Benjamin Txicker Tanner.
jenjamirc Sucker (Banner
W^Dedieate
These "Stray-Thoughts"
To the Ministry and Laity
of our Church;
The Product of their sale
We Dedicate
To the Publishing Department of the same.
The Author.
COKR E SPOXD'E NCE.
The Christian Recorder, Office 631 Pine St.,
Phila., Aug. 31st, 1903.
Dear Bishop Tanner:
Having read with a great deal of pleasure your Stray-Thought
Series: "Infant Baptism/' "Confirmation," "The Lord's Supper,"
and "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church: What do I mean?"
I am convinced that it would be of great interest to the Church if
the same were put in pamphlet form, and sold throughout the coun¬
try ; and at the same time it would help to bring in a small revenue
to the Book Concern.
Will, you, dear Bishop, consent to this and make the necessary
improvements and corrections returning the same to me for pub¬
lication ?
Thanking you for past favors,
X am yours truly,
John H. Collett.
REPLY.
Philadelphia, Pa., Sept. 1, 190B.
Bev. J. II. Collett, D. D.:
Dear Brother Yours received. In answer to the request
made it is not in me to answer you other., than by a hearty and
sincere, Yes. How could I answer otherwise? Did I not give
the Concern you represent twenty of the best years of my life?
And have I not given the "Review," the total receipts of my:
"Negro in Iioly Writ?" and "The Southern Christian Recorder"
the receipts of the "Genesis of the Negro Church?" Therefore, the
dear old "'Recorder," as dear to my heart, as any, in so far as these
"Stray-Thoughts" are concerned, is abundantly welcome to what¬
ever may accrue from the sale of the proposed booklet.
Indeed I am glad to have them sent forth in the way you sug¬
gest, glad for your sake officially; and glad for the Church's sake
doctrinallv. They are effusions, of course, written on the spur of
the moment, as are all the papers of the Stray-Thought Series; yet
I have an idea that they meet a want, especially the ones you select.
Infant baptism is by no means as generally practiced, as it ought
to be; nor is the necessity of confirmation really appreciated. The
same may also be said of the Lord's Supper. As'to the declaration
of the Creed, our belief in the Holy Catholic Church, the paper
speaks for itself. A close reading of these papers, with the help
that those ministers may find in the books which they possess to a
much larger extent than they are credited with having, at least,
with studying, will make these papers much stronger in the tenets
of our faith and practice. Read the papers, we say to our brethren,
and then supplement what they say, by reading more widely the
deliverances of the men who are authority upon the same.
Brethren, if you are not in possession of theological works in
genera], and such a work as McClintock and Strong's Cyclopeadia,
m particular, take your cigar and tobacco money and get it; and
if you have not enough, go before your people and ask for whatever
is lacking; and they will give it.
With the hope that God may be glorified,—if only a little, the
Church be strengthened, and you, Manager Collett, not disap¬
pointed, I take pleasure in subscribing myself
Your brother in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ,
Benj. Tucker Tanner.
2908 Diamond St.
Stray '1'houghts
5
I.
INFANT BAPTISM.
The reading of Article XVII of our Confession of Faith, is as
follows:
"Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference,
whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not bap¬
tized, but it is also a sign of regeneration or the new birth. The
baptism of young children is io be retained in the Church."
It is to the statement we have italicised, that we wish to call
especial attention in this brief Thought. As just declared, it is to
be brief; for upon no one subject of Christian faith, would it be
possible to launcli farther out into the deep. Not even the Lord's
Supper is capable of more extended discussion, especially of the
polemical kind.
As shown above our Article XVII concludes with the statement:
'"'The baptism of young children is to be retained in the Church"—
young children, remember, that is, infants. This, declares the
Article, is to be retained in the Church; not to be introduced, not
to be resurrected, but retained; and the word, retain, has the same
force, as when Paul, speaking of Onesimus, says to Philemon:
"Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might
have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel." That is, Ones¬
imus is already with me, and I was greatly inclined to keep him.
