Library of
Emory University
THE
CHURCH AND MINISTRY:
A LECTURE
ON
THE RELATIONS WHICH THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY
SUSTAIN TO THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
BY REY. R. ABBEY,
AUTHOR OP " ECCLESIASTICAL CONSTITUTION," " CREED OP ALL MEN," '* END OP
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION," "LETTERS TO BISHOP GREEN ON APOSTOLICAL
SUCCESSION," "BAPTISMAL DEMONSTRATIONS," ETC.
EDITED BY T. 0. SUMMERS, D.D.
Naspillf, :
SOUTHERN METHODIST PUBLISHING HOUSE.
1860.
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860, by
J. B. M'FERRIN,
in the office of the Clerk of the District Court for the Mid¬
dle District of Tennessee.
STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY A. A. STITT,
SOUTHERN METHODIST PUBLISHING HOUSE, NASHVILLE, TENN.
PAGE
Notice v
I. Foundation of the Church 9
II. Where is the Church now ? 13
III. The Church was not organized 16
IV. Absence of scriptural allusion 21
V. It would have been both supereroga¬
tory and impracticable 22
VI. Nearly all Presbyterial writers support
this idea 27
VII. Who organized the new Church? 33
VIII. The Saviour's life and ministry 35
IX. The Saviour's preaching 43
X. The apostles and their testimony 46
XI. St. .Paul 52
XII. The preaching to Cornelius 66
XIII. The Council at Jerusalem 71
XIV. "Called Christians first in Antioch"... 73
XV. The Epistles 75
XVI. A pause 90
XVII. The relation between Judaism and
Christianity 93
XVIII. The moral condition of the Church at
the time of Christ 105
(iii)
iv CONTENTS.
XIX. How did the Christian Church ori¬
ginate?
XX. The true idea of a Church 124
XXT- The naturalness of a Church 136
XXII. Origin of the synagogue system 145
XXIII. Origin of Christian denominational
Churches 150
X&IV. The Romish Church ^151
XXV. The Church of England 157
XXVI. The Presbyterian Church 164
XXVII. Baptist Churches 173
XXVIII. The Methodist Church 189
XXIX. Church means Christians 197
XXX. Test of a Cfiurch 200
XXXI. The ministry instituted 207
XXXII. Call to the ministry 220
XXXIII. Ordination 227
XXXIV. Ordination of Dr. Coke 248
XXXV. The right to ordain 259
XXXVI. What kind of right? 266
XXXVII. "A presbyter is the same as a bishop" 269
XXXVIII. Obligations of Church-membership 275
XXXIX. Conditions of Church-membership 284
XL. Excommunication : 289
XLI. Closing reflections 296
ICotict.
It is believed that the following essay-
is a successful attempt to present a con¬
sistent Church-theory, and to show the
uninterrupted continuation of both the
Church and the ministry thereof through
the period of the Saviour's advent and
sojourn upon earth. This has by many
been regarded a desideratum. It has
cost much thought and some reading.
A decent respect has been paid to the
books, but no author has been blindly
followed a single step; and when fol¬
lowed at all, it was because of his logical
reasoning, and not because of his name.
(▼)
vi
NOTICE.
If, however, the doctrines of this .lecture
are found to conflict with those of any
Church-writer of standing, it is because
sueh writer is Win conflict with him¬
self.
Requests for the publication of the
essay have been numerous; but it must
be understood that the writer alone is
responsible for all it contains. Being
delivered orally, it. was not written.
Moreover, at the request of the Alabama
Conference, as well as of several indi¬
vidual ministers, it has been considera¬
bly enlarged in several parts.
It goes to the press with the prayer of
the writer that it may, at least, tend to
harmonize the views of the Church.
The Annual Conferences at whose
sessions the essay was requested to be
delivered, passed respectively the follow*
ing resolutions:
notice.
vii
resolution of wachita conference.
Resolved, That we hereby request the
Rev. R. Abbey to prepare and publish
his discourse on the Orioin and Charac¬
ter of the Church, delivered before our
Conference on yesterday evening.
W. P. Ratcliffe.
J. S. McAlister.
A copy from the Minutes of the Va-
chita Conference, Monticello, Ark., ISTov.
4, 1859. J. S. McAlister, Sec.
resolution of alabama conference.
Resolved, That the Rev. R. Abbey be
requested to write out and elaborate for
the press the able and interesting dis¬
course delivered by him a few nights
since before the members of this Confer¬
ence.
J. Hamilton.
E. Y. Levert.
Eufaula,- Ala., Dec. 8, 1859.
viii
NOTICE.
resolution of the florida conference.
Resolved, That Rev. R. Abbey be, and
he is hereby, requested to have published
in pamphlet form his address delivered
at this Conference on the Constitution
of the Church.
Micanopy, Fla., Jan. 8, 1860.
A true copy from the Minutes:
P. P. Smith,
Sec. Fla. An. Conf.
THE
CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
i.
" Upon this rock i will build my Church ; and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it."—Matt. xvi.
18.
This expression of tlie Saviour is re¬
markable from the consideration that,
taken in connection with the context
with which it stands inseparably con¬
nected, it predicates something of the
character and identity of the Church.
This is done nowhere else in the Kew
Testament Scriptures.
(«)
10 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
The Church is spoken of in the New
Testament a little over one hundred
times; but in all other places than this it
is merely alluded to by a passing remark,
casual and more or less incidental. Here,
and here only, descriptive language is
employed.
It is probably this circumstance, in
part, which has caused so much disputa¬
tion and difference of opinion among
Christians in regard to its proper expli¬
cation. These disputes seem to be mainly
in regard to the word "rock"—what is
meant by it. I propose in this essay not
to enter the list of disputants on this
question at all, but merely to draw from
the text so much of meaning as it must
necessarily have.
The Saviour had just then inquired of
his disciples as to the popular opinion in
regard to himself: ""Whom do men say
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 11
that I, the Son of man, am?" They re¬
plied that there was a variety of opinion
or •onjecture—some thought one thing,
some another. "And what is your be¬
lief?" said he: " whom do ye say that I
am?" And Peter replied—evidently on
behalf of himself and fellow-disciples—
" Thou art the Christ, the Son of the
living God." The Saviour replies that
he could not have known this by mere
worldly information; and then, referring
perhaps to the significancy of his name,
remarks, " On this rock I will build my
Church," etc.
Now, whether the Saviour in this ex¬
pression referred to Peter in the Romish
sense, or the more rational sense of his
being merely one of the first and fore¬
most propagators of religious faith under
the actual atonement of the Saviour, or
whether he had reference to himself or
12 the church and ministry.
Sis Messiahship, it can but be proper to
understand tbat tbe foundation of tlie
Cburcb in all after time was to be «fhe
truth of Peter's declaration tbat Jesus
was the Christ.
This must be a proper explication, in
part at least, because, whether Christ had
said so or not, it cannot but be true, ac¬
cording to the universal consent of all
Christians and the very nature of the
case, that, whatever else may be affirmed
or denied in regard to the Church, it
must rest upon the Messiahship of
Jesus.
Jesus was or he was not the Messiah
of the Old Testament Scriptures. Con¬
ceding that he was settles the question.
He is then the foundation of every thing
pertaining to religion. His saying so
did not make it so. He only affirmed
that which was naturally and necessarily
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 13
true, upon, supposition that he was the
Christ, as Peter had just then declared.
II.
WHERE IS THE CHURCH NOW?
The foregoing observations lead to the
important inquiry as to the identity of
the Church at the present time.
That part of the world which professes
to believe and practice Christianity, and
which we commonly call the Church, is
seen at the present time to exist in a sys¬
tem of separate or integral denomina¬
tions or associations, in many external
respects distinct from and independent
of each other.
The leading individual members of
these denominations severally, naturally
enough, deem it important to set forth
and show to themselves and to the world
14 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
that their denomination is in the true or
the truest ecclesiastical position. And to
do this, they find it necessary, in their
••
estimation, to show that their form of
government comes nearest the original
model—that is, nearest the form of gov¬
ernment of the apostolic Church as it
was originally framed.
These arguments proceed on this wise :
The Presbyterian, for instance, to sustain
his doctrine of parity in the ministry and
presbyterial government, turns to the
Acts of the Apostles, the only inspired
history of the Church which we have,
and he cites you here and there, where
he finds corresponding traits in the
Church in the Scriptures and his present
Church; and so he claims to have proved
that his Church to-day is nearest, in its
form of government, to the original
Church as it was at first organized.
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 15
And in like manner tlie Episcopalian,
by reference to the same Divine record,
finds proof of episcopal authority to sa¬
tisfy him; and so his form of govern¬
ment is nearest the original model. His
proof is so strong that he comes to the
conclusion sometimes that his is exclu¬
sively the true Church, because his gov¬
ernment only is modelled after the ori¬
ginal.
In the same way, too, the Methodist
proceeds to prove the legality of his gov¬
ernment, of a more moderate episcopacy.
It is right, he concludes, because he finds
that kind of episcopal government in the
Church as it was originally organized.
And in the same way the Baptist
proves the trueness of his more republi¬
can or democratic government. " Don't
you see," says he, "that the Church was
framed at the first upon this principle ?"
16 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
And so his Church is nearest the apos¬
tolic Church as it was originally set up.
This, I believ.e, is the manner in which,
for the most part at least, these argu¬
ments proceed. And I meet them all
directly and fairly, and affirm that all
arguments of this kind must be faulty,
and can lead to no safe conclusion, from
the consideration that they all rest upon
that which* is false in fact. Assuming
that which is untrue, they deduce a simi¬
lar product. Commencing upon a fact
which never happened, they end in a
conclusion which has no support.
III.
THE CHURCH WAS NOT ORGANIZED.
The arguments ,above alluded to pro¬
ceed upon the supposition that somebody
at some time set up, framed, formed,
the church and ministry. 17
constructed, organized anew the Chris¬
tian Church ; whereas, no such event
ever happened in the history of religion.
Nothing like it happened about the time
of Christ and the apostles—no, nor at any
other time. Neither the Bible nor any
other ecclesiastical history informs us of a
time and place when and where any man or
congress of men attempted or undertook
to organize the Christian Church. And
how such an idea ever obtained foothold
or respectability in the world is indeed
unaccountable, and cannot but excite some
degree of wonder when one comes to fix
his mind directly upon the naked point
of inquiry.
Does any one marvel at this I Why, a
safer declaration, or one more completely
supported on every side by all the testi¬
mony the nature of the case admits of,
could scarcely be made. Surely, in this
18 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
declaration I am not placing myself in
conflict with settled opinions here or there.
If it opposes the sentiments of any man, it
is for the reason and to the extent that
that man is in antagonism with himself. I
have no innovation or new doctrine to
introduce. I will only make a consistent
theory out of well-settled and universally
admitted opinions already in being every¬
where. Let a man agree with himself,
and he shall agree with me.
Let me be perfectly understood by
every one at this point.
Religion is one thing; the Church is
another. Religion is, in its nature, indi¬
vidual, and consists in the faith which a
man has respecting God, and his relation
to him. Church means the external asso¬
ciation of several religious persons, or per¬
sons professing to be religious, into a
community. A community or association
THE CHUECH AND MINISTEY. 19
of individual persons, religious, or claim-
ing to be so, governing themselves or being
governed by the right kind of laws, and
actiflg toward each other and toward God
properly, is, I believe, what all men mean
when they say Church. I will not know¬
ingly step upon disputed ground.
And now the question is, Was the Chris¬
tian Church, the external association of
Christian persons which we now have
here amongst us, organized anew, origi¬
nally framed or set up by Christ or the
apostles, or by some or all of them about
the time of Christ? And the distinct
position I take is, that no such event
happened at or about this time, nor in¬
deed at any other time.
And I observe further—incidental to
the argument, of course—that this error
respecting the legal origin of the Church
is, in my judgment, the foundation-error
20 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
which has given rise to all, or well-nigh
all, the strange disputes and differences
of opinion afloat in the hooks and else¬
where respecting the validity of* the
Church, its government, etc.
How, it is known to and claimed by all
men, I believe, that a Church—some sort
of a Church—existed among the Jewsjit
and before the time of Christ; and the
idea of the ^Christian Church being
framed or organized anew by Christ or
the apostles, is, I presume, this: that_the
apostles and others who were members
of the then existing Church, finding itjto
be wrong, or insufficient, or unsuitable,
discontinued their""connection therewith,
and set up, in contradistinction thereto, a
new and opposing ecclesiastical organiza¬
tion. If the organization of a new Church,
which was the beginning of the Church
we now have, does not mean this, then it
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 21
means nothing, so far as I am able to con¬
ceive an idea.
And this, or any thing like this, is
what I affirm was not done. And this I
am to show beyond question. I am to de¬
monstrate it or fail.
IV.
ABSENCE OF SCRIPTURAL ALLUSION.
And the first item of evidence I bring
forward is the circumstance that there is
in the New Testament not one word in
any way speaking of or even alluding to
such a transaction. This it is not pre¬
tended is demonstrative. But it is in¬
credible to suppose that such a transac¬
tion should be wholly unnoticed by all
the New Testament writers. The Saviour
or his apostles found the then existing
Church to have run its course, or was in¬
efficient, unsuited to after-times, or was
22 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
useless or bad in some respect; and so
they organized a new Church, which was
ever after to be the Church of Cod—a.
transaction, in its nature, second in im¬
portance only, it seems to me, to his ex¬
piatory atonement for sin—a thing im¬
portant in the last degree to the world
and to religion; and, in all the details of
history of hundreds of transactions men¬
tioned with more or less of specification
and detail, not an allusion to this ! Such,
a thing is improbable in the last degree,
and it ought not to be believed but on
the most palpable and direct evidence.
V.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BOTH SUPEREROGA¬
TORY AND IMPRACTICABLE.
Such a thing would have been most
clearly a work of supererogation. hTo
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 23
such thing was called for by the nature
of religion, or of religious association or
propagation. There was nothing con¬
ceivable to he gained by it. And, on the
contrary, it could not have been done in
the circumstances then surrounding the
early Christians; and the attempt would
have brought certain ruin on the cause
they were trying to propagate.
The Jews were under colonial vassal¬
age to Roman power. The Romans had,
however, stipulated with the Jews that
they might perform their rites and duties
of religion in their own way. But so ex¬
ceedingly sensitive and jealous were the
Romans of their power and of any popu¬
lar organizations other than their own,
that they would on no occasion suffer
half-a-dozen Jews to meet on the Sab¬
bath-day to worship without the presence
of a Roman officer, or an officer of the
24 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
Roman government to be present and
supervise tbe external matters of the
meeting, and be on the spot to check any
popular movement which might possibly
prove in some way independent or trou¬
blesome.
The Jewish worship, or the worship of
the Jews, thus closely and vigilantly over¬
looked, was a thing well understood by
both nations, and things were proceeding
with some degree of harmony.
Now, suppose a new party among the
Jews, or a new set or sect of religious
people, had, in those times of strict patrol,
attempted „to organize a new popular
association, and carry on their public
meetings outside and independent of
these stipulations between the Jews and
Romans; and this, too, in the face of
Jewish opposition and persecution: no
one can fail to see that such an attempt
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 25
would have called down the military ven¬
geance and political jealousy of the Ro¬
mans, and the new Church would have
been crushed in a day.
Such a thing would have been an open
violation of the laws of both Jews and Ro¬
mans. It would have been regarded as a
rebellion, and could have lasted no longer
than the moment of its discovery.
Why, we are oftentimes told by com¬
mentators—-and I do not remember to
have ever seen it contradicted—that the
reason why the Saviour, during the three
years of his ministerial life, was not more
hold and outspoken as to his Messiahship,
was this very cautious, prudent fear of
unnecessarily awakening the jealousy and
exciting the opposition of Roman power
and vigilance. He gave, it is said, suffi¬
cient intimation of this great truth—
more, however, by what he did than by
26 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
what he said—-to those in immediate asso¬
ciation with him for all practical pur¬
poses. But for wise political reasons, he
made these intimations privately and
cautiously.
But the open setting up of a new and
unauthorized popular society right there
in or around Jerusalem, in the face of a
powerful Roman army, whose chief busi¬
ness it was to watch popular movements
and check every motion looking to such
a thing, and this, too, by a few feeble
Jews without protection, and in violation
of the civil compact between the Jews
and the Romans, would have been an act
of temerity and rashness that could not
have lasted a single day without the most
prompt and resistless suppression.
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 27
VI.
NEARLY ALL PRESBYTERIAL "WRITERS SUP¬
PORT THIS IDEA.
It is well known that nothing is more
common among Presbyterial writers upon
ecclesiastical polity, especially Method¬
ists, Presbyterians, and Low-Church Epis¬
copalians, than the statement, in so many
words, that no form of government is set
forth in the New Testament. This is not
only true, apparently so, in itself, but the
writers I allude to, very frequently, and
I think very properly, call attention to
the circumstance.
How, if no form of government is
found laid down in the Hew Testament
for a Church, what evidence can there be
of the organization of a government for
the Church, by Divine appointment, at
28 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
that time ? It is impossible there can be
any, because there is no Scripture outside
of the Old and New Testaments.
The organization of a Church means
the organization of the government of a
Church—there is nothing, else to organ¬
ize ; and the organization of a govern¬
ment—of a Church or of any thing else—
is the ordaining or establishing the form
of its government.
Government is a threefold idea. . "When
we speak of a government—the govern¬
ment of any thing, a house, a society, a
nation, or a world, either by God or by
man—we mean three separate things
conjoined into a system. The three
things which form the natural elements
of government are, 1st, legislation, or the
making of laws; 2d, judicature, or the
inquiry into and the deciding upon sup¬
posed instances of the violation of these
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 29
laws; and 3d, execution, or the punishing
or rewarding the subjects according to
such decision. And different forms of
government mean the different and vari¬
ous ways in which these elements are
distributed among various functionaries.
They might all reside in one person, as
in the government of God, or of an ab¬
solute monarch, or they might be dis¬
tributed in an endless variety of ways,
among.a hundred or a thousand different
persons.
Kow, the organizing of a society of any
kind—a Church, a school, or a nation—
means the establishing, the ordaining, by
some authority, of its form of government,
by a distribution, to some extent at least,
of those functions of government, here
and there, in contradistinction to a dis¬
tribution of them in some other way.
And to say that there is no such pre-
30 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
scription or distribution set forth in the
New Testament, is the same thing pre¬
cisely as to say that no Church organiza¬
tion took place at that time, or at least
that we have no information of such a
thing. How can a man say that no form
of Church government is found in the
New Testament, and at the same time
suppose that a form of government was
established for the Church at that time,
when all the information we havq or can
have on such a subject we get from this
very same New Testament ?
There is a logical inconsistency here
which must be straightened out.
The question, then, is, Is there or is
there not a prescribed form of govern¬
ment for the Church in the New Testa¬
ment different from that which then ex¬
isted ?
I have no means of proving that there
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 31
is not, except by copying the Hew
Testament. I have read it through,
and find that that is one of the many
thousands of things which are not to be
found there. It might just as well be
said that there is prescribed there a form
of government for a prison, for a city, for
a college, for a Sunday-school. Hone of
these things are there.
But it is said again, " The principles
are laid down there by which the Church
shall be governed." That depends upon
what you mean by "principles." If you
mean the moral principles of justice, fair¬
ness, and righteousness, then it is true.
But if you mean the legal principles of
governmental framework and structure,
then it is not true ; for that is precisely
the same as to say that the form of gov¬
ernment is there. It is presenting
32 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
the same idea in a modified form of
speech.
- It is not said in the Hew Testament
that the Church shall not have a govern¬
ment: on the contrary, it is said the
Church shall have a government—that
its government shall he just, wise, equi¬
table, fair, and impartial. This is not
only said in Scripture, but it was said,
and authoritatively said, in the nature of
things before it was safd in the Bible.
And these principles are laid down not
only for the government of a Church, but
for the government of a State, a family,
and every thing else.
