed to carry them through the entire year, is of
no force, unless it can be shown that in the latter case
they are not occupied " for the entire year" with their
spiritual functions. Our system presumes them to
be thus occupied. It requires that they give them
selves wholly to their work. And for the most part
they do this. They forego all secular avocations,
that their time and powers may be dedicated to re
ligious purposes. On what ground are they to be
excluded from the operation of the principle, that
" the preacher of the Gospel is entitled to a subsistence
during the periods when his time is exclusively de
voted to his ministerial functions ?" And if the pre-

The Two Sacraments, 31
sence of a minister who is supported /or the time being
by the people among whom he is laboring, does not
prejudice the spirituality of Divine worship; how
should such worship be injured by the ministrations
of one who, devoting his whole time to the spiritual
well being of the people, receives from them his en
tire support ?
Will it be said that " the principle, as conceded,
does not go beyond the point of 'a subsistence;''
whereas, in many instances, among other denomina
tions it is carried to the verge of extravagance and
luxury ?" Those whom it concerns may respond to
this argument. It is answered in so far as the
churches in this country are implicated, by stating
that the great body of the ministers, whether pastors
or missionaries, receive less than will suffice to main
tain them.
Under these circumstances the whole objection
falls to the ground ; since the practice of the different
denominations is shown to be quite within the scope
of the rule which has been prescribed on the oppo
site side as just and proper.
These are topics not very often introduced into
our pulpits, and still less attractive to the ministry
than to their people. But we seem to owe something

32 The Two Sacraments.
to that large, intelligent, and influential body of peo
ple arou.nd us, who claim that their worship is spirit
ual and scriptural, while that of the other Christian
sects is disfigured with Levitical rites. It is due to
them, and to their numerous descendants and kins
men who are mingled with our congregations, that
we should occasionally set forth the grounds on which
we believe certain /orms and ordinances in public wor
ship, to be of universal and perpetual obligation.
We would not invade their Christian liberty. But
neither are we willing that even the humblest indi
vidual amongst us should be left to suppose that we
must discard all positive ordinances, if we would
worship God "in spirit and in truth." We have not
so learned Christ ; and of our friends who differ from
us, we have only to say, as regards this matter of
worship, we would that they were both almost and
altogether, such as we are.
I have thus, at greater length than was intended,
noticed the two opposite systems which seem to con
travene the true purport of the utterance that "God
is a Spirit, and they who worship him must worship
him in spirit and in truth ;" the system which would
revive in the Christian church the obsolete rites of
Judaism, and the system which would suppress even

The Two Sacraments. 33
the ceremonies and ordinances expressly instituted
by the Saviour.
Our own beloved church occupies a middle ground
between these two extremes. It retains those rites,
and those only, which are authorized by Christ and
his Apostles. And it continually admonishes all
who participate in its services, that however simple
and scriptural the forms they use, no worship can be
acceptable to God unless they worship him "in spirit
and in truth"
Be it our care thus to worship. Let us seek above
all things to have our hearts imbued -mth the spirit
of real devotion ; for, with forms or -without forms,
there is, in God's esteem, no true worship except that
which flows from the heart.

YALE UNIVERSI-TY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 0897