The Peformers simply resolved to retain or keep the rite of infant
baptism in the Church as they found it. Some rites they abolished;
this one they would keep.
Allen and his coadjutors took this Article of their faith from
the American Methodists; and these from the Wesleyans of Eng¬
land; and these from the Established Church; and these from the
Iioman Catholics by whom it is connected with the rites and cere¬
monies practiced in the Primitive or first age of the Church general.
So universal has been the practice of infant baptism, that McClin.-
^ Stray Thoughts
tock and Strong in their Cyclopedia (Article, Baptism) do not
hesitate to say: "The Christian Churches generally baptize infants
as well as adult believers, and this is believed to have been the
practice of the Church from the Apostolic age."* Is proof needed
of so strong and sweeping a statement as this ? We have it.
First, in the sequence of what Irenaeus (A. D. 120-140) wrote:
"Christ came to save all—all, I say, who through him are bom
again to God, infants and' little ones, and boys and young men,
and the aged."
Second, in the remarks of Origen (A. D. 185), possibly the most
learned of the early fathers, who says: "Infants are baptized for
the remission of sins;" and he gives as a reason that "none is
free from pollution, though his life be but one day on earth."
Third, and most decisive of all, infant baptism is seen to have
been the practice of the early Church, in the following excerpt,
taken from Harold Browne's great work on the "Thirty-nine Arti¬
cles" (page 675) :
"In his day (Cyprian, A. D. 250) there arose a question as to
what day a child should be baptized. Fidus, an African Bishop,
wrote to him to inquire, whether baptism, like circumcision, should
be always deferred till the eighth day, or whether if need required
it might be administered at once. An answer was returned by
Cyprian and a council of sixty-six bishops. The unanimous judg¬
ment of the council was that there was no need of such delay, for
the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to none that is born.
If anything could be an obstacle to persons obtaining the grace of
baptism, they argue, adults would rather be hindered by their
grievous sins. But if no such person is kept from baptism, how
much less infants who have no sin, but such as they derive from
inheritance from Adam."
The geneial command to baptize all nations may naturally be inter¬
preted to include the baptism of infants; and the mention of the baptism
oi the three thousand on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:40), and of five
ouseholds (Acts 10:48, 16:15, 33! I Cor. 1:16, 16:15, where the presence
or^ 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 their children (Acts
2.38, 3:25), make out a strong probability, to say the least, that infants
were baptized by the apostles."
lhe above is but the first of three propositions, contributed by Dr.
Philip Schaff, to the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, Vol. I, p. 209.
Stray Thoughts
7
In their set opposition, however, to infant baptism, our good
Baptist brethren will have none of this, although it brings the
custom of infant baptism within a century and a half of the Apos¬
tles; and both in their practice and profession, limit the Sacrament
to those capable of belief. Their words are: "We believe the
Scriptures teach that Christian baptism is the immersion in water
of a believer." That is, the capacity of believing is an all necessary
prerequisite to baptism. But a child has not this capacity, they
argue; and because it has not, their uniform custom is to send their
little ones into the great Presence "unwashed," to use Paul's figure
of speech (1 Cor. G:ll) ; and in worse condition, as Burkitt says,
"than were children under the law."
Our answer, however, is, if such argument as this proves any¬
thing, it proves too much; for if an infant is not to
be baptized because it cannot believe, neither can it go
to heaven, for the exercise of faith in the Lord Jesus,
is declared by Scripture to be an all necessary prerequisite
to admittance there. "Believe, and thou shalt be saved,"
is everywhere the word. But as we have said, the child
cannot believe; therefore says the logic of these Baptist brethren,
the child cannot be saved.* To such logic as this we say: Not so;
not so; and until they are prepared to surrender heaven, we are
similarly unprepared to surrender Baptism the door to heaven.