But it is not laid down, either in na¬
ture or revelation, that the government
of the Church shall be formed by placing
the several functions of government, leg¬
islation, judicature, and execution, thus
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 33
and so, in the hands of these or those
officers or functionaries, with such and
such powers. Its form of government is
not prescribed; that is, its government
was not then organized anew.
VII.
WHO ORGANIZED THE NEW CHURCH?
I do not remember to have seen it
stated by any one,'when, precisely, or by
whom, this new Church was organized.
This is certainly an important question,
and those who hold to that idea ought to
be able to state and to show precisely
when, where, and by whom this thing
was done.
I believe, however, that the notion is
that it was done either by Christ in his
lifetime, or by some or all of the apostles,
by his direction, soon after his death and
9
34 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
resurrection, most probably about tbe
time of Pentecost.* At any rate, we
must suppose it to have been done at
least as eariy as about the time of tbe
commencement of tbe preaching of tbe
apostles. At tbat time, or before, tbe
apostles—and tbe Saviour, too, if before
bis deatb—discontinued tbeir member¬
ship in tbe old Church and formed a
* There are some persons who have a vague, unde¬
fined supposition that John the Baptist organized the
Christian Church, or had something to do with its ori¬
ginal formation. In regard to this very pious and
justly celebrated Jew, who occupied so prominent a
position in the Jewish Church, it may be sufBcient on
this subject just to remark that he did not live in the
Christian dispensation. He labored and died before
the death and resurrection of Christ, on which the
Christian religion and Church are based, and could
therefore by possibility have had nothing personal to
do with any thing peculiarly Christian. He was the
harbinger of the Christian dispensation, proclaim¬
ing, "Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand.'
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 35
new one, they themselves being its origi¬
nal members.
This was the Christian Church, and
afterward all Christians joined this new
Church.
All is well understood now, and we
proceed, and will next consider,
vni.
THE SAVIOUR'S LIFE AND MINISTRY.
The foregoing arguments, though some
of them are not, in strict logical juris¬
prudence, demonstrative, it is believed
to. he safe to say are all unanswer¬
able. "We are now about to approach
that class of evidence which is more pal¬
pable and conclusive. And we approach
first, I trust with becoming reverence,
the life and labors of the blessed Sa¬
viour.
36 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
Who was Jesus Christ? He was a
Jew, born in the Church—a Church,
good or bad, right or wrong, which had
then an existence, and is well and indis¬
putably known to have existed there
several centuries at least, and which em¬
bodied, nominally at least, the Jewish
people. At the eighth day of his life,
he was regularly and personally, accord¬
ing to the then prevailing custom, in¬
itiated into the Church as a member of
the same. At the thirtieth year of his
life, according to the same law or cus¬
tom, or both, he entered upon his public
work.
Jesus Christ began to preach in the
Jewish Church, the Church of his fathers;
and he continued to preach for about
three years to and among his brethren in
many parts of Palestine. He was finally
charged before the ecclesiastical authori-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 37
ties with heresy ; and it was also at¬
tempted to he urged before the civil func¬
tionaries that he was assuming power
which belonged to the state. He was
tried before the Church, and was con¬
demned and executed, the civil authori¬
ties consenting thereto, and officially
directing his death, because of his sup¬
posed opposition to the government of
Caesar.
All this took place in the Jewish
Church, and by the regular members
thereof. And whatever else may be said
about this trial and execution, and its in¬
justice, I have never heard it intimated
that, regarding Jesus as a member of the
Church, as he certainly was in his mere
humanity, the Church then and there had
not proper jurisdiction of the case. It
was never complained that they had not
38 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
a right to try him. It is only complained
that they tried him unjustly.
Here is proof positive that this new or¬
ganization did not take place prior to this
time. For both the Saviour and every¬
body else recognized his regular member¬
ship in the Jewish Church. He certainly
lived and died a regular member of the
Church of his fathers. He never left the
Church, either to organize or to join
another. Everybody knows that his
Church-membership was distinct and
complete. See Home's Introduction,
or any other work on that subject.
Moreover, where do you find the Sa¬
viour, or how was he employed in his
ministry ? You find him laboring in the
Church in connection with his brethren.
You find him preaching in the syna¬
gogue, where you would look for any
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 39
other Jewish preacher, where there was
a synagogue; and, like any other reli¬
gious preacher of those times, you find
him taking advantage of circumstances,
and preaching anywhere else. And you
not only find him in the synagogue, but,
if you will look a little more closely into
the forms of synagogue service, accord¬
ing to the customs of that day, you will
find that the Jews were very precise as to
the performance of official duty. There
were three regular officers or chairs.
First you see the ruler. He was an offi¬
cer of the Roman government, and might
or might not be a Jew. It was his duty
to preserve order and see to some other
matters. Hext you see the messenger,
legate, or angel. It was his duty to offer
public prayers and read the Scripture
lesson: there was a particular lesson
from the Old Testament assigned to each
40 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
Sabbath of the year; then he preached
or discoursed from the Scriptures. Next
you see the Levite, or person who had
charge of the sacred books, etc., and as¬
sisted the minister sometimes, as he might
need. These synagogue services were not
always the same precisely, but in differ¬
ent times and countries varied considera¬
bly, though generally they were much the
same.
Now, you find the Saviour conforming
regularly to these Sabbath-day rules
among his brethren, with which he had
been familiar all his life, and performing
the regular synagogue services of the
Sabbath, just as you would see them per¬
formed across the street in any other syn-
agogue by any other preacher, of which
there were thousands probably then in
Palestine. There were over four hun¬
dred synagogues at that time in the city
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 41
of Jerusalem alone, according to Mr.
Watson.
These well-known practices of the Sa¬
viour are completely incompatible with
the notion that he did not belong to the
Jewish Church—that he had left that
Church and organized another.
The evidence of his regular Church-
membership in the Church of his fathers
is as conclusive as is that of any man's
Church-membership to-day:
"And Jesus went about all Galilee,
teaching in their synagogues, and preach¬
ing the gospel of the kingdom." Matt,
iv. 23. "And he preached in their syna¬
gogues throughout all Galilee," etc. Mark
i. 39. "And, as his custom was, he went
into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day,"
etc. Luke iv. 16-22, 44. "And he taught
daily in the temple." Luke xix. 47. See,
also, Mark vi. 2, Luke vi. 6, and other
42 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
places. Also, the following: "I ever
taught in the synagogue, and in the tem¬
ple, whither the Jews always resort; and
in secret have I said nothing." John
xviii. 20.
And again. The Saviour regularly ob¬
served the religious feasts of the Jewish
Church:
"Now the first day of the feast of un¬
leavened bread the disciples came to
Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou
that we prepare for thee to eat the pass-
over?" Matt. xxvi. 17. "The Master
saith, Where is the guest-chamber, where
I shall eat the passover with my disci¬
ples ?" Mark xiv. 14. See, also, Luke
xxii. 8-14, John ii. 18, and other places.
Did the Saviour belong to one Church,
and his disciples to another? Did the
apostles set up a Church in opposition
to the Saviour's Church ?
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 43
IX.
THE SAVIOUR'S PREACHING.
I now invite particular attention to the
inquiry, What did the Saviour preach?
On what subjects did he preach ? And in
what respecfs did his preaching differ
from that of the other Jewish preachers
around him ?
And I answer, His preaching was con¬
fined to the subjects of religion and ethics.
He did not teach nor preach on any other
subjects, in much or little, so far as we
know. He taught, not openly and pub¬
licly, but with sufficient clearness .occa¬
sionally to be understood, that he was the
Messiah of prophecy. And he gave
wholesome instructions in morals and re¬
ligion. He drew his illustrations from
any thing he chanced to see or with
44 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
which his hearers were familiar, as any
teacher would naturally do; hut he did
not teach on the subject of government,
neither Church government nor State
government, nor any other kind of gov¬
ernment, any further than these things
might chance to stand connected with
moral or religious duty.
The government of his Church was good
enough in his estimation, so far as we know.
In this respect, or on this subject, there
was no difference in the preaching of
Christ and that of any other Jewish
preachers in his day.
There is not between the lids of the Bible
an intimation that the Saviour, or indeed
that anybody else, ever found the least fault
in the then existing Church government of the
Jews. There was nothing there that
needed modification or change. A new
Church was not needed, because-the gov-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 45
eminent of that which they then had was
not faulty. There was never any quarrel
between the Saviour and anybody else on
the subject of ecclesiastical government.
He taught, he recommended, he sug¬
gested no change whatever in the gov¬
ernment of the Church, in the polity of
the Church then existing, and of which
he then formed a part. "Whatever differ¬
ences there may have been between him¬
self and other Jews, it was on other sub¬
jects and related to other matters than
Church polity. He was never complained
of on grounds of this sort. The com¬
plaint against him was that his religion
was wrong, his morals were too stringent
or too lax, and that, " being a man, he
made himself Grod." This was the diffi¬
culty, this was the quarrel.
And these well-known, familiar facts
are utterly at war with the supposition
46 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
that he should have directed or recom¬
mended to his disciples to organize a
new Church. For what reason ? For no
reason. What supports the supposition?
Nothing.
X.
THE APOSTLES AND THEIR TESTIMONY.
If this supposed new ecclesiastical or¬
ganization was not set up by Christ in
person, or in his lifetime, was it done by
the apostles ?
And who were they ?
They also were Jews, regular members
of the then existing Church. They were
as familiar with their Church, its regular
Sabbath-day usages and ordinary matters
of polity, as any of us are familiar with
ours. Few men are more familiar with
any thing than were Jews of olden time
with their Church. They had been mem-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 47
bers of their Church from the eighth day
of their lives—practically, it might he
said, from birth. They knew all about
these matters, and had mingled and par¬
ticipated in them regularly long before
they saw or heard of the Saviour. The
regular Church service was no new thing
to them.
Is there any reason why they should
set up a new Church, and leave their old
one ? or did they in fact do so ?
And here I make, in regard to the
apostles—all of them—the same remark
which was made with so much emphasis
in regard to the Saviour a few minutes
ago.
They never, one of them, gave the
slightest intimation of dissatisfaction
with their Church. They never had any
quarrel with anybody, or differed in
opinion with anybody, or among them-
48 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
selves, on the subject of Church-govern¬
ment, so far as we have the slightest
intimation in the Scriptures. They lived
and died in the Church of their fathers,
perfectly content with its form of govern¬
ment. They never had any quarrel with
their brethren on this subject.
They, too, were preachers of religion.
And where do we find them in their
preaching ? Did they leave their Church
for any reason, good or bad, and go out
and organize a new one? On the con¬
trary, it is well known to every one that
you usually find them in the synagogues.
On occasions of the great feasts, public
teaching and exhortation were generally
looked for either in the synagogues or
the temple. Great latitude was, how¬
ever, allowed and exercised on this and
other public festive occasions. The
preaching of Peter on the day of Pente-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 49
cost was nothing unusual. They gene¬
rally preached in the synagogues and in
the temple. "Go, stand and speak in
the temple to the people all the words of
this life." Acts v. 20. "Then came one
and told them, saying, Behold, the men
whom ye put in prison are standing in
the temple, and teaching the people."
Acts v. 25. "And daily in the temple,
and in every house, they ceased not to
teach and preach Jesus Christ." Acts v.
42.
It is perfectly common all through the
Acts of the Apostles to see incidental
mention of the ministrations of the
apostles in the temple and in the syna¬
gogues. See ch. xiii. 14; xiv. 1; xvii.
1, 2, 17; xviii. 4; xix. 8, etc. "And
were continually in the temple praising
and blessing God. Amen." Luke xxiv.
53.
50 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
But we must remember that religious
preaching in those times, either among
the Jews before the ministry of Christ,
or by his followers or tbose who rejected
him afterwards, was by no means con¬
fined to the synagogues and to the regu¬
lar Sabbath-day services.. You would
meet with it incidentally here and there,
as supposed propriety would dictate.
On one occasion you see it mentioned
—merely incidentally of course—Acts iii.
1, that Peter and John went up to the
temple to pray at the ninth hour, the
hour of prayer.
What took them to the temple to pray ?
Upon supposition that they had renounced
their connection with the Jewish Church,
and were now associated with another,
and different, and opposing Church, the
temple of the Jews is the last place in
the world they would visit for the pur-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 51
pose of offering their devotions. But
upon supposition that they had not
changed their ecclesiastical relations, no¬
thing is more natural than to see them
repair to the temple to pray at the hour
of prayer. They had been accustomed
to do so all their lives, and their fathers
before them. On every Sabbath morning
you might see hundreds of devout Jews
thronging the temple for this purpose.
The history of the ministry of the
several apostles which we have is very
brief. Very little is said in Acts of more
than two or three of them. But all that
is said warrants the belief that they
never, any of them, changed their eccle¬
siastical relations. !No intimation is
made of such a thing, and that some of
them did not is certain. And we proceed
to look at such information as we have.
52 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
XI.
ST. PAUL.
Paul was not one of the twelve apostles,
but for the space of between two and
three years was their most violent and
powerful opponent of which we have an
account at this particular period.
It has been often said that this power¬
ful man began to preach immediately after
his conversion. I am not able to prove
that this is untrue, though I believe it
would be far more true to say that he
continued to preach uninterruptedly after
his conversion. That he was a public
teacher in religion before his conversion
to Christianity is next to certain.
And now, what is the difference be¬
tween his preaching or teaching on the
subject of religion before and after this
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 53
important event ? He was of course, up
to this time at least, a regular member
of the Jewish Church.
Why, the difference in his teaching is
mainly this, that before his conversion
he contended that Jesus was not the
Christ—that such a belief was a wicked
heresy. How he believes and teaches
that Jesus is the Christ, and that this is
a most wholesome and vitally important
truth. A change on this single point,
and such other natural views and doc¬
trines as grow out of this great truth,
constitute the change in the sentiments
and preaching of Saul of Tarsus before
and after his conversion to a belief in
Jesus as the Saviour.
But all this has necessarily nothing
whatever to do with his Church-member¬
ship or Church relations, any more than
a change of any other kind from error to
54 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
truth. His becoming a Christian does
not by any means cause him to cease to
be a Jew. This is a point we will look
into more particularly hereafter.
But let us follow him in his history.
He had up to this time no personal ac¬
quaintance with the apostles; nor did
he form their personal acquaintance for
about three years afterward. He con¬
tinued for a time to preach in the syna¬
gogues at Damascus that Jesus Christ
"is the Son of God"—Acts ix. 20—and
mightily confounded the opposers of the
Saviour. Finding his life in danger here
from his enraged brethren, he retired to
Tarsus, where, as a Roman citizen, he
had civil protection.
He then went into Arabia, where he
remained about two years, and returned
again to Damascus. At the end of about
three years after his conversion, he went
THE" CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 55
•up to Jerusalem in company with Barna¬
bas, and proposed to join himself to the
apostles. But they refused to receive
him or to see him, but referred to his
persecutions and opposition, and seemed
not to have heard of his conversion until
Barnabas informed them of both his con¬
version and powerful preaching. Then
they received him gladly into their com¬
pany and confidence. See Acts ix. 26-
28, and Gal. i. IT, 18.
hfow, it is a very pertinent inquiry just
here, To what Church did Paul belong
during these three or four years of his
ministry? I say three or four, because
he says he went to Jerusalem at this
time " after three years." To what
Church did he belong ?
It is certain he did not belong to any
new Church of the apostles, because
they knew nothing of him—had not
56 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
heard of his conversion—knew of him
only as an opponent and persecutor—
would not even suffer him to he intro¬
duced to them.
We are absolutely shut up to the con¬
clusion that he still belonged to the
Church to which he had always be¬
longed, or to—none. And this was more
than three years—very important years
indeed—of the Christian ministry of the
great apostle.
This simple circumstance is flatly and
palpably inconsistent with the notion of
a new and separate Church organization
for Christians, in opposition, or at least
in contradistinction, to the then existing
Church.
And where do you find Paul preach¬
ing? In the synagogues always, where
there were synagogues. And, like the
other apostles and the Master before
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 57
them, yon find him engaged in the regu¬
lar order of the synagogue services of
the Sabbath, conforming, as was no
doubt his custom for years, to the usual
services of the Jewish synagogue. "JSTow
when they had passed through Amphi-
polis and Apollonia, they came to Thes-
salonica, where was a synagogue of the
Jews; and Paul, as his manner was, went
in unto them, and three Sabbath-days
reasoned with them out of the Scrip¬
tures." Acts xvii. 1, 2.
And what did he preach ?
Christ, and him crucified, and that he
rose from the dead "according to the
Scriptures," mightily confounding and
convincing Jews, Gentiles, and all un¬
believers !
But all this did not, most certainly,
call for, or even suggest, any change in
58 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
his mere ecclesiastical relations. Here he
was content.
Did the Apostle Panl ever, at any¬
time, leave the Church of his fathers,
and thus change his ecclesiastical rela¬
tions ?
He did not.
All the rules of argumentation usually
known among men would require, it
would seem, some proof to support the
affirmation that St. Paul severed the tie
between himself and the Church of his
birth, and then joined another Church
of newer formation. On the contrary,
there is not only no proof of the sort in
the Bible, but there is not an intimation
looking in that direction. The supposi¬
tion is totally gratuitous; and not only
so, but the later years of his history give
us the most indubitable evidence of his
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 59
continued adherence to the Church in
which the Holy Spirit found him on his
way to Damascus.
We not only find him "in the syna¬
gogues" "every Sabbath-day," "as his
manner was," hut we find him observing
and " worshipping" at the religious feasts
of the Jews down to a very late period
of his life.
Late in the history of St. Paul's min¬
istry, at one time twenty-five years after
the death of Christ, we find him in a dis¬
tant country, several hundred miles from
Jerusalem, preaching with great success.
He informs his brethren that he must
leave them for a time and return to Jeru¬
salem. They receive the announcement
with sorrow, and try to dissuade him.
But he "hade them farewell, saying, I
must by all means keep this feast that
cometh in Jerusalem;- but I will return
60 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
again unto you, if God will. And lie
sailed from Ephesus." Acts xviii. 21.
It is regarded as uncertain among the
learned, I believe, and it is quite imma¬
terial here, whether distinct allusion is
made of more than two journeys of this
sort to Jerusalem to attend the feast of
Pentecost. Two of these journeys are
distinctly spoken of—the one above men¬
tioned, and another at a later period:
"For he hasted, if it were possible for
him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pen¬
tecost." Acts xx. 16.
And if there could be any doubt as to
the object of his- attending the Jewish
feast when he had to make a consider¬
able journey to do so, he tells us ex¬
pressly, in his memorable speech before
Felix, "I went up to Jerusalem for to
worship." Acts xxiv. 11.
Paul was now an old man, within
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 61
about six years of the period of bis
death, and had been preaching Christ
more than a quarter of a century; and it
seems he had not yet joined any other
Church than the one he was always in,
otherwise "this feast that cometh in
Jerusalem" would be the last place he
would be likely to visit " for to worship."
He would not be likely to care to " keep"
it.
And again, in about the twenty-sixth
year of Paul's ministry, and the twenty-
eighth or twenty-ninth of that of the
other apostles, he is brought before the
Roman authorities charged with believ¬
ing and teaching the doctrines of the
resurrection. And Paul appeals from
Festus to Cesar: "I appeal unto Cesar."
Acts xxv. 11. Many persons do not seem
to understand the nature of this appeal
to the emperor. He did not wish to be
62 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
tried before Cesar. He appealed upon a
question of jurisdiction. In bis speech be
contended that the Romans bad no rigbt
to try bim at all on a charge of this sort;
that the offence, if an offence at all, was
one against his Church, and not against
the State of Rome, and that the treaty-
stipulation was, that the Jews should
have jurisdiction of offences of this sort.
Festus would have released him, as he
said—Acts xxvi. 31, 32—upon the charge ;
but that was not what Paul wanted. He
wanted to be tried right. " Of the hope
and resurrection of the dead am I called
in question;" and therefore he con¬
tended that his Church must try him.
And so, you hear him affirm, "I am a
Pharisee, the son [disciple] of a Phari¬
see." Acts xxiii. 6.