Believe and be baptized. Believe and be saved. And if not, why
not ? The Sacraments of the Church, and the heaven of the Church
are both of God. Let none assume to be wiser than He, and in
anyway nullify what lie has ordained. But the child is incapable
of belief; they continue to cry. Could the Jewish child of eight
days believe? "It is an acknowledged fact," says Browne, "that
circumcision among the Jews was the typical and corresponding
rite to baptism in the Church * * * St. Paul himself draws
"The very helplessness of infants is, in this case, their protection. We
cannot too much remember that God's gifts come from Him and not
from us; from His mercy, not our merits, our faith, or our obedience.
The only obstacle which infants can offer to grace is the taint of orig¬
inal corruption. But to say that original sin is a bar to receiving re¬
mission of original sin (which is one chief grace of this Sacrament), is
a positive contradiction in terms."
—Browne's Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 619.
Stray Thoughts
the parallel between this Jewish rite and the Christian rite of Bap¬
tism, which latter he calls 'circumcision made without hands/"
(Col. 2:11-12).**
But enough; lest we nullify our promise to be brief.
"From this point of view, baptism is the Christian circumcision, the
new symbolic expression of the moral change which St. Paul and his
opponents alike deemed necessary, though they understood it in a differ¬
ent sense from him."
—Findlay's Exposition of Col. 2:11.
Stray Thoughts
9
II.
CONFIRMATION.
In talking with an Episcopal clergyman a few day ago, we had
occasion to remark: "Both your Church and ours have the faculty
of taking things by half. At least the Protestant whole really
taken by your Church, is interpreted by High Churchmen as
though it were only a half; while men in our Church, like Bishop
Coppin, for instance, interpret the Episcopal half we have taken
as though wo had been sufficiently wise, to take the whole. The
reference was to the ministry in the Episcopal Church, and to
infant baptism in our own.
As it relates to the ministry in the Protestant Episcopal Church,
the men of the party known as High Church, arc fond of calling
themselves priests; just as though their Twenty-Eighth Article by
means of which alone, priestlincss would be possible did not say:
"T'ransubstantiation (or the Change of the substance of Bread and
Wine) in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved by Holy Writ;
but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the
nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many super¬
stitions."
This being the belief of the Church they represent, any and all
ideas of a priest proper, are nullified and made impossible; for
where no sacrifice is to be offered, there can be no real priesthood;
and where no priesthood, there can be 110 priests. Who is a priest
but one who is especially set apart to offer sacrifice?—especially,
we say, for while other duties of the sacred office come to him, it
is his especially, to offer sacrifice. Says the Century, in defining
the word: "One who is duly authorized to be a minister of sacred
things; one whose stated duty it is to perform, on behalf of the
community, certain publjc religious acts, particularly religious
sacrifice," But Protestantism knows no such sacrifice. Christ
I0 Stray Thoughts
died once, is its watchword. "He died once, says Grill, who speaks
for us all, "in reference to the repeated sacrifices of the old law.
In view, therefore, of this fact, it is most illogical for the High
Churchmen to talk of priests in the Episcopal Church priests,
men whose primal duty it is to offer sacrifice. Roman Catholics
after whom they take their cue, presumably have such sacrifice in
their doctrine of the Mass; and therefore in their definition of the
word, priest, say: "It is the office of a priest, according to the Ponti¬
fical, Ho offer, bless, rule, preach and baptize.' First (mark the
word), he is empowered to offer that sacrifice of the Mass which is
the centre of all the Church's worship."
We say, then, that until the Twenty-Eighth Article of the famous
Thirty-Nine is repealed, and instead one proclaimed that will not
only accept Transubstantiation; but will also strip Article XXIII
which speaks of the Ministry, of its vagueness, and reordain in
good strong English the faith they are supposed to believe—until
this is done it is highly illogical for the ministers of the Epis¬
copal Church to talk of being priests; instead in the words of their
own writers, it is in place to ask: "Why is the term retained ?"
Singularly enough in the matter of infant baptism, to use a
common colloquialism, we are "in the same boat." With a creed
that is logical and in harmony with itself, High Churchmen illogi-
cally speak of priests as they do also of altars; with us, with a
creed that can scarcely be called harmonious, there are those among
us who logically speak of Confirmation as a necessity, looking upon
it as the natural corollary of the infant baptism proclaimed in
Article XVII. And is it not so? What is Confirmation? No
better answer can possibly be given than that found in Staunton's
Dictionary of the (P. E.) Church in the quotation he makes and
sanctions from a writer whom he does not care to name: "We are
told by historians,* that at the age of thirteen the children were
Confirmation, in the primitive church, followed immediately upon
baptism, and was made ordinarily a part of baptism. Tertullian and
Cyril of Jerusalem, both speak of the catechumens as first receiving bap¬
tism, and then immediately on their coming out of the water, receiving
chrism and imposition of hands. The separation of confirmation from
baptism arose, sometimes from difficulty of obtaining a bishop, some¬
times from the reconciling of heretics, who were confirmed but not re-
baptized, and latterly from the referring the confirmation of infants; it
being thought good that though baptized, they should delay their con-
Stray Thoughts
II
publicly examined before the congregation, in order to renew the
covenant which their parents had made for them in their infancy,
and to take upon themselves their obligations of the divine law."
Precisely; and the very reasonableness of the practice is so manifest
that all stand ready to give substantial endorsement to what Philip
Schaff says, in his History of the Church: "Of course, however,
infant baptism is unmeaning, and its practice is a profanation,
except under the guarantee of a Christian education. And it need
to be completed by a subsequent act like confirmation, in which the
child, after due instruction in the gospel, intelligently and freely
confesses Christ, devotes himself to his service, and is thereupon
solemnly admitted to the full communion of the church and to
the sacrament of the Holy Supper."
Is not our Church to-day suffering for the need of such a rite?
We baptize our infants and children and become responsible to
Cod and the Church for their Christian training. But what be¬
comes of them ? Having first toned down, in name, this Holy Sac¬
rament to what we call "christening," we similarly tone down its
lofty significance and truth, until it has become a "mere form and
fashion." The child is baptized to-day, enters upon its life to¬
morrow, and too often, alas, with no more sanctity attached to it,
than before it received the sacred washing of regeneration as
spoken of by Paul (Titus 3:5).
In the interest of Christianity and the Church, in the interest
of the child itself, we would most earnestly plead for the restora¬
tion of this most ancient rite.
None can doubt the purpose of the high churchman to push
forward their movement until the sacrifice of the Mass becomes
the doctrine of the Church.
So none should be allowed to doubt the purpose of all who believe
in infant baptism to push forward, until the rite of Confirmation
be everywhere practiced in our ranks. iSTo law forbids it now, save
the law of custom, but the need is, a law ordering or commanding it.
formation till they were trained and seasoned for serving as soldiers in
the army of Christ. The result has been that after the first ages con¬
firmation became a separate rite from baptism, and we still continue it as
such, believing that so it is more fit for edifying."
—Browne's Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles.
12
Stray Thoughts
III.
THE LOBD'S SUPPEK.
Who has not heard the saying: "What's m a name ?" If we were
to reply: "Almost everything," we would he much nearer the truth
than the average person is willing to concede. No better illustra¬
tion of this, can possibly be presented, than when mention is made
of the Name of the Lord, concerning which it is declared:
"All those qualities (are meant), by which God makes Himself
known to me; the divine majesty and perfections, so far
as these are apprehended or named, as his titles, his
attributes, his will or purpose, his authority, his honor
and glory, his word, his grace, his wisdom, power and goodness, his
worship or service or God Himself." And we are referred to
Psalms 20, 1: "The name of the God of Jacob set thee up on high."