He was contending that he was a
member of the Jewish Church, and
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 68
therefore his Church must try him. He
declares his willingness to be tried be¬
fore Cesar on any civil charge, but not
for his preaching the doctrine of the
resurrection. For this he must he tried
by his Church.
So we have here, at this late period in
his life, his own explicit declaration that
he was still a Pharisee, and had not
therefore changed his ecclesiastical rela¬
tions.
Moreover, in this great speech he con¬
tends and reasons elaborately that he is
a true Jew; that he stands now where
he always stood, save in those unfortu¬
nate few years of his life when he re¬
jected Christ. He contends that he is
on the precise ground occupied by Abra¬
ham and the fathers, and by Moses and
the prophets. The Old Testament Scrip¬
tures, he says—look at them, look at the
64 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
history and teachings of our religion—
they lead precisely to the ground he then
occupied. He was in the straight path
of prophecy. It was the unbelieving
Jews who had turned aside. In rejecting
the Saviour, they had turned away from
the Scripture teaching—he stood in the
old paths.
In his speech before Festus particu¬
larly, he contends that he had committed
no offence against the Jewish Church
nor the Jewish religion. He was true to
both; and certainly everybody knows
that in his Christianity he was true to
both. Hear his language: " Neither
against the law of the Jews, neither
against the temple, nor yet against
Cesar, have I offended any thing at all."
Acts xxv. 8.
He was in the proper, straightforward
pathway of true legal Judaism, which
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 65
now naturally and scripturally flows or
resolves itself into Christianity.
And see also, on this point, his great
and memorable sermon at Antioch, men¬
tioned in the thirteenth chapter of Acts.
Here he contends, with unusual eloquence
and logical clearness, that he has im¬
bibed no new religion; that his is the
religion of his fathers—they were Chris¬
tians in principle. See how he rehearses
their doctrines, and shows that his is the
same: he stands in the old paths—pre¬
cisely in the ancient teachings.
I beg of the reader to just turn to the
thirteenth of Acts, and read from the
14th verse onward; and, with this hint
in his mind, he will read what he proba¬
bly never so well understood before.
This was the nature of Paul's argu¬
ment. "We will examine this point
further when we come to look more
3
66 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
directly at the relation between Judaism
and Christianity.
Certain it is that at this period Paul
was "a Pharisee," and claimed to be
under the proper ecclesiastical jurisdic¬
tion that he had always been under.
And he had not departed from the
Church, whosoever else might have done
so; neither from its doctrines nor from
its jurisdiction.
XII.
THE PREACHING TO CORNELIUS.
It is demonstrably certain that if any
new Church was organized about the
time the apostles commenced preaching,
either before or after the death of the
Saviour, it was such a Church as no in¬
telligent Christian man would recognize
or claim connection with now.
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 67
It is well remembered tbat at a period
tbe chronology of which is, I believe,
not precisely certain, but by all allowed
to be about from eight to ten years
after the death of Christ, Peter was
preaching at Joppa, when a preternatu¬
ral communication was made to one
Cornelius, a Gentile and proselyte to the
Jewish faith, indicating that he should
send for Peter to hear words from him;
and at the same time a similar and corre¬
sponding revelation was made to Peter,
indicating that he should follow the mes¬
sengers and preach Christ, though it
might be to "unclean" Gentiles.
And Peter went and preached to the
man's household and friends, in number
said to be "many," and, lo! they were
all of them converted by the Holy Ghost.
This, it will be remarked, was the first
time the gospel was preached to Gentiles.
68 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
And now mark what followed.
It became known at Jerusalem that
Peter had preached to Gentiles, and the
information produced no little fear and
dissatisfaction. And when Peter was
come up to Jerusalem, they that were of
the circumcision contended with him,
saying, " Thou wentest in to men uncir-
cumcised, and didst eat with them."
See a full account of this matter in the
tenth and eleventh chapters of Acts.
The apostles were astounded at what
they had heard. Peter had been actu¬
ally preaching to Gentiles ! No wonder
they contended with him.
Peter frankly acknowledged the truth
of all they charged against him, but re¬
hearsed the matter from the beginning,
telling them fully how the strange matter
came about. The Holy Ghost appeared
to him, he followed the messengers, and
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 69
there he and his Jewish friends who ac¬
companied him found a large congrega¬
tion of Gentiles. And the direction of
the Holy Ghost, interpreted with unmis¬
takable plainness, was, that he should
open his mouth and preach Christ to
them — that they also were to receive the
gospel!
"And as I began to speak, the Holy
Ghost fell on them as on us at the begin¬
ning." They believed. I then under¬
stood the word of th» Lord as I "never
understood it before. * I now saw clearly
that he meant that all people were to
receive the gospel! And, "what was I
that I could withstand God?" So you
see, brethren, although I did this, it was
not I, it was the Lord who did it!
"Well, well! Here was a new feature
in religion unfolded to the minds of the
70 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
apostles: as new to these brethren at
Jerusalem as it was to Peter himself.
"And when they heard these things
they held their peace, and glorified God,
saying, Then hath God also to the Gen¬
tiles granted repentance" unto life."
Acts xi. 18.
Here is proof positive, from which
there is absolutely no escape, establish¬
ing one truth beyond question. That
truth is, that up to this moment of time
the apostles had «iot had the remotest
idea that the gospel was ever to be
preached outside of the Jewish Church,
or that any other than Jews were to
be baptized or become members of their
communion.
So that if these same apostles had,
previous to this time, organized a new
Church for believers in Christ, it is cer-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 71
tain that none were to "be members there¬
of but Jews. Under any regulations
they could have made, Gentiles could
have no privileges or participation in it.
They had now been preaching about
eight or ten years, and Christianity had
extended very considerably. That argu¬
ment is demonstrative, flat, palpable, and
cannot be removed.
XIII.
THE COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM.
The ecclesiastical " Council," as it has
been called, wliich was held at Jerusalem
some seventeen years after the death.of
Christ, about the question of circum¬
cision, throws some light on this subject.
Certain Jewish Christians from Judea
taught, at Antioch, the necessity of cir-
72 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
cumcision. And this created a good
deal of uneasiness in the Church at An-
tioch. And they referred the question
to "the apostles and elders" at Jeru¬
salem, Jerusalem being the recognized
head-quarters of Christianity. Paul and
Barnabas opposed the doctrine, but they
werejiot considered competent authority.
They composed part of the delegation to
Jerusalem.
ISTow, when Paul and Barnabas made
known their mission, "the apostles and
elders came together, for to consider of
this matter." Acts xv. 6.
It was not by any means a sqttled
matter even at Jerusalem; and so they
considered and debated this question, pro
and con. In regard to the question, there
was here among the leading Christians
in the world much disputing, some for
and some against circumcision as a con-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 73
dition of discipleship and association with
Christians.
Now, if long before this time a Chris¬
tian Church had been organized in con¬
tradistinction to the old Church, it is
unaccountable that it was not known
even to the apostles themselves. Jewish
circumcision in a Christian Church was
not, could not be a condition of mem¬
bership. It was a strange Church. Its
"organization" was a strange organiza¬
tion. It could not have been an organ¬
ization at all.
XIV.
"CALLED CHRISTIANS FIRST IN ANTI0CH."
"And the dlsciplej^ were. caJledJ^hris-
tians first in Ajxtioch." Acts xi. 26.
This fact, so incidentally mentioned, is
likewise incompatible with the notion of
the supposed ecclesiastical organization.
74 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
Antiocli was a Gentile city, the capital
of Syria; it was three hundred miles
from Jerusalem.
And here we have it explicitly stated
that the disciples, the believers in Christ,
were called Christians first in Antioch,
and not at Jerusalem.
The preaching of Christ by the apos¬
tles began at Jerusalem—"Beginning at
Jerusalem." And Jerusalem was the
head-quarters and general ecclesiastical
rendezvous of the Christians for at least a
century. Questions were referred there
to be settled. There the principal apos¬
tles and brethren were to be found.
Now, if this ecclesiastical organization,
after which we have been searching, was
set up at all, at or about the time the
apostles began to preach, it must have
been done at Jerusalem, and we may
suppose that when done, such an import-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 75
ant ecclesiastical government would be
called something. All other organiza¬
tions ever known among men were dis¬
tinguished by some appellation by which
they could he known. And this organ¬
ization, if called at all, would, I presume,
most likely be called Christians. At least,
they are called Christians now. And
they were first called or known by this
appellation, not at Jerusalem, but at this
far-off Gentile city of Antioch.
This is annoying; and cannot be ac¬
counted for, I think, without relinquish¬
ing the position I am here combating.
XV.
THE EPISTLES.
Some of the Epistles of the New Tes¬
tament furnish testimony on this subject.
76 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
The Epistle to the Hebrews was written
about thirty years after Christ; and by
many it is regarded as more dark and in¬
explicable than almost any other portion
of holy writ. An important question in
regard to it, and one which has been ex¬
tensively debated, is this: "To whom
was it written ?" One thinks it was
written to the converted Jews in Pales¬
tine ; another, to the converted Jews any¬
where in any country; another, to be¬
lievers of any sort in Palestine; and a
fourth, to believers in general, in or out
of Palestine.
My own belief is, that it was written
to the Hebrews; not to this or that class
or denomination of Jews, but to the He¬
brew people. This opinion is supported
by two things: first, it is so addressed in
plain words; and secondly, the matter of
the book seems most appropriately ad-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 77
dressed by the apostle to his Hebrew
brethren.
Remember, the great and all-absorbing
question in the Church at this time was,
Is Jesus the Christ ? If so, then to be¬
lieve in him as the Messiah, and now the
Saviour, is not a new doctrine, but the
old teachings of the Jewish Scriptures
themselves. Paul was combating this
error—the error of rejecting Jesus as the
Christ. He had been battling in this
warfare now about twenty-six or twenty-
seven years, in preaching and in writing
everywhere.
And with whom was he thus combat¬
ing ? with believers—those who thought
as he did ? or was it not principally with
unbelievers? He was charged by his
unbelieving brethren with having for¬
saken the religion of Moses and the pro¬
phets, and taken up a new religion which
78 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
they regarded as heresy. And he shows
in this Epistle more prominently, hut
really in all his writings, that Chris¬
tianity was not a new religion—that he
was in the straightforward pathway of
true, proper Judaism, as taught in their
own Scriptures, and acknowledged by all.
He brings the faith and doctrines of
Christianity into strong contrast with
the former ceremonial observances, and
shows that the latter being right does by
no means suppose the former to have
been wrong: that these typical, adum¬
brant observances, were true and right
in their place, and under their appropri¬
ate dispensation of grace, but, being
typical and adumbrant, they naturally,
necessarily abated on the coming of the
Messiah, and his actual offering of the
great sacrifice which they typified and
adumbrated.
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 79
Notice his opening argument, how
rapidly he brings forward these views,
and what bold prominence he gives them.
In the fifth chapter he labors to explain
to his brethren—his erring brethren—
that Christ is the true High-Priest, and
now, since he has come, the only real
priest. The typical and representative
priesthood, he contends, must of course
cease to exist on the coming of the
Messiah.
And in the seventh chapter, see how he
contends that Christ is the only priest
who can make real atonement; he is
their own priest, the true priest of their
own Scriptures, and in turning away
from him they turn away from the doc¬
trines of their Church—from the religion
of their own Scriptures.
This part of the argument closes with
chapter the seventh, and in the eighth
80 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
and ninth chapters he sums up, and
quotes from their own Scriptures, and
shows, not that any change is necessary
or is taught in Christianity, except the
mere typical and symbolic observances
which in their nature abate at this junc¬
ture, and some other mere elementary
or " schoolmaster" ceremonials which as
naturally and exclusively pertain to that
former condition of the Church. And
he exhorts them to hold fast the religion
of their fathers, and receive their Mes¬
siah according to the teachings of their
own religion.
He exhorts them to be Jews—true
Jews, following out the doctrines of true
Judaism taught in their Scriptures, which
naturally expands into Christianity, where
he himself was.
Let any one look at the Epistle to the
Hebrews from this position, and he will
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 81
see in it nothing dark, nothing mysteri¬
ous, nothing inexplicable, but all is most
clear and beautifully apposite.
And let him read the sermon of Ste¬
phen in the seventh chapter of Acts, and
he will see the very same doctrine set
forth.
The Epistle of James is likewise ad¬
dressed not to Christians, but to "the
twelve tribes"—the same Hebrew people.
And see how affectionately he calls tljem
" my brethren," " my beloved brethren."
The immediate design of the Epistle of
James was the same as that of Paul to
the same people, believers and unbe¬
lievers : it was to induce his brethren to
receive Christ, and so embrace not a new
religion, but their old religion in its
natural and proper results.
How, in regard to these general epis¬
tles of Paul and James to their brethren—
82 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
primarily, most evidently, to their erring
brethren—there are one ©r two noticeable
points.
1st. It is not unaccountable that Paul
and James, in another Church, twenty-
five years after their membership in the
Hebrew Church had ceased, supposing
that to have been the case, should write
letters back to the old Church they had
left, for the purpose of proselyting or
attempting to proselyte those in great
error, by sound and wholesome instruc¬
tions. Such a thing as this ?any one
might do. But it is a little strange that
such letters should find their way into the
Christian Scriptures, forming a part of
their canon.
The Epistle to the Hebrews is not in
the canon of Scripture, because it was
written by St. Paul. Ho doubt he wrote
many things—surely he may have writ-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 83
ten hundreds of epistles that were not
intended to be in the canon. If this
Epistle, like the other parts of the New
Testament, properly belongs in Scripture,
it is because it was divinely intended,
and humanly written for that purpose.
Scripture is a revelation from Glod.
But 2d. These epistles were not writ¬
ten to persons in another Church, hut to i
brethren in the same Church. This
seems apparent upon the face of the
letters themselves.
And &. the debates I have seen respect¬
ing the persons to whom they were writ¬
ten, there seems to he a great lack of
naturalness. They seem to premise that
at the very first of Christian discipleship,
there was an instantaneous and complete
separation of "the Jews" from "the
Christiansthat Judaism is wholly and
conclusively opposed to the gospel of
84 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
Christ, and the gospel is wholly and con¬
clusively opposed to Judaism; that the
separation is clear, wide, perfect, and irre¬
concilable; that "the Jews" went thither,
and "the Christians" came hither, and
the enmity, the hostility, the hatred, the
.opposition, were both absolute and per¬
fect. This is as unnatural as it is untrue.
Christ, as the Jewish Messiah, began to
be believed in by somebody; and this
belief was confirmed by the power of the
Holy Ghost in the heart. And the belief
extended, though with great irregularity,
here and there. Thousands felt but little
interest in the question anyway, but be¬
came more or less interested after a time.
Many vacillated in their views, first in¬
clining this way and then that. And
many were more decided on this side or
on that. For about ten years, until the
preaching to Cornelius, all the Christians
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 85
were Jews. Those who continued to
reject Christ as the Saviour, continued
to reject him; while those who did not,
did not. The separation was gradual
and irregular, and continued incomplete
during the lifetime of those who first
participated in it. In truth, it has not
become quite complete to this day, nor
will it until the last living man shall ac¬
knowledge Christ.
A somewhat common belief is, that the
Jews rejected Christ; and so it is sup¬
posed that the Jewish people stood in
solid phalanx against Christianity. This
is by no means the case. Many did, and
many did not.
We have seen that during the first
eight or ten years of the ministry of the
apostles, all the believers in Christ were
Jews. In Acts ii. 41, we are told of
three thousand converted at one time.
86 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
And in verse 47, it is said the believers
had "favor with all the people," and that
" the Lord added to the Church—the be¬
lievers—daily." In chap. v. 14, it is said
that " believers were the more added to
the Lord, multitudes, both men and
women." Yerse 16 speaks of "a multi¬
tude out of the cities round about"
bringing the sick to the apostles, all of
whom were healed. Chapter iv. 31, on
another occasion, speaks of a whole
assembly being converted; and verse 32
speaks of them as a "multitude." In
the beginning of chapter vi. we are told
that "the number of the disciples was
multiplied" to such all extent as to ren¬
der an assistant ministry necessary, when
deacons were appointed. And in verse 7
of the same chapter it is said that " the
word of God increased ; and the number
of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 87
greatly." In chapter viii. 14, it is with a
sweeping phrase stated that " Samaria
had received the word of God." "We are
not to understand, however, I presume,
that all the people in this city or country,
whichever is intended to be meant, had
received the word, hut we can scarcely
understand less than that great numbers
of the people had done so. In chapter
ix. 35, it is said that " all that dwelt at
Lydda and Saron saw him, (Peter,) and
turned to the Lord." Lydda was a con¬
siderable town, and Saron, or Sharon,
was a neighborhood or country of some
extent. It is probably not meant that
every person in these places embraced
Christianity, but the expression could
scarcely mean less than that most of them
did.
In this connection there is a very sig¬
nificant remark in Acts ix. 31: " Then
88 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
had the Churches rest throughout all
Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and
were edified; and walking in the fear
of the Lord, and in the comfort of the
Holy Ghost, were multiplied." The
conversions to Christ had at least at this
early period become a matter of great
national importance. In verse 42 it is
said, speaking of a miracle wrought by
Peter, "And it was known throughout all
Joppa, and many believed in the Lord."
In xi. 21, it is said that " a great number
believed and turned unto the Lord."
And in verse 24, it is said that "much
people was added unto the Lord."
All these things respecting the spread
of Christianity, it will be remembered,
took place in the Jewish Church, among
Jews, before Christianity commenced out
of the Church, among Gentiles. And
after Christianity began to be propagated
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 89
outside of the Jewish Church proper, I
know not but the proportion of Jewish
converts would compare favorably with
those of the Gentiles.
This does not certainly look as though
the Jews rejected Christ, and turned away
from him, for we see that great masses,
multiplied thousands, did not. The Scrip¬
tures frequently speak of " the Jews,"
when the meaning evidently is, the unbe¬
lieving Jews, as contradistinguished from
other Jews. And this is probably attri¬
butable to the well-known fact that most,
though by no means all, of the officials
of the Jews did reject him. Many, how¬
ever, of the priests did not, for it is said
in Acts vi. 7, that " a great company of
the priests were obedient to the faith."
That portion of the Jews which re¬
jected Christ, however large or however
small, became after a while to be very
90 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
significantly spoken of in common par¬
lance as the Jews, because it was on them,
and not on the Jewish people as a people,
that the curse of God so remarkably
rested, and has to this day rested. Eut
at the same time, that very large portion
of the Jews who received Christ, in pretty
close succeeding generations, lost this pe¬
culiar and singularly marked nationality
because this remarkable Divine visitation
did not include them.
XVI.
A PAUSE.
We have now proceeded far enough in
the argument to pause a moment and see
what position we have attained. We are
endeavoring to proceed consecutively,
and to do one thing at a time.
I hesitate not to say that we have
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 91
proved, by an array of harmonious testi¬
mony utterly impregnable, that neither
the Saviour nor the apostles, when they
began to preach, left their Church and
went out and organized a new one.
"Whatever else may have been done,
whatever relation may have sprung up
or existed between believing Jews and
unbelievers—whatever else may have been
done, this was not done.
But, on the contrary, we have seen
that the birth and life and ministry of
Christ, his arraignment, trial, death, and
resurrection, the preaching of John the
Baptist, and of the apostles, from the
first until Peter's preaching to Cornelius
and his family and friends; the conver¬
sion at the feast of Pentecost, and of Paul,
and his ministry—all this was strictly
and properly in the Jewish Church; that
Jews, regular members of the then ex-
92 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
isting Jewish. Church, were the sole
actors.
After the preaching to Cornelius, we
have seen that the gospel was preached
indiscriminately to Jews and Gentiles,
hut that no new Church was formed, the
apostles remaining in the Church of their
fathers, by all the actions and considera¬
tions which usually mark and fix Church-
membership.
The apostles died in the Church in
which they were born. The acts of the
Apostles ended in the same Church
where they began.
Well, then, one inquires, How did the
Christian Church, as distinguished from
the Jewish, come about ?
Ah! that is the question. And it is
probable there was never an important
question asked which was more "easily
answered; and more, it is believed,
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 93
completely to the satisfaction of every¬
body.
But before I do that, I wish to say a
few words and give a few explanations
touching the relation between Judaism
and Christianity.
XVII.
THE RELATION BEWEEN JUDAISM AND CHRIS¬
TIANITY.
We cannot understand this subject
well, without pausing here long enough
to take at least a cursory view of the
relation between Judaism and Chris¬
tianity, as two, or two supposed systems
of religion.
It is supposed by many that Ihey stand
in opposition to each other; that the
latter makes war upon the former; that
Christianity is a system of true religion
94 THE CHURCH *AND MINISTRY.
set up against a false system. And I
have heard it said that Christianity was
intended, and its mission was, to displace,
to set aside Judaism; and that the
one is to rise and flourish only upon the
ruins of the other, as truth triumphs over
falsehood.
All this is so far erroneous, that the
two systems are in harmony. They do
not antagonize in any degree. The one
succeeds the other naturally, and they
meet each other correspondingly in the
harmonious plan of God's providence,
forming one whole religious system.
All this is proved from the simple con¬
siderations, that Judaism was the religion
of God, divinely ordained and prescribed
to men. It was framed in all its parts by
the Almighty, and not any part of it by
men who might err. And, moreover, the
Jewish Scriptures, bodily, compose this
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 95
day a very large and important part of
our Bible. We change, or seek to change,
nothing; nor would we tolerate the
change of a single iota of the Bible of
Judaism. How, then, do they, or can
they, come in conflict with each other ?
And the way they harmonize is pre¬
cisely the same as the harmony between
the elementary teachings of arithmetic,
for instance, and the practice of mathe¬
matics in the business of after-life. Ju¬
daism is expressly said to be " a school¬
master to lead us to Christ."
Judaism, then, as a system of religion,
was right, and those who followed and
practiced it followed and practiced true
religion.
Judaism became Christianity, after
Christ, naturally and legally, by the fol¬
lowing of God's commandments, not by
a change from wrong to right, but by
96 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
keeping right—legally right. Of course,
moral conduct in one man or a million,
then as now, ought to he reformed, and
the ignorant or mistaken should he
taught right. The Jewish Scriptures
and religion—that is, God's revelation
and religion—prior to eighteen and a half
centuries ago, recognize Christianity as
fully as Christianity does ; that is, God's
revelation and religion subsequent to that
period recognize the earlier course and
teachings of the Church and the Bible.
So that instead of Christianity being
intended to displace Judaism, it was
intended to maintain it—to free it from
errors and interpolation — to establish,
propagate, extend, and enlarge it, and
thus carry it down the stream of time
for ever.
Mr. Milman, a Church of England his¬
torian, who would not be charged with
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 97
entertaining too liberal views on this
subject, tells us, in so many words, that
Christianity is but " an expanded Ju¬
daism."
Judaism recognized a Saviour, but
looked forward to a Saviour to come.
When the Saviour came, it became ne¬
cessary for true religion to recognize his
'presence. And when lie died and rose
again, in order to continue on the true
platform of religion, it of course became
necessary to turn in the other chronolo¬
gical direction, and recognize a Saviour
wbose advent is past.
At the time of Christ, and afterward,
several other changes in the faith and
practice of religion became necessary.
These changes were not by any means
merely arbitrary, but were rendered ne¬
cessary by the transition from what is
called the one dispensation to the other.
4
98 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
In order that religion be properly
taught, and its truths, its principles be
understood, the future coming of a Saviour
required the philosophy of expiatory
sacrifice to be set forth by symbols in
the death of some representative animal
sacrifice. And so other religious ideas
had to be originated and propagated in
the untutored mind of man, and it was
done by significant and appropriate em¬
blems and typical representations. .
There was a reason for every thing.
The great and direct philosophy of sal¬
vation by the sacrificial atonement of a
Saviour could not be taught directly and
plainly, because the Saviour and all his
personal transactions were yet in pros¬
pect.
And so, the Jewish sacrifices, with
many other appropriate rites and cere¬
monies, abated at the coming of Christ,
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 99
with the reason, for their adoption. They
were not by any means disannulled
merely arbitrarily, or because they were
wrong. They were not wrong. They
answered and fulfilled the ends designed
by God.
And so of the Church. It is always
obviously necessary that there be a test,
or sign, of religious unity or association.
In the times before the Saviour, when
religion, by moral necessity, was con¬
fined to a family and a nation, this sign
was circumcision. But circumcision
would not be appropriate to an extended
and developed religion afterward. And
so baptism was ordained for this pur¬
pose.
The life, death, and personal labors
and sacrifice of Christ, were circum¬
stances which occurred in the history of
a divinely planned religion. Of course
100 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
this was a fundamental and vitally im¬
portant circumstance, and forms a most
conspicuous and ever-memorable era in
the chronology both of the world and of
religion. And this era, marking the ad¬
vent of the Saviour, naturally creates a
necessity for several things which were
neither necessary nor appropriate be¬
fore.
After this period it becomes obviously
and naturally necessary for sinful man,
on becoming religious, to acknowledge
Christ, by some public and private de¬
claration. Without this, whatever else a
man might think or act, he would not be
religious. Hence the necessity of bap¬
tism. And in regard to baptism, as a
mode of acknowledging Christ, or a test
or sign of religious unity and association
since the period of Christ, there need be
but two observations made here.
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 101
First. There is very obvious appro¬
priateness and symbolic significancy in
it. And,
Second. It is the manner in which
the public acknowledgment and personal
dedication was directed to be made.
Circumcision was naturally appropriate
and significant before Christ's personal
advent, when they looked forward to a
Saviour, with his atoning sacrifice and
shedding of bloodf to come. But in this
period and condition of the Church there
would have been no such visible appro¬
priateness in baptism. And so, now,
since the Saviour has actually shed his
blood, and exhibited the visible history
and fact of atonement, circumcision would
be an unmeaning burden ; while baptism
is almost as legible and apposite as a
printed book.
And so of the Passover and..the Lord's
102 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
Supper. Each was appropriate and sig¬
nificant in its position. To appreciate
the value of a thing, we must suppose its
entire absence. Surely I need not stop
here to set forth the adumbrant proper¬
ties and signifieancy of the Passover, in
that portion of the Church's history where
it had fitness and meaning. But after
the personal history of Christ, and his
transaction of the great fundamental mat¬
ters of atonement, it "would he exceed¬
ingly opaque and void of meaning.
Now, something strikingly and con¬
stantly commemorative, not of the release
of God's people from mere civil servi¬
tude, but of the death and resurrection
of Jesus Christ, which releases men
from sin, becomes necessary, because of
its natural appropriateness in itself con¬
sidered, and because of man's tendency
to forget God, and his constitutional
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 103
waywardness and proneness to seek good
from earth.
It is impossible for the mind of man to
conceive or imagine any thing more per¬
fectly fitting, as a means to an end, than
the Lord's Supper, in its tendency to
chain and fix the mind upon that which,
in order to religious healthfulness, must
always be prominent in the thoughts and
the heart.
The Passover belonged to its proper
period, and was both appropriate and sig¬
nificant to the ante-Messiah Christian.
And the Supper is still more so to the
Christian who has seen and known of
Christ and his actual, visible atonement
and resurrection.
And so of the change of the Sabbath.
The principle, the doctrine of a weekly
Sabbath, is as old as human religion. But
this doctrine only requires the observance
104 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
of one day in every seven. The change
of the day neither set up nor annulled any
principle or doctrine 011 the subject, but
became proper from external circum¬
stances then well known. "We might or
might not be particularly informed of all
these circumstances, but wTe know that
the early Christians, or believing Jews,
did recognize this change. -Practically,
however, the change did not take place
all at once. For a considerable time
many Christians kept both days; but by
•
little and little, in process of time, the
old day was lost sight of, and the new
one only observed.
The relation, then, of Judaism and
Christianity is harmonious, natural, and
philosophical. It is involved in no ab¬
struse dogmatisms, no mysterious and
unmeaning appointments, no hierogly-
phical absurdities. Nothing can by pos-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 105
sibility be more harmonious, more rea¬
sonable, more philosophical, more true,
than the entire system of religion, from
the first announcement of relief in Eden
to its grand consummation in universal
glory and beatitude.
XVIII.
THE MORAL CONDITION OF THE CHURCH AT
THE TIME OF CHRIST.
To understand the character of the
Church in its historic progress through
the period which embraced Christ's min¬
istry, we must take a hasty glance at its
morals in this period.
The Jews, many of them, were a noble
people—noble in religious and social life.
They were the chosen people of God—
his own earthly household. Their reli¬
gion was a noble system, and as true and
106 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
right as any thing else coming direct from
the hand of God is true and right.
They had been under the schoolmaster
to lead them to Christ, now, many gene¬
rations, during which time they had
passed through many national and social
changes and vicissitudes.
But it is a great mistake with many
who suppose that all Jews had the same
religion. There were, at and for many
generations before the time of Christ,
great divisions and heresies in the
Church.
It was then very much as it is now
with Christians. The citizens of Chris¬
tendom, all as a general denomination, are
classed under the common name of Chris¬
tians. But when you come to inquire
more particularly in regard to them, you
find a vast 'diversity in religion. Some
are Universalists, some Unitarians, some
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 107
Quakers, and some open and others
practical infidels or unbelievers.
The citizens of Palestine and other
parts, who were descendants of Abra¬
ham, were not probably so much scat¬
tered and divided in religious belief and
practice as nominal Christians are now,
but there was among* them great diver¬
sity and division into sects and parties,
and the religion of many was only in
name.
The Pharisees and Sadducees were the
most noted, and generally the most reli¬
gious, though probably not the most
numerous of these parties. But then,
among each of them, there was great
variety of opinion on many questions in
religion, and still greater diversity in
personal devotedness. Among both
Pharisees and Sadducees you would find
at this period some of the noblest exam-
108 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
pies of personal piety and devotion to be
found anywhere in the history of religion.
And then, also, you would find thou¬
sands less and less pious, until you got
into the ranks of open, careless worldly-
mindedness and unbelief. Many of the
Pharisees were much given to formalism
and hypocrisy, While the Sadducees gene¬
rally were led more or less astray by
erroneous opinions.
And among them, too, you would find
some of the noblest, most zealous, and
devoted preachers that ever graced and
adorned the Church, preachers of great
popularity, usefulness, and power. Some
of these, as well as the most pious and
intelligent laymen, strove much to keep
the eye of the Church in high expecta¬
tion of a coming Saviour not far distant.
And then, again, very many looked upon
this as a vague, indefinite, and uncertain
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 109
doctrine, of little or no practical import¬
ance.
The Essenes were generally more rigid
in their devotions, more hated by other
sects, and mostly more erroneous in their
religious opinions, than either the Phari¬
sees or Sadducees, at least on some lead¬
ing doctrines of the law. They were
very exclusive, ^ad little "or no inter¬
course with other sects, and were for the
most part very strict in religion in their
way.
The Samaritans generally looked with
anxiety for the Messiah, but kept them¬
selves very much secluded in the desolate
regions of Gerizim, and were much de¬
spised by the other sects. Their religion
was exceedingly defective, being very
much mixed up with superstition.
It is said that there were at that time
about seven different sects and parties
110 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
among the Jews; and their jealousies,
strifes, and opposition, had been generally
deepening and widening for many years,
if not for centuries. And then there were
very many who had no very distinct and
close identity, if any, with either party,
but favored the one and the other, more
or less.
And these different parties might just
as well be called different Churches—that
is, they might be regarded as different
Churches in the very same sense in which
we call different classes of Christians,
now-a-days, different Churches. They
were different societies or sects in the
Church of Israel.
They were one Church, as a whole, one
great distinct religious communion, dif¬
fering vitally from all the world in reli¬
gion and in ecclesiastical jurisprudence;
and yet among themselves they presented
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. Ill
a variety, both in religion and in social
life, very mnch as is seen now among
Christians—that is, the people of Chris¬
tendom.
Religion is one thing everywhere, and
is necessarily personal and individual.
The Church is another thing, and is, in
its nature, collective, associate, and mul¬
titudinous. It is the association of Chris¬
tians.
The Jews were one people — one
Church; and yet, viewing them more in
detail, you find them divided into sepa¬
rate communities, and more or less exclu¬
sive in communion and association. The
framework of their ecclesiastical govern¬
ment was generally the same, and yet in
different synagogues you would meet
with much variety, here and there, in
practical administration. Their temple-
service was generally the same, and yet
112 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
here, also, yon would find variety in sen¬
timent. Some would not worship in the
temple at all, while others attached to it
very great importance. And then, again,
among the temple-worshippers there was
occasionally found no little strife and
opposition.
So that while the Jews were one people
in a more general sense, and all held
themselves in strong and exclusive con¬
trast to the Gentiles, they were cut up
into sects, denominations, and parties,
holding almost all religious opinions that
could well he thought of, mixed up,
almost all of them, with error and super¬
stition. Some of these opinions ran into
the wildest extravagances, while some
were exceedingly correct, and followed
very closely the written Scriptures.
And, of course, these classes or denomi¬
nations of opinions could not fail to bring
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 113
about, or cause, different classes or deno¬
minations of persons.
XIX.
HOW DID THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ORI¬
GINATE ?
Then, it is inquired by many, How
did the Church of Christ come into ex¬
istence? It is in existence now—it is
distinct from Judaism—it is an organic
body, with a government, laws, and form.
And hence it is supposed by many, that
of necessity there must have been a time
and place when and where somebody
framed and organized it anew.
This is a very gratuitous conclusion, as
I think we will be able to see with most
transparent plainness.
"We have seen that at the time Christ
114 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
was born, and before, tbe true and proper
Church of God was in progress, and that
its members were Jews. Now, when
he began to preach, and it began to be
stated that he was the Messiah of pro¬
phecy, some persons, after a while, began
to believe the truth of that statement.
Some believed it and some disbelieved it.
Of course, it is readily admitted that for
a time some doubted, but after a time
many became confirmed in the one opin¬
ion or the other.
As the question rose into prominence,
it soon became the great and all-import¬
ant question in the Church. This could
not be a question of comparative import¬
ance ; it was, in the nature of the case, a
question of vital importance. It was a
question of religion or no religion—of
Church or no Church—of fundamental
truth or fundamental error. To reject
THE CHUB.CH AND MINISTRY. 115
the Messiah, everybody assented, was to
turn away from all hope of salvation. To
receive a false Messiah was idolatry
equally ruinous.
At and after the day of Pentecost, as it
is called—that is, the Pentecost of the
great early conversions—it was most
stoutly affirmed and vehemently con¬
tended that Jesus was the Christ. And,
on the other hand, it was as stoutly and
vehemently denied.
And now, very soon, the question rose
to the highest degree of importance in
the estimation oftSboth parties. With
the more interest it was affirmed, with
the more zeal it was denied; and party
contended against party, as zealous men
would contend for important religious
truth.
This question arose in the Church,
among brethren of the same communion.
116 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
And here began a split, a division, a
separation, on this question. Those who
felt an interest in affirming his Messiah-
ship, were prominently and decisively
here; while those who felt interested, as
very many did, in denying his Messiah-
ship, were as distinctly and prominently
there. And so the strife and contention
proceeded.
Those who were prominent in this
warfare were preachers or other men
of influence. Remember, they were
all Jews, all brethren, all of the same
Church.
One can easily see how the thing
worked practically among these Jews at
the first, in their regular Sabbath-day de¬
votions, as well as in the more private
influences exerted on either side.
Here is a synagogue, in all external
matters proceeding as usual. The form
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 117
and appearances are as they were five or
ten or fifty years ago. The preacher for
to - day is opposed to this new doctrine
about Jesus being the Christ. He re¬
gards it a fanatical error threatening
great damage to the Church. Of course
he preaches against it, and warns his
hearers against it; and those who believe
his preaching believe it stronger and
stronger.
And over there on the other street is
another synagogue; a*nd it chances that
the preacher for to-day is one of the
apostles, or some other of the believers in
Christ. Of course he preaches Jesus and
the resurrection—and he does so with all
his zeal and power and might.
Some already "believe with the heart,"
and others are converted, and others
strongly and others less strongly sym¬
pathize with the doctrine. Some are
118 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
strengthened in their opposition to Christ
—some, in their belief in him.
And in private they propagate the
same doctrines—these these and those
those. And so the separation widened
and deepened.
This makes two branches, two Churches
—at least, in incipiency.
Now, it is the nature of the Christian
religion to produce among its subjects
not merely a oneness of opinion, hut a
strong personal love and attachment for
each other; and so, this wonderful and
absorbing power of spiritual gravitation
brought the believers in Christ gradually
together, and caused them to cohere in
the strongest sympathy and communion.
The love of God brings them together with
the powerful attraction of religion itself.
And so, on the other side, those who
persevered in rejecting Christ would natu-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 119
rally come into closer association. And
tlie farther and the warmer the contro¬
versy was carried, the stronger would be
the cohesion, the wider the separation of
the parties, and the closer the union of
the members of each.
And from this point of divergence the
breach widened; the two parts became
each more and more complete in itself;
fraternization here on the one hand, and
there on the other, became more and
more perfect and exclusive—and thus
matters have continued until the present
day. That is all there is of it.
But these things no more required a
new Church organization than a new lan¬
guage, or new employment, or a new
style of dress. The two things have no
natural connection with or dependence
upon each other. And the truth is, that
the Jews themselves have departed far-
120 the church and ministry.
ther, by little and little, from the govern¬
ment and practices of the synagogue ser¬
vice, as they obtained in Palestine nine¬
teen hundred years ago, than we Chris¬
tians have.
In all ecclesiastical associations, good
or bad, there have always been modifica¬
tions occasionally, from time to time.
"We Methodists change onr Church gov¬
ernment more or less, at least as often as
every four years; and so of all Churches.
But no great change ever took place at
any one time. The most considerable
change in external manners that ever
took place in the Church since the days
of Abraham, at any one time, so far as
we have any historic information, was in
the beginning of the sixteenth century,
when a portion of the Church protested,
under the teachings of Luther, against
the ruling dynasty. Perhaps the change
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 121
rendered necessary at the captivity, as
we shall see, might he an exception.
Some historians tell us that the Chris¬
tian Church was " formed after the model
of the synagogue." Formed after the syna¬
gogue, indeed! It was the synagogue
itself; and so it is to this day. Times
and countries, and religious opinions,
and other incidental matters, have from
time to time, in thousands of instances,
wisely or unwisely, brought about many
changes, such as always take place in all
human governments, civil, social, mili¬
tary, or ecclesiastical. But these are
only incidental modifications.
The Christian Church came about, as
we will see shortly, in the same way as
all other Churches. It grew up out of
surrounding and incidental circum¬
stances—that is, the association of-men,
which was called the Jewish Church
122 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
separated, as we have seen, into two
societies. One of these took on the
name of Christian, because its members
were, or professed to be, Christians.
The disciples were called Christians first
in Antioch. Acts xi. 26. But they were
Christians all the while, really.
There was no going out of one Church
into another. That they all recognized
the same Church, believing and unbe¬
lieving Jews, those who were Christians
and those who were not, is further seen
from the fact that in some instances the
Christians were excommunicated. But
this was precisely like the attempt of
Pope Leo X. to excommunicate Luther
and the Keformers. Those who had
taken themselves out of the Church,
really, though not formally, undertook to
exclude those who were in it.
We see occasional allusion to these
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 123
acts of excommunication in John ix. 22,
34, and xii. 42, and xvi. 2; and Mark
xiii. 9. They show clearly that, so far as
Church-membership was concerned, the
believers stood precisely where they had
always stood.
And in Acts ix. 2, it is expressly men¬
tioned that the "letters" which Saul pro¬
cured from the high-priest, to Damascus,
were "to the synagogues," and had ex¬
clusive reference to the. members of their
ecclesiastical communion.
And then, the very important question
arises, What became of the true Church
when the believing and unbelieving Jews
so widely separated ? Which branch did
the true Church follow ?
This question is answered by asking
another: Which is found resting on the
doctrine—Thou art the Christ ?