Also, we are referred to Psalms 68:4, and 124:8, and to John
17 :6, when Christ in his prayer to the Father, says:
"I manifested thy name unto the men whom thou gavest me out
of the world."
And scarcely less significant is it when mention is made of the
name of Christ, which in New Testament Scripture, carries with it
the thought of "all those things we are commanded to recognize in
Jesus and to profess of his Messianic dignity, divine authority,
memorable sufferings; the peculiar services and blessings conferred
by him on man, so far as these are believed, confessed, or com¬
manded." And we are referred to Matt. 10:22, John 1:12, and also
to Acts 5 :41, where it is said:
"They therefore departed from the presence of the council, re¬
joicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the
Name."
We have been led thus to introduce the burden of this Stray-
Thought, for tlie reason that the Lord's Supper, or the Lord's
Stray Thoughts
13
Table, is the one name chiefly employed by the writers of the New
Testament Scripture in referring to this Sacrament. Roman Cath¬
olics may speak of the Eucharist, other denominations of the com¬
mon faith, may speak of the Holy Communion, to say nothing of
the names or titles found in the ancient liturgies and to which
Christian Knapp refers, but the inspired writers of the first three
Gospels and the First Corinthian epistle speak as above: The
Lord's Supper or the Lord's Table. So explicit is this, that when
Watson in his Body of Divinity asks the question: What names or
titles in Scripture are given to his sacrament ? briefly summarizes:
First} it is called Mensa Domini, the Lord's Table.
Second, it is called Coena Domini, the Lord's Supper.
We here dovetail in the remark, that we could almost wish for
space to give the lengthened disquisitions of this learned man—and
as wise as they are lengthened—under each of these two heads; but
we write these Thoughts to be read, and we know if we greatly
lengthen them out; they will not be.
It is then of the Lord's Supper that we write. In keeping with
our trend 'of thought and for apt illustration, we ask: Is not the
king's supper, for the king's household? Even so here. Mani¬
festly the Lord's Supper, is for the Lord's household or people, of
every faith or creed, of every race or nation—and we add, for them
only. Our Eighteenth Article of Faith says: "The Supper of the
Lord is not only a sign of love that Christians ought to have among
themselves one for another," etc. Christians, remember; not Metho¬
dists nor Baptists, not Presbyterians nor Congregationalist, but
Christians, their denomination, being what it may. It was so at
the beginning; not an unbelieving hand touched the bread; not an
unbelieving lip, sipped the wine. In very deed it was a communion
of saints, as intimated, if not declared in the ancient creed of the
Apostles. And as it was in the beginning, so has it continued
through the almost two decades of centuries. There is not, nor
has there ever been any such thing as recognition of the Christian
character on the one hand, and denial of the Lord's Supper on the
other; and upon this all agree whether Roman or Greek, whether
Anglican or Lutheran. And when either or any of these deny the
Lord's Supper to the other, it is based upon a denial of their Chris¬
tian character—save with one solitary exception, that of the Bap-
14
Stray Thoughts
tists, who, while recognizing the Christian character of the brethren
of other churches, yet deny them any participancy in the table
which they present.
The Lord's Supper: ghat's in a name? What's in this name?
Precisely what we have seen in the name or phrase: The Name of
God. And precisely what we have seen in the name or phrase: The
Fame of Christ. So here, the Lord's Supper. What fulness on the
part of Christ; as the Lord of all love, of all charity, of all pati¬
ence, of all power, for and to all who accept him. And equally,
what fulness on the part of man. Behold this Supper of the Lord,
admittance to which is faith alone. Are there races of men ? And
nations? And communities? Each is here represented. Are there
diversities of gifts among them? of ministrations? of workings?
Each is represented at this common Supper. He is there who has
the word of wisdom, and he also, who has the word of knowledge.
The man of faith and the man of healing, the man of miracle and
the man of prophecy, by the mighty potency of the name: The
Lord's Supper, each and all the members of his houshold, are seen
to be there, sharing together this common bounty of their Lord.