Whatever association rests on that, is
124 THE CHURCH ANDk MINISTRY.
the Church, from absolute logical ne¬
cessity, supposing that Jesus ivas the
Christ.
It is plain and easy to see, then, that
the unbelieving Jews—not because they
were Jews, but because they were unbe¬
lievers—ceased to be the Church. They
left the true platform; they turned away;
they got off the track. And the believ¬
ing Jews and Gentiles, or whosoever
they might be, continued to be the true
Church, because they did not leave the
true platform. True Christians make a
true Church.
XX.
THE TRUE IDEA OF A CHURCH.
There is nothing in the slightest de¬
gree valuable in mere Church existence,
government, or organization, abstractly
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 125
considered. The value lies in Christi¬
anity. But Christianity necessarily forms
itself into a Church. It cannot he other¬
wise, so long as human nature and Chris¬
tianity remain what they are. Church
organization, communion, association,
order, government, naturally, necessarily,
and unavoidably, grow out of religion.
And remember, religion, in its very
nature, pertains to individuals. It can¬
not be predicated of an association.
Persons individually religious, associate
and conlpose a community.
It is not the nature of Church-mem¬
bership, of itself, to produce religion :
religion produces the Church. But in
this, as in most, perhaps all instances of
practical life, the cause and the effect are
so intimately connected that they fre¬
quently interchangeably promote and
extend each other. The moral tendency
126 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
of Church-membership is to promote re¬
ligion, and vice versa.
And now let us inquire how it is that
this association and Church government
are necessarily produced by individual re¬
ligion in the persons severally ?
The nature of the Christian religion
answers this question. "The love of
Christ constraineth us," is a mere philo¬
sophical axiom, resting upon the nature
of Christianity.
Religion produces or is inseparable
from strong, solicitous love to Grod and
love to mankind. It seeks, ardently, ad¬
vancement in the person himself, and
extension in every direction elsewhere.
Piety is never satisfied with either present
attainment or present achievement. It
seeks to communicate with others, and
to bring all into the same holy and hea¬
venly association and enjoyment.
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 127
"When this is not the case, there is not
religion. This is, in truth, well known
to he one of the strong tests of the genu¬
ineness of piety.
Religion not only 'produces, but supposes
a Church. So that in providing rules of
religion you necessarily provide many
things pertaining to the Church, because
you are obliged to suppose the persons
you are instructing to be in a state of
Church-fellowship. Some form of whole¬
some government is therefore necessarily
supposed and looked forward to as a
thing that must be. The two ideas of
religion and Church are inseparable.
And again. Another very prominent
and powerful characteristic of religion is
its anxiety and love for kindred associa¬
tion. The communion of the saints is
both a conclusive test and cardinal pillar
of the religion of Christianity. Re-
128 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
ligious association among Christians not
only adds greatly to the personal com¬
fort and enjoyment of religion, but is one
of the readiest and most powerful means
of extending the same enjoyment among
others. The Christian strives to deepen
and widen religion in himself, and also to
extend the blessing as far as possible
among others. The man who is so cir¬
cumstanced as to be deprived of religious
associations among other Christians, is
deprived of one of the largest and most
powerful external properties which reli¬
gion possesses, and he labors in religion
against immense, if not almost insur¬
mountable disadvantages.
These considerations do but set forth,
in other forms of language, that religious
persons necessarily and naturally seek
the association of other Christians with
almost uncontrollable anxiety. The per-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 129
son who does not seek such Christian
association, everybody knows, is not a
Christian.
Then Christians associate. They
preach to and pray with and for each
other; they league together, they unite,
they confederate for mutual aid and pro¬
tection. They necessarily have and pro¬
fess Jovggndjd^^ for each other.
Otherwise they are certainly not Chris¬
tians. They are baptized into Christ—
they put on Christ—they come out from
the world and become separate—they
publicly and privately confess Christ—■
they commune together in commemora¬
tion of the death of Christ—they do not
forget to assemble themselves together,
as the manner of some is—they are no
longer strangers and foreigners, but fel¬
low-citizens with the saints and of the
household of God. They are now in this
5
130 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
state of union and communion with each
other from decided choice and irrepres¬
sible desire, because they love the
brethren.
*
These are the proper evidences of
Christianity. By these marks we deter¬
mine the presence or absence of the
Christian religion. It was the case be¬
fore Christ — it is the case since. It
must always necessarily be so.
So that where there are Christians—
individual Christians—there is this—all
this — religious association. Otherwise
they are not Christians. And what is
this association but a Church? If they
associate thus, they necessarily have order,
rules, government. Without these they
could not associate in a decent, orderly,
and becoming manner.
Members must be known and recog¬
nized by personal identity; and so we
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 131
must have a list of their names. And
hence we join the Church by a personal
act; and this is at the same time an act
of religion and of fellowship, both of
which belong, inseparably, to Chris¬
tianity.
Without much of law or order, indivi¬
dual persons might conglomerate for a
time; hut they cannot associate, with a
sincere desire to promote religion, with¬
out as much, at least, of government as
will regulate all their proceedings, define
and protect the boundaries of their asso¬
ciation, withdraw themselves, by some de¬
fined rules, from every brother that walk-
eth disorderly, and establish an exclusive
distinctiveness of position among men.
And this much government every
Church, or integral part of the Church,
possesses; and more than this is claimed
by none.
132 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
It is thus obvious that a Church, and
Church government, result necessarily
and unavoidably from personal religion
in individuals.
The idle question sometimes asked,
whether a person can be a Christian, and
remain out of the Church—when Church-
fellowship is practicable, of course, is
meant—is well-nigh no question at all,
and supposes an almost total ignorance
of Christianity. It is the same as to ask,
Can a person be a Christian without hav¬
ing the essential marks and evidences of
Christianity ? Can a person be a Chris¬
tian without possessing a strong desire
for religious association ? Can a man be
a Christian without entering into such
fellowship and communion with other
Christians as is necessary to the existence
of Christianity? Can a person be a
Christian without being a Christian ?
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 133
Such a question is neither very logical
nor, religiously, very wise.
Writers on political economy have, in
order to get at the original idea of the
formation of civil government, supposed
a time in the midst of society when no
government existed. Of course there
was never such a time; hut supposing
such a thing, they proceed to show how
just such civil government as now exists
would soon have sprung into existence.
We may apply this mode of reasoning
to the case in hand.
Suppose a town or neighborhood where
there were no religious persons. And
now there come into this place twenty
religious persons from different quarters,
having no knowledge of each other.
Each supposes himself to be, so far as he
knows, the only Christian in the place.
He casts about him, modestly but boldly,
134 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
wearing his religion outside of him as
well as enjoying it internally. This he
must necessarily do if he he a Christian;
and they must soon discover each other.
Now they are in a state of disintegration.
But it is just as unlikely that they will
remain so, as it is that an apple would
remain suspended in the air, with nothing
to counteract the law of gravitation.
They will as certainly come together in
association as the apple will come to
the ground; because Christ's attraction,
bringing Christians to him and to each
other, is a law of God just as imperative
and as operative as is the earth's attrac¬
tion which will bring the apple to it.
Physical gravitation is not more cer¬
tain in its effects upon matter than is
spiritual gravitation upon the feelings
and impulses of religion.
These twenty persons come together
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 135
certainly. And this coining together is
for mutual aid—to obey Christ—to he
more religious—to preach—to commune
—to administer the sacraments—to pro¬
tect each other. And you cannot do this
without all needful rules, for every one is
doing his very best to obey Christ and
promote religion. They might form one
single society or several integral ones, as
difference of opinion about this or that,
or any other incidental circumstance,
might advise, but a Church is inevitable.
And the absence of the Church is the
best evidence the nature of the case
admits of, of the absence of religion in
the individuals.
" The visible Church of Christ is a con¬
gregation of faithful men in which the
pure word of God is preached, and the
sacraments duly administered, according
to Christ's ordinance, in all those things
136 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
that of necessity are requisite to the
same."—Articles of Religion of the Church
of England and of the Methodist Episcopal
Church.
All of which is the natural fruit of indi¬
vidual Christianity.
Church means Christians—Christians
in association as such, for the promotion
of Christianity. Being true Christians,
of course they conduct their association
"according to Christ's ordinance, in all
those things that of necessity are requi¬
site to the same."
Ceasing to do that, they would cease
to be Christians.
XXI.
THE NATURALNESS OF A CHURCH.
Suppose two honest Americans seek¬
ing to promote civilization and American
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 137
principles, accidentally meet eacli other in
a city in Japan. By their language and
address they discover to their mutual
gratification that they are both citizens
of Tennessee. They are glad to see each
other, and naturally feel interested in
each other's society and welfare. And
they rejoice to learn that in that far-off
heathen land there are, besides them-
selves, other American citizens. They
soon form themselves into a social com¬
munity, and meet together by appoint¬
ment to promote mutual good-feeling
and the cause of Americanism amongst
themselves, and in the land—for this is
their mutual business. They feel the
blessings of freedom, and enjoy, mutm
ally and severally, the spirit of our good,
wholesome institutions. They see how
admirably they are calculated to promote
their private and social welfare. Other
138 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
Americans arriving there, naturally join
them.
This American community, in this far-
off heathen country, is a society—a social
compact. They meet together at stated
periods for mutual instruction and edifi¬
cation in the affairs and interests of their
home country, its laws, customs, institu¬
tions, language, commerce, people, inte¬
rests, etc.
They need rules to regulate themselves
in these matters, govern their meetings,
manners, etc., and being Americans, of
course, as their association is for the pro¬
motion of Americanism, those rules will
all be in accordance with American laws
and usages. They could not pattern
after the heathen customs around them,
which are anti-American, for the reason
that they are Americans, and love Ameri¬
canism, and are seeking its promotion.
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 139
From time to time, as their numbers
increase and their circumstances change,
they need some new rules, which of
course they establish as matters progress.
These American colonists, away in that
far-off country, feel as much interest in
American manners and matters as if they
lived in their own land, for they are all
looking forward with solicitude to the
time when they will return and share in
all the enjoyments of home-life.
For we are to suppose that the promo¬
tion of Americanism among heathens is
a matter very dear to these persons—that
philanthropy strongly leads them to incul¬
cate these principles as matter of life and
death importance to millions.
And the Government at home, know¬
ing there are American citizens there,
and feeling it as much a duty to protect
and benefit them there as though they
140 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
were here, sends agents or embassadors
there for their protection against the in¬
roads of heathen manners, for their in¬
struction in the arts, sciences, laws and
customs of our country, for their child¬
ren are being born and are growing up
there in the midst of heathen and half-
savage customs and laws.
And now, as these American embassa¬
dors or ministers arrive from time to
time, and here and there, one at a time,
the people are liable to be imposed upon
by false embassadors, either by designing
men, or by deluded or fanatical persons
of American birth, who might be led
astray by a wild imagination.
Here arises a matter of importance.
It will not do to receive the teachings of
every one who claims to be a minister
frpm America, and can speak the lan¬
guage, aud has some knowledge of Amer-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 141
ican matters, and who might present
himself in the capacity of a minister to
this or that family or company of per¬
sons. The common safety requires that
they be careful whom they receive, and
to whom they listen. They well know
the Government sends true men duly
commissioned and properly qualified.
They must needs, therefore, establish
some regular mode of testing and pass¬
ing judgment upon the credentials of
every person claiming to be sent as a
minister.
They will naturally establish some
regular and prudent mode of examining
and deciding upon these various claims;
and it must of course be the law among
them, that no one is to be received as a
minister until his claims are regularly
and officially decided upon, and due pro¬
clamation and notarial validity be given
142 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
to the same, and until proper personal
assurances be given by the man himself
that he will discharge the duties of a
minister to the best of his ability^.
The greatest precaution must be ob¬
served here, because these foreign Amer¬
icans and their children are constantly
exposed to the heathen and semi-bar¬
barian customs around them, and the
force of - constant example is powerful
indeed.
But even this precaution is by no
means sufficient. They know that a
true embassador, truly and properly
sent, his credentials rightly and pro¬
perly received, and he having in good
faith and honesty entered upon the im¬
portant duty, and having even prosecuted
it faithfully for years—all this is not a
complete guaranty; and to leave the
matter here would sometimes be ruin-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 148
ous. They all know that at the very
best this minister is an imperfect, fallible
human person, and is himself liable to be
led astray and seduced into heathen cus¬
toms and feelings in many ways. So
they must have a law that the society
shall keep a constant oversight upon him,
and if he shall teach or practice false
American morals and doctrines, his cre¬
dentials shall be quashed and his teach¬
ing cease. And proper tribunals must
be set up for all these purposes and this
protection. They have the constitution
and laws of their country, and are there¬
fore perfectly competent to do this.
Now it is not pretended that a Church
ever arose by these precise historic stages,
because there has probably been no- occa¬
sion for it. But it is affirmed that this is
a tolerably good illustration of ecclesiasti¬
cal naturalness.
144 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
The Church is nearly as old as religion
is. And since the former grew, by little
and little, complexionally, into organic
existence, thirty-five hundred years ago,
ecclesiastical organization has been merely
ecclesiastical extension. Changes natu¬
rally necessary, in external manners, have
been adopted, all the way down, as they
were called for, some in Egypt, some at
the Exodus, on the accession to Canaan,
at the Captivity, at the time of Christ, of
Luther, of "Wesley, and in ten thousand
intermediate instances in all parts of
Christendom.
A Church, with all needful laws, offi¬
cials, and legal equipment, must exist
wherever Christians exist who become
known to each other. The nature of re¬
ligion, corresponding to man's social
nature, absolutely requires it.
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 145
XXII.
ORIGIN OF THE SYNAGOGUE SYSTEM.
It has been said that no Church was
organized—that is, that Churches did not
originate by being purposely framed in
their government and set up anew. The
synagogue system of the Jews itself did
not originate in this way.
How did it originate ?
It is not known to have had any
proper existence before the Babylonish
Captivity. Nevertheless, it is believed
that prior to this period the Hebrews
had places of social worship other than at
the temple. It appears that the houses
of the prophets may have been used for
the public reading of the law and the
worship of God.
Nebuchadnezzar conquered the Jew-
146 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
ish people, took the principal men and
women prisoners, and indeed most of
their number, and carried them to Baby¬
lon, a strange country, and there com¬
pelled them to remain.
Now, what were they to do in this
strange land, and in these trying circum¬
stances? This is beautifully alluded to
in the one hundred and thirty-seventh
Psalm:
" By the rivers of Babylon, there we
sat down, yea, we wept, when we remem¬
bered Zion. We hanged our harps upon
the willows in the midst thereof. For
there they that carried us away captive
required of us a song; and they that
wasted us required of us mirth, saying,
Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How
shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange
land ?"
Whatever else may have been done by
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 147
these Hebrew captives, they did not for¬
get God, nor turn away from his service.
For the same Psalm continues:
" If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my
right hand forget her cunning," etc.
One can see, almost with certainty,
what any persons in such circumstances
would naturally do. On the approach of
the hour of service on the Sabbath, they
would gather around the prominent per¬
son, prophet, priest, or scribe, who cus¬
tomarily led their services in their own
land, and they would look to him for
direction. And he, as naturally, would
feel disposed to lead or assist in the ser¬
vices as he had formerly done. And in
the absence of their accustomed places of
worship they would do without them,
and would perform the rites of religion as
best they could, perhaps in their houses.
And they would do so the next Sabbath;
148 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
and this would naturally soon lead to the
special use of houses for this purpose as a
matter of convenience. One item of
order and regularity wpuld succeed an¬
other as occasion would demand, until,
before long, it would acquire form and
regularity, and grow, almost impercep¬
tibly, by little and little, into a regular
system.
These places of worship, rude, perhaps,
at first, but better arranged after a while,
were as numerous as convenience and
their civil and social condition required.
Long before they left Babylon, it had
become a settled, well-understood sys¬
tem. And as the older ones died off,
there were but few, and then soon there
were none, who had practiced any other
form of public worship.
When they returned to Jerusalem, they
of course kept up their synagogue sys-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 149
tern, and have done so with some regu¬
larity to this day; those who rejected the
Saviour have kept up their anti-Christian
worship; and those who received the
Saviour have kept up their Christian
worship.
They rebuilt the temple, and recom¬
menced the temple service; but we do
not see them discontinue the synagogue
service. Synagogues soon became nume¬
rous in Palestine; and long before the
time of Christ comparatively few wor¬
shipped regularly in the temple, or ever
saw it indeed, except at the great feasts,
and thousands not even then. It was
the priests, almost exclusively, who fre¬
quented the temple.
150 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
XXIII.
ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONAL
CHURCHES.
And I have said that the denomina¬
tions of Christians; as we see them exist
at the present day, did not come about
by being at first framed, set up, estab¬
lished, organized by somebody, with a
government in such and such manner.
On the contrary, the denominations
arose in very different ways. They grejv
from an almost imperceptible germ, by
little and little, for the most part, until
after a while they became separate and
distinct, forming an independent com¬
munity, with complete and separate juris¬
diction.
Sometimes they have had their origin
in civil and political changes, and na-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 151
tional considerations; sometimes in dif¬
ferences of belief respecting doctrine, or
tbe construction of Scripture language.
Sometimes one thing and sometimes an¬
other has occasioned them.
XXIV.
THE ROMISH CHURCH.
How did the Church of Rome, as it is
called, come into existence, and acquire
the title of Catholic ?
At the first the Christian Churches, or
synagogues of Christian Jews, which is
the same thing, were to some extent
practically independent of each other.
The league between them was rather
moral and social than strictly legal.
Their social and official intercourse was,
however, close, confiding, and intimate.
The most dominant Jewish authority—
152 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
that of the unbelieving Jews—over them,
became, after a while, as the separation
became more and more real and dis¬
tinct, more and more slack until its
cognizance became merely nominal, un¬
til at length it was lost sight of alto¬
gether.
This gradually produced a greater ne¬
cessity _for a closer union among the
Christian Churches for their mutual pro¬
tection, until about the middle of the
second century we find the Churches
coming together in somewhat formal
representative bodies.
Mosheim (Hist., vol. i., p. 93) says, "It
was only in the second century that the
custom of holding councils commenced in
Greece, from whence it soon spread into
the other provinces." Watson says the
first ecclesiastical council was held in the
middle of the second century.
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 153
In process of time, the bishops having
charge of the Churches in the principal
cities acquired considerable dignity; and
those of the largest cities were presidents
of these conferences, first by courtesy and
then as of right. And the delegates, too,
began to be delegates by right.
Jerome says the acquisition of power
by the city bishops was by little and little.
The city Churches always took the lead.
Those in the country had derived their
existence from them, and they naturally
looked to them for counsel and encour¬
agement. In case of doubt or dispute
in or between the country or village
Churches, the question would be referred
to the city Church, or rather, as the
matter really became after a while, to the
city bishop. And this advice and coun¬
sel soon acquired the character of over¬
sight, superintendence, and jurisdiction.
154 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
So that it is easy to see the gradual
but sure progress of authority from the
humble and pious pastor of a handful of
Christians, on through several ages, up¬
ward to the prerogatives of episcopal rule
and domination over tbe clergy and laity
of a whole country surrounding a city.
At length, as Christianity advanced
and became influential, questions arose
between these city bishops as to the
extent of their several powers and juris¬
dictions. These questions did not pro¬
ceed far, however, before they became
settled, so far as the smaller cities were
concerned, by the Metropolitan ques¬
tion.
The Council of Nice, in 325, and of
Antioch, in 341, concentrated and ex¬
tended episcopal rule still farther. The
former declared that "Bishops in the
provinces should be subject to the Metro-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 155
politan and that "no one should be
appointed bishop without the consent of
the Metropolitan." This regulation was
followed up in the Western Chuffch at a
somewhat later period; so episcopal rule
became vested in the bishops of Jerusa¬
lem, Antioch, Caasarea, Alexandria, Ephe-
sus, Corinth, Rome,. Carthage, Lyons,
and a few other cities that claimed to be
each a metropolis.
But the ambition of ambitious men
was not yet satisfied. Episcopal rule
was not sufficiently centralized for those
in the larger cities. The Metropolitans
had already acquired more or less of civil,
power, which tended still further to
stimulate their ambition. In the fifth
and sixth centuries, the patriarchal gov¬
ernment arose; and Constantinople^
Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, became
the seats of those primates who bore the
156 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
title of Patriarch. Each one had all the
episcopal authority he could grasp, and
all the civil power he could wrench from
the se^ts of political jurisdiction, which
was no little indeed.
But the end was not yet. Power was
still divided; and in the strife for supre¬
macy, Alexandria • and Antioch had to
give way, and leave the field to Rome
and Constantinople. 'Here was the cele¬
brated and bitter and long - contested
strife for universal primacy. This con¬
test mingled with the greatest political
events of those ages. In the fifth and
sixth centuries, it became settled in the
"West in favor of Rome; and in the
course of the seventh, the East was
obliged to give way, and so the supre¬
macy of the pope and the papal system
became established.
And so the Church at Rome became
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 157
the Catholic Church. It had more civil
and military power than its competitors.
XXV.
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
"When and by whom was the Church
of England organized ?
No such event ever happened at any
one time.
Remember, that organizing a Church
means—if it means any thing—organiz¬
ing the government of a Church. And
organizing a government, of any kind,
means establishing or distributing the
three natural elements of government—
the legislative, judicial, and executive—
here and there, in such and such par¬
ticular manner—any one of a thousand
ways.
Then if the Church of England was
158 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
not originally framed and set up at its
beginning by some recognized authority,
how did it come into being ?
In the forepart of the reign of Henry
VIIL, and previously, no such separate
ecclesiastical government existed as the
Miglish Church. A part of the Roman
Catholic Church was in England, and
had been for nearly a thousand years.
But in England the Romish Church had
nothing different from the same thing in
any other country.
Henry was a proud, ambitious, bad
man. He resisted the principles of the
Reformation under Luther, which had
now made considerable progress, and
wrote a small book against the reformers,
and in favor of Papacy, as a reward for
which, Pope Leo X. conferred on him the
title of "Defender of the Faith."
Henry's wife, Catherine, -was his
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 159
brother's widow, and a little older than
himself, and Anne Boleyn, a lady of his
royal household, was a younger and a
prettier woman, and the king set his un¬
faithful heart on making the exchange.
He applied to his friend, the pope, for a
divorce, on the pretence of affinity.
This inflicted great and apparent in¬
jury on the queen, and very much dis¬
pleased her brother, the Emperor of Ger¬
many, Charles V. And it also placed
the pope in an awkward position. To
grant Henry's request was very likely to
bring him into a war with the emperor;
and to refuse it, was about as likely to
create the same sort of a difficulty in
England. And so he tried to do neither,
and postponed matters, now under this
pretence and then under that, and the
matter dallied along a year or two. Mean¬
while Henry's patience became pretty
160 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
well exercised. His dislike of Catherine
increased, and his passion for Anne in¬
creased, and his restless impatience in¬
creased. And the pope found this long
delay and that longer one indispensable,
and matters began to he desperate.
At length Cranmer, who became Arch¬
bishop of Canterbury, invented an idea
most apropos. He discovered that the
services or consent of the pope was not
absolutely necessary in divorcing the king.
The thing could be done by authority of
the Universities. That was never thought
of before, and it took, in England. And
so, the divorce and the nuptials were con¬
summated.
But though this invention of Cranmer
served one purpose, it made terrible
havoc with another. By everybody ex¬
cept Henry and the Archbishop and a few
courtiers, it was looked upon as a most
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 161
open outrage upon the ecclesiastical
authority of the pope, and was regarded
as an outright divorce of the Church in
England from the papal jurisdiction# At
least, Henry found himself compelled to
regard it so.
The Reformation had already made
considerable progress in Germany, Swit¬
zerland, and France, and it had many
strong, pious, and devoted friends among
the clergy and others in England. The
Church was ripe for it. And Cranmer
himself was among its firmest advocates,
or soon after became so.
And now it was as plain as daylight
that it was the easiest thing in the world
for the king to set all these matters at
rest in a twinkling. And so the English
king became a Protestant, and so the
English Church, previously Catholic, now
became Protestant.
6
162 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
This was a mere change in the religion
of the Church, by order or consent of the
king; and it affected the government of
the €!hureh no further than to substitute
the jurisdiction of Henry for that of the
pope or his legate. There was no change
in the form of the Church's government,
much less was there the organization of
a new government.
There was no going out nor going in.
There was nothing to go out of\ nothing
to go into. There was no ending in one
place, nor beginning in another; there
was nothing to end, nothing to begin.
Thus the mere jurisdiction of Pope Leo
X. ceased in fact, in the Church, in Eng¬
land, at that time and under those cir¬
cumstances, and it has not been perma¬
nently renewed since. That is the begin¬
ning and the end of that matter.
But the religion of the Church did not
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 163
become permanently Protestant under
Henry. It vacillated considerably from
Romish to Protestant during several suc¬
ceeding reigns, but finally threw off the
heresy of Romanism entirely.
Henry VIH., in those disgraceful
scenes, disgraced himself, but no one
else. The Church in England, then and
since, was and is just as good, just-as
bad, just as right, just as wrong, legally,
morally, and religiously, as if the papal
rule over the Church in that country had
found its termination in any other way.
And so, the Church in England, from
that time, began to be called the Church
of England, and has very properly been
so spoken of since. And there the
Church is now Protestant instead of
Romish.
As to the laws of the Church, they,
like those of all other Churches, have
164 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
been changed from time to time as expe¬
diency seemed to require, perhaps almost
every year, from the day that Henry ap¬
plied to the pope for divorce, to the pre¬
sent time. But no radical or consider¬
able legislative changes have taken place
at any one time,
XXVI.
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
Wben, where, and by whom was the
Presbyterian Church organized ? Ho
man, nor men, ever undertook such an
enterprise at any time and place. The
thing came about on this wise:
In the early part of the sixteenth cen¬
tury, Luther and his early confederates
in the Reformation, Melancthon, Zwingle,
and others, had planted themselves pretty
solidly in Germany and Switzerland, and
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 165
the truth was*- now taking deep hold in
the hearts and lives of many pious, enter¬
prising men in France.
At this time there was. in the Univer¬
sity at Geneva a young man of remark¬
able promise. Advanced in education
and mental development beyond his
years, he imbibed the spirit of the Pro¬
testants with zeal and energy which
would have well befitted older men.
And withal, he was an orator of no ordi-
dary grade, and connected with his other
endowments the most engaging and cap¬
tivating manners. He entered the min¬
istry in connection with the Reformers,
at an early age, and very soon attracted
attention at the University and in the
city, and was immediately looked upon
as a youthful champion in the cause of
religious truth, in those stirring times.
His name was Calvin.
166 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
As Calvin preached, and became more
influential, his mind was directed largely
to the writings of Augustin, who, in the
fifth century, imbibed and discussed
somewhat elaborately the doctrines of the
"Decrees of God," as they were after¬
wards called. And he became a thor¬
ough convert to these doctrines.
Calvin was a strong debater, as well as
a bold and fearless advocate. And after
some years, when he had, in his judgment,
sufficiently digested the doctrines of
the Decrees, he broached these doctrines
boldly, and set them forth with great
plainness and force in a sermon in the
University.
This question, as a question of religious
polemics, had not probably before been
presented to the mind of many, if in¬
deed of any, in the city of Geneva, and,
as might be expected, it attracted pretty
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 167
soon much attention and exciting in¬
quiry.
The principles of the Reformation
made up the great question, hut Calvin
made this a great question; and this
first sermon was frequently followed by
others, in which, wholly or partially,
these principles were more extensively
elaborated.
Of course many persons, those who
felt an interest in the question of the
Decrees, took decided, and many very
strong ground, on one side or the other.
Calvin was popular, and his doctrines
became popular; but among all the Pro¬
testant Churches of the city there was a
diversity of sentiment, and some stood
here and some stood there. The ques¬
tion itself, in the manner in which it was
presented, was, and still is, important,
and the discussion of it there by Calvin
168 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
and others gave it all the immediate in¬
terest it deserves.
And so, none can fail to see that natu¬
rally — almost necessarily — the strong
friends of Calvin on this question would,
really without any effort to do so, form a
coherence here, while those rejecting the
doctrines'would form a coherence there.
The laws of social gravitation require
this. This social coherence would pro¬
ceed more or less slowly, and would he
more or less distinct, as the question
causing it was deemed more or less im¬
portant.
This law of social attraction was made
and in full operation long before either
Calvin or Augustin was born. We see
it in operation every day around us. It
has long since passed into a proverb that
"Birds of a feather flock together."
It could not happen otherwise, there-
THE CjfURCH AND MINISTRY. 169
fore, that after a while the Calvinists
would be found pretty generally in sym¬
pathy and association with each other;
and that after a further while, the separa¬
tion would be more or less complete.
"Why are there not this day Calvinists
and Arminians indiscriminately in the
Methodist Church ? There is no rule
against it. The doors of Methodism are,
and always were, as wide open to the one
as to the other. Nay, more; it is well
known that in the earlier years of Meth¬
odism a large portion of the Church was
Calvinistic. And further, that the con¬
troversy on this subject rose as high, and
was debated as warmly in the Methodist
Church, by Methodists, as it, perhaps,
ever was anywhere else.
And it might be further noted, that the
controversy in the Methodist Church, or
the existence of the question, a hundred
1T0 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
years ago, resulted just about as the same
thing did in and among the Churches
and Christians in Geneva three and a
quarter centuries ago. In both cases the
Calvinists drew to themselves, and the
Arminians to themselves. This was not
done, however, by any popular or legal
movement in either case. But Calvinists
preferred to hear Calvinists preach, and
to associate with Calvinists in Church-
fellowship ; and Arminians preferred to
hear Arminians preach, and to associate
with persons of kindred sentiments and
feelings. And this preference in indi¬
viduals, naturally, by little and little,
brings these together, and those toge¬
ther.
And now, does any one ask how the
Presbyterian Church came about ? Why
I have just already explained how it came
about. The association of individual
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 171
Christians in a religious capacity, for
worship and Christian communion, is a
Church. That is what you mean when
you say "Church."
As to the presbyterial government in
that Church, there was never a time
when any decided movement on this
subject was had.
It might, however, be mentioned, that
Calvin and his friends were more pres¬
byterial in their views and preferences
about Church government than those on
the other side. And the two parties
being separate on one question, it is easy
to see that this question about govern¬
ment was not an unwelcome one, and
that it tended to separate the parties still
wider—that is, to unite the Calvinists
more closely.
In principle the presbyterial govern¬
ment is not widely different from the
172 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
government of the Methodist and Bap¬
tist Churches. In form, it is by no means
always the same among Calvinistic Pres¬
byterians. Some are more or less Con¬
gregational, some more or less Federa¬
tive.
These complexional differences have
been brought about, a little here and a
little there, as expediency and the notions
and opinions of men seemed from time to
time to suggest. And from the prin¬
ciple involved in these historical occur¬
rences and circumstances has grown into
being the specific association of Chris¬
tians which you see there to-day, and
that you properly call the Presbyterian
Church.
Of course it is not pretended in this
brief notice to give even a synopsis of
the history of the formation of this
Church. The celebrated Synod of Dort
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 173
fixed and settled these religious and ec¬
clesiastical principles very much. I am
only attempting to present the principles
and their natural workings, which led to
the important result in question.
XXVII.
BAPTIST CHURCHES.
There is/ not, nor was there" ever, in
this country or any other, a denomination,
association, or distinct class of Christians
which was or could#with* propriety he
called, "the Baptist Church." Baptists
do not, and never did, composed a distinct
Church or ecclesiastical organization or
government.
The practice of immersing the body iii
water, in baptizing Christians, is traceable
back as far as the third century; and, so
far as this argument goes, as much farther
174 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
as any one chooses to have it. But the
Christians who held to this practice, or
believed in its necessity or utility, are
not, in the early history of the Church,
or any other, found to compose a distinct
denomination.
Long before the Romish Church he-
came Catholic, as she calls it, Christians,
in various parts of the countries where
they were found, had become separated,
from various causes, into distinct com¬
munities, or denominations, and no doubt
quite a number of .these were wholly or
mostly composed of persons who prac¬
ticed immersion in baptizing.
Benedict, in his " History of the Bap¬
tists," who, I believe, is regarded as very
high authority among Baptist Christians,
gives account of several of those religious
communities or denominations in very
early times.
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 175
It is certain that a oneness of belief
and practice in regard to the necessity
of immersing in baptizing, would bring
such persons together into one denomi¬
nation, were they not divided and sepa¬
rated on other questions. But these vari¬
ous other questions divide and separate
Baptists, as well as Pedobaptists, into
separate denominations.
And so we find that from the earliest
times, after at least about the third cen¬
tury, there was found among various
Christian communities a preference for
immersion. But though many Chris¬
tians were united in sentiment on this
question, they were nevertheless^divided
and widely separated on many others.
What folly is it, then, for men to either
aflirm or deny any thing of the Baptist
Church in the early ages! There was no
such Church then any more than there is
176 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
now. The thing was and still is impos¬
sible. You might as well inquire about
the Pedobaptist Church. There is no
such Church—never was. Or about the
Calvinistic Church. There is no such
separate class or denomination of Chris¬
tians.
If by Baptist you mean that which 1
believe everybody means, a Christian
holding to the necessity of immersing in
baptizing; then you find, both now and
anciently, a variety of Baptists, both as
congregations and individuals. Some
are Calvinists, some Arminians, some
Unitarians, some Trinitarians; they are
missionary, and anti-missionary; some
hold the Christian Sabbath, and some
the Jewish; some hold and some reject
conversion; some are Universalists, and
some are Methodists.
There is nothing that I know of that
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. ITT
can be predicated of Baptists except that
immersion is necessary in baptizing. Gene¬
rally, though not universally, they con¬
fine baptism to persons at least some
twelve or fifteen years of age. None, so
far as I know, restrict it to adults. At
the present time very many Baptists are
close-communionists. "We have in the
United States, among the several Chris¬
tian denominations, the following named,
which are Baptist: The Missionary, Re¬
formers or Campbellites, Anti-Mission,
Free-Will, Sabbatarians, Dunkers, Two-
Seed, Six - Principle, Church - of - God,
Winebrennarians, Separate, Open - Com¬
munion, and others.
All these separate Baptist Churches, as
diverse, distinct, and disintegrated as any
other Churches, have had their origin—
that is, they have assumed distinctive¬
ness of form and body, respectively, here
178 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
and there, from a variety of causes.
There was never a precise time and place
when and where either one began to exist.
The gradual rise and prevalence of the con¬
troversies respecting these various ques¬
tions caused a gradual separation by
little and little, until distinctness came to
be clear and recognizable.
But to trace these distinct organiza¬
tions, all of them, with definiteness as to
time and circumstance, to something like
a confluence of events, which grew into
distinctness of form and body, is perhaps
impracticable. In tracing briefly these
historical incidents, I am governed by Mr.
Benedict, because I prefer to let Baptists
speak for themselves.
Mr. Benedict thinks he finds a Baptist
Church of what he calls " General Bap¬
tists," as far back in England as 1608 or
1609; see page 829 ; and of Particular
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 179
Baptists, as far back as 1633; see page
336. But most evidently there were no
regular classes of Baptists in Europe in
those times. Every thing was exceed¬
ingly irregular—no sort of ecclesiastical
order prevailed.
In the nature of things, constituted as
the Baptist Churches generally are, it is
impossible for a Baptist denomination, or
class, or general division, to have a lineal
or successive existence. They may be
continuous, but they cannot be legally
joined or related in lineal succession, be¬
cause the single Churches composing the
denomination are independent of each
other. Lineal succession can only per¬
tain to single, separate congregations or
Churches.
There is no Baptist body of brethren
now existing in the United States, or
elsewhere, with the ordinary character-
180 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
istics of a denomination of Christians,
whose ecclesiastical history I am able to
trace back more than comparatively a
few years with any thing like historic or
chronological order.
The early history of Baptists in this
country—say prior to eighty or ninety
years ago—gives us a great variety of
Baptist Churches of totally different and
discordant "faith and order," and with
no ecclesiastical affinity and fellowship.
In Virginia and the Carolinas and Mary¬
land, the Baptists were most numerous
in the latter part of the last century.
The leading denominations were mostly
called, respectively, Regulars and Sepa¬
rates ; and sometimes they were both
called New-Lights.
The Regulars and Separates formed a
sort of ecclesiastical union in Virginia in
1787, and, as well as I can ascertain, it is
THE CHUECH AND MINISTRY. 181
to this united body that the present Anti-
Mission Baptists are lineally or histori¬
cally traceable mainly. See Benedict,
pages 642 to 651.
The Missionary Baptists, as a denomi¬
nation or class, are of much later origin.
This is at present the largest distinct
class of Baptists in this country.
They began to exist as a Church, or*
distinct class, or denomination, about
twenty-five years ago. They grew out
of or separated from the Regular Bap¬
tists. The cause of this separation was a
difference of sentiment among them on
the subject of missionary labors. Many
of the Churches of Regular Baptists, as
well as individuals, were entirely inactive
on the subject, and many opposed the
doctrine out and out.
In 1835, or about that time, two Bap¬
tist ministers in Tennessee, one of whom
182 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
is still living there, issued a circular to
their brethren, inviting a cooperation in
the cause of missions. This was strenu¬
ously opposed by the Church, but the
circular made friends, and the friends of
missions increased among them, and con¬
tinued to increase. The opposition rose,
and the breach widened, and continued
to widen. The friends of the missionary
circular preached in its favor, while those
adhering to the Regular Church as stren¬
uously opposed it.
This missionary sect, or party, could
not be properly called a secession, be¬
cause there being no federation among
Baptist Churches, generally, there is no¬
thing to secede from. They, however,
naturally, took on the name of Mission¬
ary Baptists, and still wear it with much
honor. And though, as a class, or de¬
nomination, or Church, they are as yet
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 183
scarcely twenty-five years old, so true,
apostolic, and evangelical are their prin¬
ciples, that they even now outnumber
the Regular Church, or Ironsides, as they
are frequently and oddly called, perhaps
two or three to one.
The missionary doctrines of the circu¬
lar spread over the country, and it formed
a nucleus around which many rallied.
And, as above remarked, one of its
authors, a minister of much piety and
great moral and religious worth, still
lives to see the fruit of his labors and
his zeal, and still continues to preach the
same wholesome doctrines. And this
separation was further actuated by dif¬
ference also about Calvinism. The old
Church, as it was considered, held gene¬
rally to very high Calvinism; and as
those who favored missionary labors
drew off from the main body, the Cal-
184 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
vinistic question separated them still
wider. And in the course of not many
years the two parties became generally to
he considered of different faith and order,
and ecclesiastical oneness and intercom¬
munication, after a while, ceased. And
since about twenty years ago the Mis¬
sionary Baptists have been generally re¬
garded as a separate and distinct class.
The Disciples of Christ, or Campbell-
ites, as they are most generally called,
arose and assumed distinctness of organ¬
ization or form about 1826t-8.
The occasion of this organization was
the preaching by the Rev. Alexander
Campbell, in Kentucky and elsewhere,
of religious doctrines different in ^some
important respects from those generally
prevailing in his Church. Those who
believed these doctrines, and considered
them important, of course coalesced, and
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 185
in process of time they grew into a dis¬
tinct body. They are now the largest
body of Baptists in the United States,
except the "Missionary."
The Free-Will Baptists withdrew from
their Calvinistic brethren in 1780, and
have since maintained a separate exist¬
ence. The occasion of this separation
was the prevalence of the doctrines of
Arminianism. — Benedict's History, page
906.
The Six-PrincipleBaptists are the oldest
class or denomination of Baptists I am
able to find in this country. We see
them as far back as 1729, in pretty close
coalescence, but Mr. Benedict does not
know when they " began to associate to¬
gether in an organized manner."—Hist.,
p. 909.