Nor must any detract from this fulness of the name, by narrow
and selfish interpretation. Therefore, when we have found our¬
selves half-way wishing for a Supper or table that would be pecu¬
liar to us as Methodists, as have the Baptists—a supper or table
to which none could come but Methodists, the loftier knowledge
of the facts just given in relation to this Sacrament of the Lord's
Supper for the Lord's people—this knowledge, we say, simply
rebelled and in thunder tones, cried out: No, this table was not
given to you only, but to all his people, whatever their race, or
class, or condition. If you wish to have a Methodist supper, have
it, but know that it will not be the Lord's Supper, to the enjoy¬
ment of which all may come. Therefore, presume not to put up
bars to hedge off any hungry, starving soul; for remember the word:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son
of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourself." Be
content, therefore, says this same voice, to be the almoners of this
living food, and presume not to administer it in anyway, that will
seem to second your small ambition.
Stray Thoughts
IY.
"I believe in the Holy Catholic Church."—Apostles' Creed.
WHAT DO I MEAN?
More than half a million of our children repeat what is known
as the Apostles' Creed every Sunday; and therein express their
belief in the Holy Catholic Church. What do they mean by such
an expression—Holy Catholic Church? Manifestly not what
they say; for we know that the term, "Catholic/' is ap¬
plied almost universally to the Church of Rome. Ask any
of these half million children in mid-week, if they belong
to that church, and at once you will receive a most em¬
phatic, No. Nor will the reason be the failure, as witnessed on
the part of so many to belong to the church in which they believe.
A man is morally bound to belong to the church in which he be¬
lieves; and not to do so constitutes him a moral derelict. Not so,
however, with our children; and not so with the millions upon mil¬
lions of Protestant and Greek Christians. These all say in sin¬
cerity and faith: "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church," and yet
shrink back from attaching themselves to the church whose head¬
quarters is at Rome, with Pius X as its head.
To explain this, especially on the part of our children, and indeed
on the part of our adults, is the object of this Stray-Thought; and
to it we invite the especial consideration of both classes.
To what church is allusion made in this expression of faith, and
called the Holy Catholic Church ? Let us see: We find it, as said
above, in what is known in ecclesiastical literature as the Apostles'
Creed. Not that the Apostles wrote it; especially not as a writer
under the name of Augustine has it: "Peter," says he, "wrote, 'I
believe in God the Father Almighty;' John, 'Maker of heaven and
earth,' and so on. As lias been intimated, it is now conceded that
the creed in question, in its present form at least, does not go be¬
yond A. D. 400. In its present form, we say, for as is well known,
Stray Thoughts
it was not originally as it is now. According to Murdock, in his
edition of Mosheim's Institutes, the Apostles' Creed of A. D. 400
was as follows:
"I believe in God, the Father Almighty; and in Jesus Christ, his
only begotten Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary by
the Holy Ghost, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, buried, arose
from the dead on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and sits at
the right hand of the Father; whence he will come to judge the
living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Church; the
remission of sins; and the resurrection of the body."
Without stopping to notice the difference between this creed, as
it then was and is, we concern ourselves with that that relates to
the matter in hand, to wit, the change from "the Holy Church"
to "the Holy Catholic Church." How comes this ? This creed was
first given the church and the world, as were the books of the
New Testament, in Greek; for it may as well be remembered that
in the first centuries Greek and not Latin was the language of the
church; that it, as the Greek displaced the Hebrew as the divine
vehicle of the religious thought of God's people, even so the Latin
displaced the Greek, at least, in so far as the Christianity of the
West in concerned. In keeping therefore with what has just been
said, three things devolve upon us: one to show what the word
"Catholic" signifies; another, how it got into the creed; and lastly,
how comes it, at present, to signify the Church of Eome.