The Seventh-Day Baptists, according
to Mr. Benedict, page 918, are the oldest
186 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY*
denomination of Baptists of which we
have a distinct knowledge. He thinks
they date-back as far as the forepart of
the sixteenth century. Their chief pecu¬
liarity is, that they observe the seventh,
instead of the first day of the week, as
the Sabbath.
But in these denominations, as before
intimated, there is the natural impossi¬
bility of tracing, from age to age, a lineal
identity of succession. For instance,
there may be a Church, or several
Churches, of Six-Principle, or Missionary
Baptists, here now. But what is meant
by their being the same as Six-Principle
or Missionary Baptist Churches twenty-
five or a hundred years ago ? The same
in what? The single congregation can
have perpetual or successive sameness;
but outside of this, that which would
otherwise be sameness is only similarity.
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 187
Two things which exist separately and
independently cannot he the same.
There being no federation among Baptist
Churches, the union or coherence among
them is only of a moral and social nature.
It cannot therefore be known or affirmed,
on any legal grounds, that even two
neighboring Churches are of the same
faith or the same government, because
the two neighboring Churches are totally
independent of each other, with no federa¬
tive alliance. Both Churches are pre¬
sumed to immerse in baptizing, but there
the sameness ends, so far as it can be
legally known.
The nature of this essay does not re¬
quire that these remarks be extended.
When the Baptist Church began to exist, is
a question that can neither be asked nor
answered, for the reason that there was
never a time when one, and only one,
188 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
Baptist denomination was known to
exist, unless we assume the Seventh-Day
Baptists as the original stem; and our
Baptist brethren generally would not
i allow this, because they do not acknow¬
ledge faith and order or fraternal rela¬
tions with that organization. And if
this principle were admitted, the succes¬
sive existence which is supposed is sub¬
ject to the natural difficulties above ex¬
plained.
You cannot affirm any thing of "the
Baptist Church," because there is no
such specific thing, any more than you
could affirm of the Pedobaptist Church:
there is no such specific thing.
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 189
XXVIII.
THE METHODIST CHURCH.
Who organized the Methodist Church ?
Most assuredly this question must be
answered in the same way as similar
ones have been previously disposed of.
Everybody knows that there was never a
time and place when and where men got
together and proposed and adopted and
planned off a Church to be called a Me¬
thodist Church. The organization came
about without the forecast, conception,
intention, or planning of any one, just as
all other single, separate Churches have
come about.
About a hundred and thirty years ago
there lived in England three young men,
by the names of George Whitefield,
Charles and John Wesley, ministers in
190 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
the Church of England, and fellow-stu¬
dents in the University. They were re¬
ligiously disposed, and saw around them
great practical infidelity, worldlyminded-
ness, and but little vital piety in the
Church; and they met together for
prayer with a few other very select
friends. And finding prayer good for
the soul, they met again, and continued
to meet once a week, and pray. The
interest of the prayer-meeting increased
—and increased—and enlarged—and ex¬
tended—and deepened—and widened—
and continued to increase more and more;
and here it is to-day, an immense con¬
federate prayer-meeting system, and the
largest and most influential evangelical
Church in Christendom,
r Wesley never organized a new Church
—never intended any such thing; and
he was even loth to recognize the distinct
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 191
separate ecclesiastical existence of Me¬
thodism after he found that, by force of
circumstances, Methodism had, to all in¬
tents and purposes, a distinct, separate
ecclesiastical existence.
"In the latter part of the year 1739
eight or ten persons came to me in Lon¬
don, and desired that I would spend some
time with them in prayer, and advise
them how to flee from the wrath to come.
This was the rise of the United Society."
— Wesley.
One would scarcely say that that prayer-
meeting was the organization of a new
Church; and yet, perhaps, it is the most
noted and important popular move¬
ment upon which you can put your
finger, looking toward such a consumma¬
tion, in the history of Methodism.
The Wesleys and Whitefield, and their
compeers, were not preaching about
192 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
Church, organization and government,
but on a totally different subject, viz.,
religion, faith in Christ, personal salva¬
tion. Their work was in the Church—
the Church of England. They were not
planning and organizing to get out of it,
and set up a rival institution.
But the laws of social coherence were
there, nevertheless, and Methodists loved
the preaching and communion of Me¬
thodists. The Christian love in their
hearts brought them together by the gra¬
vitating force of fraternal attachment.
They associated together—which is surely
not a very strange thing—in religious
communion; and they continue to do so
to this day. That is all.
Of course, as the prayer-meeting pro¬
gressed, and convened from time to time,
some new rules became necessary. For
instance, they had to enact a law—some-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 193
body bad to do so—that tbey would meet
at eigbt o'clock, or some other particular
time, and in such particular specified
place. And as the matter enlarged so
that they had to meet in two, and then in
ten, and then in a hundred different
places, somebody must needs regulate the
labors in regard to several matters. Who
is to lead this, that, and the other meet¬
ing-? What qualifications must these
leaders—or, as they now became, lay-
preachers—have ? What are their duties ?
Are their duties all the same? How
about their support? About hours of
worship ? About extending the work ?
Who are members of these societies ?
What rules of association? What are
the peculiar duties and privileges, if any,
of ministers ? How about baptism and
the Lord's Supper, and other points of a
similar character ?
7
194 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
None can fail to see that these, and
many other similar questions of mere
prudence and expediency, must arise,
and must he settled, or the religious
movement or revival must come to an
end. And what else than this have Me¬
thodists done in the way of organization
or government ?
They have done nothing else.
And what else than this has any Church
in Christendom ever done ?
Nothing else!
This is all that ecclesiastical jurispru¬
dence means.
About 1744, Dr. Stevens remarks—
Hist. Meth., vol. ii., p. 185—"It became
obvious that better-defined terms of mem¬
bership were necessary for the growing
societies."
Of course, nothing is more natural.
And so they adopted the " General Rules
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 195
of the United Societies." And as other
rules, less general perhaps, "were neces¬
sary," down to the present time, they
were made. And so with all ecclesiastical
bodies.
The first Methodist Conference was
held in 1744; and Dr. Stevens (Hist., vol.
ii. p. 211) gives its immediate history and
character in terms, the legal structure of
which could not be improved by a Black-
stone or a Marshall.
"He (Mr. Wesley) wrote letters to
several clergymen, and to his lay assist¬
ants, inviting them to meet him in Lon¬
don, and to give him their advice re¬
specting the best method of carrying on
the work."
That is the true philosophic character
of an ecclesiastical synod.
The setting up of Methodism in
America was a mere Church extension,
196 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
in character precisely the same as organ¬
izing—extending the rules over—another
Church on the next street or neighbor¬
hood, or in California or China.
Questions " respecting the best method
of carrying on the work," are always in
order, in all conferences and synods, no
matter how such conventions came to be
brought together. They are the only
kind of laws a Church needs, or can pro¬
perly have.
At one time "the best method of car¬
rying on the work" requires a general
superintendent or bishop; and then seve¬
ral ; and then the laying off of more con¬
ferences ; and then the establishing of a
Book Concern in Hew York; and then
the restriction of the Southern and the
Northern bishops to Southern and North¬
ern territory respectively, and separate
General Conferences; and then this, that,
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 197
and the other "method of carrying on
the work," from time to time, as Provi¬
dence and surrounding circumstances
move forward.
It is seen, therefore, that the Methodist
Church, like all others before or after
Christ, began, and continued to maintain
ecclesiastical organization, and to exer¬
cise its natural functions, by the associa¬
tion of professing Christians. This asso¬
ciation implies, naturally and necessarily,
order, regularity, laws, government, as
complete, appropriate, useful, and effi¬
cient as ordinary wisdom and piety is
able to devise.
XXIX.
CHURCH MEANS CHRISTIANS.
Hence we see that Chwrch means Chris¬
tians. It means something more than the
198 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
plural of Christian, because two or three,
or a hundred Christians, might, and often
do, exist in a state of disintegration.
Church means Christians in association—
in association as Christians, for Christian
ends and purposes purely.
It is impossible for any number of
Christians to become formed into an
association for purely religious purposes,
obeying, as in that case they must do,
the commands of Christ in regard to
public and private Christian duty, and
not he a Church. If they have all the
natural and legal functions of a Church,
then they are, for that reason, a Church.
Those who talk about the Church of
Christ being a positive institution, are not
careful of either words or ideas; and
they should remember that they are
liable to he called on to show the arbi¬
trary appointment by which it was set-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 199
tied. And tliis they acknowledge to he
impossible, by saying—as most people do
—that no form of Church government is
prescribed in the Scriptures.
Legality applies to Christians, not to
the mere incidental forms of association.
It is impossible for legal Christians, with
the opportunity of association and com¬
munion, not to compose a legal Church.
"With the opportunity of association, if
they do not associate—meet together—
pray, exhort, preach, administer the
sacraments, and thus by public associa¬
tion promote, or seek to promote, piety
in themselves and others, then that is the
b§st evidence the nature of the case ad¬
mits of that they are not Christians.
Because these things are the legal tests
and the only legal tests of Christianity,
and the appropriate evidences of its ex¬
istence.
200 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
Every one means Christians in asso¬
ciation when he says Church.
XXX.
TEST OF A CHURCH.
"What is the proper, appropriate legal
test of a Church ? There is an. associa¬
tion of men and women claiming to he a
Church. Are they, or are they not, a
true Church—that is, are they a Church ?
How is that question to he determined ?
It is remarkable indeed—nay, it is mar¬
vellous—the modes or processes set on
foot sometimes for the determination of
this question.
Many proceed in this way: "Without
stopping a moment to look at that which
is the subject-matter of the inquiry, they
look immediately away to England, and
inquire into the ecclesiastical history of
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 201
tliat country. They there find that a
hundred years ago and more, a very
good man Tived there, whose name was
John "Wesley. Mr. Wesley, they find,
was an elder in the English Church, and
that he held such and such opinions
about Churches, and about religion; that
he ordained one Thomas Coke to be
superintendent or bishop of the Churches
in America which might acknowledge
his oversight; and so, seeing that Mr.
Wesley was a good and great and pious
man, that he believed and said and did
certain things, verily and truly, therefore
this said association in question is a true
and legal Church.
That is not a caricature, but *a fair,
truthful picture. It is a concise but true
description of some of the arguments we
find floating in the books on this subject.
In regard to all arguments of this sort
202 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
I have just this one thing to say: if there
be any relation, of a logical nature, be¬
tween the postulate and the Conclusion, I
am totally unable to discover it. I know
of no rule of logic which would not-as
easily admit of any other result, about
law or medicine, to be deduced from the
same premises. It is totally different
from the mode pursued by everybody in
determining the character of any thing
else.
In determining the true character of
any thing, the mode, and the only mode,
is first to examine it, and then compare it
with the law respecting that thing.
But here, twenty or fifty people now
present are adjudged to be a Church, be¬
cause Mr. Wesley, a hundred years ago,
in England, thought certain thoughts,
and said certain words, and did certain
acts !
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 203
That is marvellous. Nothing could be
more illogical.
Whereas, beyond all controversy, most
assuredly, the way, and the only proper
way, to judge of the true character of an
assembly of persons calling themselves a
Christian Church, or of any thing else, is
first to examine the thing, and, secondly,
compare the facts thus ascertained with
the law or rule governing such thing.
Then the mode of proceeding is, first,
to examine the religious faith and prac¬
tice of the people composing the assem¬
bly, and find what their religion is; and
having ascertained the religion of the
people, you, secondly, compare these
facts with—what ? With the opinions or
actions of some man, or men ? Surely
this is wrong, for the well-known reason
that the opinions of men, however wise
or good, are not the standard of religion.
204 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the
standard; and it is a perfect and com¬
plete standard of Christianity, and of
every thing pertaining to Christianity.
Then yon compare the facts as to the
faith and religious practice of these people
with the Bible. You examine the people
to-day, and compare them with the Bible
to-day; and if the thing, the character
of which is in question, fits this straight¬
edge, then it is true and right, because it
conforms to the standard. Nothing is
true or valid which does not conform to
its standard—every thing is which does.
A Church, then, is a true Church, or a
valid Church, or a good Church, or what¬
ever kind of a Church it may chance to
be, because of its present character, and
not because of any thing which some per¬
son or persons did or thought or said ten
or a hundred or a thousand years ago.
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 205
You are a Christian, if a Christian at
all, because of your present character—
because your character conforms to the
standard of religion, the Bible. And that
community of persons, associated as they
are in compact, is a Churclji, if a Church
at all, because of the present character
of its members or integral portions, and
because this character conforms to the
standard.
In determining the character of a pre¬
sently existing Church, I have no need,
most assuredly, to inquire any thing
about Mr. Wesley. I do not, for that
purpose, need to know that there was
ever such a man. He certainly forms not
even a part of the body now, for he is
dead. And it is as true that he has be¬
queathed no spiritual grace to any per¬
sons or Churches existing now.
From that argument there is no escape.
206 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
Everybody knows tbat this is the rule of
determining the character of any thing.
That company of men is a Masonic lodge
because of its conformity to that stand¬
ard. And this company is a school, that
is a bank, the other a temperance society,
a court, an army, a legislature, a Church,
for the same reason, viz., conformity to¬
day to the standard respectively of each
particular thing.
Verily, the claims to ecclesiastical valid¬
ity of a living Church, resting on the his¬
toric opinions or actions of some person
or persons who are not even now alive,
are but flimsy indeed, and, whatever they
may be, can determine nothing.
You are a Christian, if a Christian at
all, surely not because of what somebody
did or thought before you were born,
but because of your present character;
and that association of persons is a
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 207
Church, if a Church at all, because of
the same reason.
XXXI.
THE MINISTRY INSTITUTED.
"We sometimes speak of the ministry
having been instituted by the Saviour,
without having a very clear or perhaps a
very correct idea of what he did in the
matter. Let this matter be more defi¬
nitively understood.
If we mean by "instituted," that
Christ originated, set up anew, began,
that which had not a being before, we
are mistaken; for this he did not do.
There was, at the time of his birth, in
existence a regular, proper, legal minis¬
try of religion; a ministry which had
been in continuous operation for cen¬
turies, under the direct supervision of
208 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
the Almighty. Its validity will therefore
hardly he questioned.
This ministry became Christian at the
time of Christ, not by appointment, by
law, by direction, or by institution; but
naturally, necessarily — that is to say,
after Christ's personal appearance, life,
and history, the regular, true ministry
of God took Christ's name, in the same
natural way that the Church did.
It became the Christian ministry be¬
cause Jesus was "the Christ, the Son of
the living God;" and because it be¬
lieved and preached that fundamental
truth. Nothing else could have made
it a Christian ministry, and that* could
by possibility make it nothing else.
The disciples were called Christians
first at Antioch. Acts xi. 26. And of
course the ministry among these dis¬
ciples was called Christian first at An-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 209
tioch, or somewhere else, about that time.
They must necessarily apply some gene¬
ral name to these ministers to distinguish
them from the other Jewish ministers
who preached against Christ and his
assumptions. And they would very na¬
turally and very properly be so called
ever after. *
The Christian ministry is merely the
true, legal, divine ministry—that is, the
ministry of the true, legal religion of
God.
Christ did not, therefore, originate the
true divine ministry, because a true
divine ministry was in existence at and
before his time. How much of human
error had crept into the ministerial teach¬
ings of those times, is another question.
It was the same kind of a question then
as now.
Then if Christ did not originate a new
210 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
ministry, the first true, legal ministry,
what did he do in regard to it? What
changes or laws did he make or enact,
or what did he institute or establish in
regard to ministering religion to the
world ?
He did very much, hut nothing hut
what was apparently natural, and re¬
quired by the change of circumstances,
and by the true and simple philosophy
of religion.
Several things were naturally necessary,
in the true ministry, after Christ's com¬
ing, which could not be appropriate
before.
First, and mainly, the priesthood must
abate. This was effected not by appoint¬
ment, but of natural consequence. Christ,
the great atoning Sacrifice, had now
come, and offered himself. And of
course the priestly office of the minis-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 211
try, which typified this Sacrifice by signs
and symbols, conld no longer have any
meaning. See Paul's argument and ex¬
planation on this point in the Epistle to
the Hebrews. He explains the simple
reason of the thing growing out of the
fact of the personal coming of the Mes¬
siah.
Before this coming and actual atone¬
ment, all that could be done was to
adumbrate the great reality. But the
reality of course abates the adumbration,
and the priesthood of the ministry ceases.
This was the greatest and most im¬
portant change that took place in the
ministry at that time, and, of course, to
teach and rivet the important matter in
the minds of his disciples, required no
little of instruction from the great Divine
Instructor.
We sometimes mistake the nature of
212 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
biblical truth. We suppose things are
true because they are written in the Bible.
No, this is not the way of it. Things
are written in the Bible because they are
true.
2d. The ministry of the Church, to
continue true and legal, must now recog¬
nize and conform to the great fact of
Christ's coming. It must no longer,
now, preach a Saviour in prospect, be¬
cause there is no Saviour to come. The
ministry must now, as it were, face in the
other direction, and preach and teach a
risen Saviour. But this is not a new
doctrine. It is the same thing they
always preached, only now the chrono¬
logy and history of their religious prin¬
ciples must remain inviolate.
To preach Jesus and the resurrection
—that Jesus is the Christ—that he did
die for sinners—that he thus atoned for
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 213
the sin of the world—that he rose from
the dead—is the same doctrine which was
preached by the prophets and by all the
true Jews down to the very day of his
coming, provided Christ did thus truly
come and perform these things. No new
thing is to he preached; only the preach¬
ing, to continue the same, must conform
to these facts and chronological truths.
3d. Baptism was instituted, we say,
though the principle involved in it was a
mere continuation. A new and arbitrary
doctrine was not set up in baptism. The
form of initiation into Christ was changed.
Before Christ, this public and open ac¬
knowledgment of fealty to his kingdom,
to be full and complete, must adumbrate
—foreshadow—pre-represent his death
and sacrifice; and hence the obvious
propriety of the form used in this sacra¬
ment prior to his actual sacrifice. But
214 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
after his coming and actual sacrifice, this
form of administering the sacrament
would he without meaning or signifi-
cancy.
So that circumcision and baptism are
not two things, hut rather two forms of
administering the same thing-1—viz., a
public, open, personal acknowledgment
of fealty to Christ, and test or seal of
the covenant or sacrament. Sacrament
means religious obligation.
The form prescribed for the adminis¬
tration of the initiating sacrament after
the actual atonement, is most appropriate,
significant, and plain in its symbolic
meaning.
4th. And so of the Lord's Supper. It
was, in its principles, by no means a new
thing brought just then into being by
arbitrary government.
The Passover was appropriate, signifi-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 215
cant, instructive, and full of comfort and
meaning. But this form of the sacra¬
ment was obviously appropriate only to
that period of the Church which preceded
the coming of Christ. The deliverance
from bondage in Egypt was significant,
adumbrant, typical of the great deliver¬
ance from the bondage of sin by the
atonement of a Saviour. And the Pass¬
over was not only commemorative of an
actual temporal deliverance, but a pre-
monstration of the atonement of Christ.
It was not commemorative of the atone¬
ment of Christ, for a mere chronologi¬
cal reason. But it taught the same doc¬
trine. And now, after the atonement it¬
self is past, we no longer wish to com¬
memorate, by sacramental rites, the Egyp¬
tian deliverance, but the atoning deliver¬
ance itself.
And hence the form of the sacrament
216 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
must needs be changed. The historical
facts require it.
So that the Lord's Supper is a Chris¬
tian institution, not in the sense of its
being an entire original creation, but in
the sense of its being a change of the
form of an existing institution, which
change becomes necessary by the coming
of Christ. Otherwise it would be void
of signification, unmeaning, inappropri¬
ate, not calculated suitably to impress
the heart, or afford lessons of wholesome
teaching.
These are the legal changes in the
ministry which Christ established, and
these are the reasons for such changes.
Eone can fail to see the simplicity of its
philosophy.