And first, the word, Catholic. What does it signify? We turn to
our English authorities, and the answer they make is as follows:
"Catholic—Universal or general. Applicable to the whole Chris¬
tian Church."—Webster.
"Catholic.—Universal; embracing all; wide-extending. * * * *
fitted to include members of all human races; applied to the Chris¬
tian religion and church."—The Century.
"Catholic.—Of or pertaining to the whole Christian Church."—
Standard Dictionary of the English Language.
It is impossible for us to exhaust what these and other author¬
ities say, bearing upon the matter, in our present Thought. Nothing
remains for us to do, but invite the reader's attention to the dic¬
tionaries mentioned, or, to any others that may be within reach.
The word, Catholic, is of Greek origin, as has been intimated.
Stray Thoughts
*7
That our knowledge of its signification may be broadened, having
consulted the English dictionaries, let us turn to the Greek Lexi¬
cons; for let it be known, that in so far as the meaning of a mere
word is concerned, a smattering knowledge of this dead tongue will
ineasureably suffice. Whence then, the Greek original of our word,
Catholic ?
In Schrevclius, Head Master Major's translation, we have Katho-
likos translated, as—General, universal.
In Edward Robinson we have: Katholikos (kata, olos,) Catho¬
lic, that is general, universal.
In Liddell and Scott we have: Katholikos—General (akklesias—
universal church).
What these lexicographers say as to the signification of the word,
all say; whether they be Christian or heathen. As it relates to the
first or Christian, as Pearson says, the interpretation of the word
must be, as we have seen and is, in keeping with Christian usage or
what the fathers say; and as it relates to the last or pagans, Eobin-
son refers to its use by Epictetus, Polybius, Diodorus, Xenophon;
and the list of Greeks presented by Liddell and Scott embraces a
half score of those who rank as masters of that ancient tongno. With
such an array of authorities as here presented, the signification of
the term, Catholic, is beyond all possibility of dispute. In fact
none does dispute it; for the creed in which it is found is the one
confession of faith to which all subscribe, Roman, Greek and Prot¬
estant.
Second. How did this word get into the creed?
For centuries the faithful were content to express faith in "the
holy Church," as seen in the creed A. D. 400. Why make clearer
and closer definition? Let Harold Browne so ample in his learn¬
ing, tell us:
"The designation Catholicsays he, "used in all the creeds and
throughout the writings of the fathers, originated probably in the
universality of the Christian Church, as distinguished from the
local nationality of the Jewish synagogue. The same Christian
Church, one in its foundation, in its faith and in its sacraments,
was spread universally through all nations. But, as sects and here¬
sies separated by degrees from the one universal Church, forming
small and distinct communions among themselves, the term Oath-
i8
Stray Thoughts
olic, which at first applied to all who embraced the religion of
Jesus, was afterwards used to express that one holy Church, which
existed through all the world, undivided, and intercommunicating
in all its branches, as contradistinguished from heretics and schis¬
matics."
But this account may be objected to, on the ground that its writer
was a staunch Protestant; and doctrinally, the great defender of
the Articles of Faith accepted by the English Reformers. An exam¬
ination, however, will show that his account is substantially the
account given by those of the Roman Church, as to the origin of
the word Catholic, and how it came to be a part of the old creed.
Say Addis and Arnold, speaking for the Roman Church:
"Catholic (general or universal) the word occurs in profane
authors—e. g. in Polybius—but among Christians it received a
special or technical sense, and was applied to the true church,
spread throughout the world, in order to distinguish it from heret¬
ical sects. * * * * As 'heresy,' Clement of Alexandria, tells us,
denotes separation (since heresy signifies individual choice), so the
words 'Catholic Church' imply unity subsisting among many mem¬
bers."
With these two questions answered, the Third, is ready to present
itself for consideration. How is it that the Church of Rome is almost
universally spoken of as the Catholic Church? Before entering
directly upon a repty, it is well enough to recognize the fact that
living as we do among the Christians of the occidental or western
half of the Christian world, we hear little else than what pertains
to it. Among us it is true that the Roman Church largely monopo¬
lizes the name Catholic, yet such an authority as the "Standard,"
in defining the term, says: (1) "Of or pertaining to the Church of
Rome, as according to its title, the Apostolic Catholic Roman
Church. (2) Of or pertaining to the Anglican Church; Anglo-.
Catholic." The daughter of this last mentioned church in America,
the Protestant Episcopal, scarcely a decade of years ago formally
discussed the question of a change of names substituting for the
Protestant Episcopal Church, the title, the Catholic Church of
America.
The same is yet more true of what is known as the Greek Church,
whose official title is: "The Holy Orthodox Catholic and'Apostolic
Stray Thoughts
*9
Church." Writing recently from Moscow, Frank G. Carpenter,
says: "We Americans are so far away from the Greek Church that
we have little idea of its numbers. It is one of the great churches
of the world, surpassing any other in Christendom, outside the
Roman Catholic. * * * * The Greek Catholic Church differs from
Ine Roman Catholic Church in that it denies the supremacy of the
Pope and allows its members to read and study the Bible in the
native tongue and also in allowing the priests to marry. In the
Roman Catholic Church a priest must be single, in the Greek Cath¬
olic Church every candidate for the priesthood must be married."
In so far then as the facts are concerned, it is only partially true
that the Roman Church alone is to be known as the Catholic.
And yet, what the authorities say is to be remembered: "This
epithet (Catholic) which is applicable to the whole Christian
Church or its faith, is claimed by Roman Catholics to belong espe¬
cially to their church, and in popular usage is so limited." The
question is : How ? and why ? Easily enough. The old world had
a saying: "All roads turn to Rome." It is useless to ask concerning
this question. Was not Rome the political center of the world?
And toward it did not all nations look? Its name was every where
known. Its power everywhere respected and feared. The tread of
its legions may be said to have made the very earth to quake. And
as politically, so religiously. The imperial city of the political
world must be the imperial city of the religious world.
There is in the mind of man such a thing as the fitness of things.
When Constantinople through its emperor, essayed to equal Rome
politically, her bishops kept pace, and would have it equal it relig¬
iously as well. Human nature, it is to be asserted without fear of
successful contradiction, can no where be studied to better ad¬
vantage than in the rise of those two churchly powers, the Pope of
Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.
That Rome should take to herself the title Catholic, representing
as it would the oneness of Western Christianity, is as natural as
the waters to flow downward or the sparks to fly upward. If not
the Bishop of Rome, who should represent orthodox Christianity in
the face of heresies, too numerous to mention? Rome was the
capital and was alone representative of all that was worthy of rep¬
resentation; and to its church and Bishop naturally fell the honor
20
Stray Thoughts
of the title Catholic—to the title, we say, but not to the entire estate.
And so we find it to-day. Revolutions, as the word says, never go
backward. Amerigo Vespucci still names the ISTew World. Shakes¬
peare still writes the tragedies, dramas and comedies. Rome still
is the Catholic Church. When, therefore, the child says: "I believe
in the Holy Catholic Church," it is altogether like to it when it
speaks of Amerigo, or of Shakespeare. Columbus is not forgotten.
Bacon is not remembered. The child's Catholic Church is the one
general and universal Christian Church or as Pearson says: "For
when I say, I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, I mean that
there is a Church which is holy and which is Catholic; and I under¬
stand that Church alone, which is both Catholic and holy." Or,
where he says: "I am fully persuaded and make a free confession
of this as of a necessary and infallible truth, that Christ, did gather
unto Himself a Church consisting of thousands of believing per¬
sons and numerous congregations, to which he daily added such as
should be saved and will successively and daily add to the same
unto the end of the world."
And yet the time is come to give the word Katholkos, interpreta¬
tion. si
THE END.