He also sent the apostles and the seventy
disciples to preach. But in this, the prin¬
cipal point of interest and remark is not
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 217
that the Saviour sent men to preach, for
preaching was no uncommon thing in,
those days. The matter prominently
remarkable here is, that he sent men to
preach those particular things which just
then, for the first time in the history of
religion, became proper and necessary to
he preached, viz., the veritable coming
of the Saviour.
This truth, and other things naturally
consequent upon it, must needs now be
preached in order both for the. preserva¬
tion of truth and to maintain inviolate
the regular doctrines of the Church.
And who else could be expected to
preach this great fact hut the immediate
disciples of the Saviour ? So he " sent
them, two and two, before his face, into
every city and place whither he himself
would come."
The regular teachings and well-under-
218 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
stood doctrines of the Church for cen¬
turies before required this, of unavoid¬
able necessity, upon supposition that
Jesus was the Christ.
He sent men, therefore, not merely to
preach, but to preach a veritable present
Messiah. He sect them into every city
and place whither he himself would come,
to advertise the Churches and people that
the Saviour was. then amongst them.
And he not only taught that preaching
should be continued for ever, for this
alone would have had not much mean¬
ing, or at least not much importance con¬
nected with it, for the probability is, that
preaching would have continued suffi¬
ciently plenteous without any such in¬
structions ; but he taught that the sub¬
ject-matter of preaching ever after should
be, not any longer a prospective, but a
crucified and risen Saviour.
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 219
In addition to this, lie taught his dis¬
ciples many wholesome lessons in reli->
gious morals, and the reasons therefor.
He set up the first complete system of moral
philosophy among men; and he showed
how it was that complete morals were
necessary to, and go hand in hand with,
complete religion.
These are the things, mainly, which
Christ did, and which are commonly
called instituting the ministry. I have,
of course, no sort of objection to the use
of those terms in this connection; but I
have thought it best to relieve them from
an improper, and give them a proper sig¬
nification.
220 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
XXXII.
CALL TO THE MINISTRY.
The limits of this essay will admit of
but a glance at the important and inte¬
resting subject of a Call to the Ministry.
Many persons seem to take the true idea
out of its natural and common-sense posi¬
tion, and invest it with mystery and inex¬
plicable surroundings, which give rise to
many debates, neither very profitable nor
important.
The following remarks are copied from
an introduction to OlirCs Call to the Minis¬
try,, as recently published at the Southern
Methodist Publishing House. They com¬
prise pretty much, perhaps, what might
be appropriately said just here on the
the subject. Attention is first called to
the idea of a ministry.
the church and ministry. 221
Ministry. "What do we mean by
" ministry ?" Ministry, either in religion
or any thing else, implies three parties:
First. The party or person desiring to
send or communicate something of sup¬
posed advantage to another party. Second.
The person sent on such embassy. And,
Third. The person or party to whom such
communication is made. It implies much
more than the mere sending of a message.
It supposes a constant or continuous in¬
tercommunication, on the part of the
minister, between his sovereign or prin¬
cipal and the party he isrtreating with.
A minister is therefore a servant. Ser¬
vant of whom ? it may be inquired. Of
his principal or sovereign, the first-named
party. Hot a menial servant in general,
but a servant, or minister, or ambassador
for this particular work. And a minister
implies not only a service as directed by
222 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
his principal or sovereign, but that this
same service must be acceptable to the
third party, and that they receive the ser¬
vices of mediation and cooperate with
both the other parties.
A ministry is therefore the same, philo¬
sophically considered, in religion as in
national or civil diplomacy, or any simi¬
lar affairs.
And hence it follows that a supposed
minister, who is not personally and spe¬
cifically designated and sent, is no minis¬
ter at all, so far as the first or principal
party is concerned. And so it is as philo¬
sophical as it is scriptural, "How shall
they preach, [minister the gospel,] except
they be sent?" There can be, in the na¬
ture of the case, no such thing.
We understand, then, that God pro¬
poses in Christ our Saviour to send a
gospel to the world of mankind, and thus
the church and ministry. 223
to treat with men respecting their neces¬
sities and their salvation. And this
brings us to notice, in the second place,
briefly,
The Minister. In what relation does
a man stand to the Church or the world,
attempting to minister the gospel, who is
not personally designated and sent? In
proportion as he is intelligent, he can but
regard himself as an interpolation upon
the gospel, and an intruder in the sanc¬
tuary of the Most High.
It might then be, as it has been, in¬
quired, Has no one a right to teach reli¬
gion and religious truth but a minister so
designated and sent ?
And the reply is that it is the duty of
all men, everywhere, to teach and recom¬
mend the gospel of Christ to their fellow-
men, and to promote religion by all prac¬
ticable and lawful means.
224 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
And then it may be inquired, Why the
necessity, and what are the peculiar duties
of a minister, since the promotion and
propagation of religion is equally the
duty of all ?
And I will answer- that question by
asking another: Why is it necessary or
expedient for the Government of the
United States to send and keep a Min¬
ister in England, or any other foreign
nation, to promote the commercial and
friendly relations between the two Gov¬
ernments, since it is the duty of all men
in both nations to foster and promote all
these same interests ? And another:
Why is it necessary, in the moral eco¬
nomy of a people, that some certain per¬
sons should be personally designated as
educators, since it is the duty of all to
promote education ?
We are to take the world as it is—not
the church and ministry. 225
as - it might be, or as we might fancy it
should he.
God, in communicating with the world,
through and by meane of the gospel, in
order to the salvation of men, must needs
proceed with or without a specially estab¬
lished ministry. And it is a question to
be answered in the economy of God,
Which way would be best ?
The salvation of no one person is de¬
pendent absolutely upon the ministration
of a minister. And yet it does not re¬
quire a very far-reaching insight into the
affairs of men to see that the world is
better off with than it would be without
a regular ministry of the gospel.
And this brings us, in the next place,
to look a moment at
The Party which receives the Min¬
istry. Surely none can fail to see that in
order to a profitable reception of a minis-
8
226 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
try, either in Christianity or in any thing
else, it is necessary that there be on the
part of those receiving the ministry a
proper understanding of the nature of
such ministry—what it is for, what it im¬
plies, and what it is—and that they have
satisfactory assurances that such sup¬
posed appointment and designation is
genuine. Otherwise, there must be con¬
stant uncertainty and dissatisfaction.
Preaching the gospel, or ministering
any thing else, implies not only the vocal
utterance of such truth, but it also implies
the receiving, the hearing, the attendance,
on the part of those to whom the minis¬
tration is sent. There is a difference be¬
tween teaching Christi mity and ministering
the gospel. The former is the mere com¬
munication of abstract truth, with more
or less of wholesome exhortation to follow
it; while, superadded thereto, the latter
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 227
includes a pastoral oversight proper, in
which the minister offers the gospel by
the more direct authority of its Author.
xxxni.
ORDINATION.
In the judgment of the writer, there are
few religious or ecclesiastical questions
about and around which more has been
written of a polemical character, without
coming to the question and investigating
it, than that of Ordination to the Christian
Ministry.
The Romish teachings of priesthood
and of high ministerial authority, at first,
jostled the mind of the English divines
from the plain and simple issues, about
the time of and subsequent to the Re¬
formation. And then, unfortunately for
plain simple reasoning and thinking on
228 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
the subject, the English Church was made
part and parcel of the English Govern¬
ment, in which hereditary or transmitted
authority was the ruling central ingre¬
dient. And so, government, in Church
or in State, meant with many persons the
rule of officials by virtue of personal in¬
vestiture, or power personally trans¬
mitted.
We all know how long and laborious
it was for so bold and so strong a thinker
as John "Wesley to get free from these
entanglements of education, and how it
was that by little and little, through
almost a lifetime, he escaped from them.
And if he were alive to-day, he would
likely write down a further advance in
the same direction
How is a minister made? Wheuce
comes his authority to preach ? What is
the philosophy of ordination ?
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 229
It is thought that perhaps these ques¬
tions can be as satisfactorily answered by
extracting from .the Ecclesiastical Consti¬
tution in its chapter on Ordination, as by
any thing I could write now.
The question of a Divine, personal,
specific, and immediate call to the Chris¬
tian ministry does not belong to the pre¬
sent argument, and will not, therefore, be
introduced. The doctrine is, however,
fully recognized, and we proceed upon its
supposed truth.
Then human persons have no agency
whatever—can by possibility have no
agency—in the investiture of the minis¬
terial office as between the supposed min¬
ister and Christ. But the ministerial
office, in its very nature, recognizes and
has to do with three different parties,
viz., Christ, the minister himself, and the
Church. The Church is not a party to
230 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
the call to the ministry: cannot he cog¬
nizant of it by any distinct visible mani¬
festations, and can only be informed by a
fallible, erring man that snch call has
been made.
Secondly. It is clearly possible that the
Church may be misinformed as to this
fact, and we all believe that this is not
very unfrequently the case. This may
result from ignorance, superstition, or an
overheated and misguided zeal. For
there is a zeal which is not according to
knowledge.
How, a Christian minister, in order to
be properly, validly, and practically a
minister, must have the seal and recogni¬
tion of both the other parties, viz., the
Master who called and sent him, and the
Church to whom he ministers. For, sup¬
pose a man to be truly called of God to
the sacred office: if the Church does not
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 231
in some way, by some public and autho¬
ritative mode, recognize and give their
assent to the call, and receive the min¬
ister, he is no minister to men. And,
•on the other hand, suppose the Church
to recognize a man as a minister, and by
whatsoever public or private acts—any
thing possible for them to do, in order to
invest him with ministerial functions—
and the invisible movings of the Holy
Ghost in designating the man as a min¬
ister be lacking: he is most surely no
minister of Christ to the Church, however
much or however little men may be mis¬
taken in the premises.
Hence, in the very nature of the case,
in order for a man to be divinely and
practically a minister to the Church, he
must have the Divine call and investi¬
ture, and also the human assent and inves¬
titure of the ministerial functions. The
232 the church and ministry.
former may, and undoubtedly does, give
him a personal right to be a minister; and
it may and does also make it his duty to
preach. Not absolutely his duty, how¬
ever. It is his duty to preach only upon
condition of his being able to induce the
Church to come into the arrangement.
Because, to preach, not only implies the
vocal utterance of truth on his part, but a
recognition of and a hearing of his preach¬
ing on the part of the Church. A minis¬
ter alone of himself cannot preach. It
requires the act and cooperation of both
minister and people to make up what we
call the preaching of the gospel.
Here, then, lies the necessity, and the
Only necessity, of ordination. The ma¬
chinery of ministering the gospel cannot,
in the* very nature o'f the case, work with¬
out it.
Ordination, then, is the investiture of
the church and ministry. 233
office, by the Church, as between the"
Church and the minister, but not as between
the minister and Christ; for the Church is
not the vicegerent of Christ; neither is
the existing ministry the vicegereney of
Christ. Human persons can act in their
own sphere, and on their own behalf;
but Jesus Christ is capable of attending
to his own affairs, and does not make
men his agents, except by special invest¬
ment.
In order for a person, after the Divine
appointment as minister, to become, in
any practical or real sense, a minister, it
is necessary for the Church of human
persons to entertain and decide the ques¬
tion, upon all the information they may
gather of the supposed Divine call to the
ministry of any person who makes such
profession. That question must be set¬
tled by the Church, before the man can
234 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
become a minister. The Church may
err. They may decide in favor of the
Divine call, in some particular case,
where really there is ,none. Or they may
decide against it contrary to the Divine
will. In such cases, the only remark ne¬
cessary to be made is, that, as in all other
cases of error in human judgment, we
must suffer the consequences. But this
cannot in the slightest degree interfere
with the principle that the action, first of
God in heaven, and secondly of men on
earth, are both indispensably necessary
in order to any man's becoming a minis¬
ter of Jesu's Christ to the Church.
The principle is the same as that of
any other ministry, or an ordinary
agency.
If a government send its minister or
agent to another government to repre¬
sent the interests and views of the former,
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 235
the cooperation of all the three parties to
the transaction is absolutely necessary
before any thing can be done. The min¬
ister may be duly appointed as between
himself and his principal. But it avails
nothing: it all falls to the ground, and
becomes practically void and inert, unless
such minister make it appear satisfac¬
torily to the government to whom he is
sent that he is thus legally and properly
appointed. If he convince them, by pro¬
per seals and attestations of this fact, then
another thing becomes necessary. They
must receive him as such agent or ambas¬
sador. This they may or may not do.
They may refuse to hear his mission, or
to treat with the former government en¬
tirely.
So, it is evident the supposed minister
is not a minister to them, until they, on
examination, first believe him to be truly
236 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
sent, and, secondly, accept or receive him
in that capacity.
Just so of the minister of Christ to the
Church. The action of the Church, then,
in the matter, is indispensably necessary.
The credentials of the minister must be
good; hut that does not avail—that alone
will not answer—they must be pronounced
good by the Church.
Now, this action of the Church consti¬
tutes the essence of ordination, as well as
its end and seal.
And now the question arises, How shall
the Church do this thing ? It is apparent
to all that it ought to be done in such a
manner as will give to the act the highest
sanction of the Church, its broadest and
most authoritative seal, as well as its open
and full proclamation. For it must be
rememb.ered, the minister is not the min-
igter of Christ to the Church merely, but
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 237
also to the world. It is eminently proper,
then, for the Church to make this certifi¬
cate and pronunciation, in a way best cal¬
culated to answer the end intended.
Then it should certify the minister in
question broadly, authoritatively, and
openly to the world, as a plenary min¬
ister of the gospel of -Christ.
The act or ceremony of ordination, like
that of marriage, or of inauguration, is
for the purpose of giving notoriety, force,
sanction, universal recognition, to the in¬
vestiture of office, which is thus consum¬
mated and made patent before the world.
The President of the United States is
ordained. But it is not the ceremony of
ordination, abstractly and specifically con¬
sidered, that gives him the right to be
president. He derives that right from
the people and States of the Union. But
as this is a public office, it requires a
288 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
public seal made by the performance of
some public act, which amounts to a
national recognition and a national pro¬
clamation of the personal investiture.
So he is to go, on a set day, publicly
before the people, and solemnly under¬
take, before the chief-justice of the na¬
tion, the responsibility of his office ; and
at the hands of such chief-justice to re¬
ceive the oath of office, and thus be or¬
dained or inaugurated into office. But
it is not the oath of office received at the
hands of the chief-justice, abstractly and
specifically considered, that makes him
president. For if so, then the same
chief-justice could make any other man
president, for he could administer to him
the same oath. In administering the
oath, which is the act of ordination, the
chief-justice acts not on his own behalf,
by prerogative, but he acts as the execu-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 239
tive officer of the nation: the nation or¬
dains.
All public officers are ordained. From
the President of the United States to the
town constable, in State or in Church, or
in private organized associations, all
public officers are, in some way, ordained,
installed, or inaugurated, as you choose
to call it.
How does the judge of a court get to
be judge ? He is first appointed or
elected to the office; but he may not yet
enter upon the duties thereof, for he is
not ordained. The legislature specifies
the mode of performing this ceremony.
It is made the executive duty of some
certain officer to ordain him; that is, to
inaugurate him; that is, to administer
to him the oath of office, in some speci¬
fied manner.
Hence we define ordination to be. a
240 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
public, solemn, and authoritative recognition
and setting apart of a person as a minister, by
the Church, by which his relation to the
Church, as its minister, is established.
But how ought the Church to proceed,
in ordaining a man to the ministry ?
The Church is a public body, and, as
such, can act only in two different ways.
Legislatively and judicially it can act in
its public aggregate capacity; but execu¬
tively, it can act only by means ot a con¬
stituted agent. All public acts are either
legislative, judicial, or executive. The
recognition of a minister by a Church is or
> may be considered either legislative or
judicial—we need not stop to inquire
which—and, therefore, it may be done
by the Church in a body, in any one of
several different ways in which any de¬
liberative organization may decide i
question. But the setting apart of the
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 241
minister is in its nature executive. It
may be called setting apart, or it may be
called the personal investiture of the
badge or seal of office. This cannot be
done by the Church in a body, but re¬
quires, in the nature of the thing, the
agency of an officer of the Church. Such
agent, in this duty, acts as the executive
office^ of the Church. In such duty he
bears the same relation to the Church
that the President of the United States
does to the people of the Union; or that
a sheriff does to the people of a county.
He is the means or instrument by which
the will of the Church is executed.
Ordination, then, or the human acts
necessary to make a man a preacher or
minister, are, first, the recognition, and,
second, the setting apart, or investment.
The Church does both these things.
The former it does by its public decision
242 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
in its collective capacity. The latter it
does by its officer constituted for this
purpose.
Ask Masons and Odd-Fellows, or Sons
of Temperance, how their officers get
into office. The public sense of propriety
of all men looks to and requires some
public, patent seal of investiture.
The doctrine that a minister, acting as
ordainer, performs the ordination of his
own personal authority, independent of
the Church, and not as its agent or
executive officer, is the doctrine which
was attempted to be refuted a few pages
back.
The Church ordains. The governor of
a State does not receive his authority
from the chief-justice who administers to
him the oath of office, and formally in¬
ducts him into the gubernatorial chair.
He receives his authority from the State,
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 243
or the people of the State, and the chief-
justice, as the minister of the State,
invests him formally and finally with the
office.
The inauguration is an official procla¬
mation to the world that that man is now
truly and legally inducted into that office.
It establishes publicly the relation be¬
tween the new governor and the State.
And the governor-elect is also a partici¬
pant in the ceremony in which he so¬
lemnly receives the office, and promises
before the world a faithful discharge of
its duties. The compact is now solemnly
and finally established and made patent.
And jusf so in matrimony. The man
and the woman do not receive, respect¬
ively, the matrimonial authority from the
officer who performs the ceremony. He
fixes the public seal and makes the con¬
tract patent, and thus proclaims and
244 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
establishes it before the world. The
contract, as between the man and the
woman, was made before his services
were needed. But with his services the
contract becomes valid as between the
parties themselves and the public.
This is precisely the way, and the only
way, in which every public investiture is
made. Ordination otherwise considered
would be an anomaly in human affairs.
A minister, in performing the rite of
ordination upon another person, does not
do so because he is a bishop, or because he
is a presbyter or elder. This point seems
not to be well understood always, and
therefore deserves particular, notice. It
is not the being an elder that authorizes
him to ordain. It is not the being a
bishop that invests him with authority to
ordain. It is because the Church has
placed upon him the performance of that
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 245
duty. The Church ordains. Who per¬
forms the ceremony T The officer whom
pfrimr 'J" *
she charges with the performance of that
duty. If the Church designate one offi¬
cer as bishop, and invest him with over¬
sight for a day, or a year, or a lifetime,
and make it the duty of the bishop to
ordain, then it is the duty of the bishop
to ordain. If the Church dispenses with
a general oversight, in the pastoral duties
of the ministry, and only invests superior
officers with the functions of presidency
temporarily, or for short periods, and
enacts that such president shall ordain,
then it is his duty to ordain. The Church
ordains.
According to the common sense of all
men of common sense, it is manifestly
appropriate and proper that the Church
should select, as its executive officer, in
performing so solemn and important and
246 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
interesting a duty as that of ordination,
its highest officer. But he performs this
duty by the same authority as he per¬
forms any other ecclesiastical duty. He
presides in an assembly of ministers, or
of laymen, or both, because the Church
places that duty upon him, and not by
prerogative. He supervises here, sends a
missionary there, or goes a missionary
himself, gives appointments to preachers
as special pastors, and does this or that,
not by prerogative, not by any thing in¬
dependently inherent in him, hut because
the Church so directs. He is still only a
minister.
Ordination is one of these duties. Ho
man ordains by personal inherent prero¬
gative. He ordains because the Church
has connected that duty with the office
he holds. Ordination, either to the
episcopate or the presbyterate, does
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 247
not convey a personal right to ordain. It
inducts a minister into an office to which,
ordination usually pertains; and so he
is invested with the necessary autho¬
rity, and may perform the service when¬
ever the Church requires it at his
hands.
This view of ordination accords with
the Methodist discipline, as well as with
the character and philosophy of the thing.
The Methodist Church prescribes—not
the bishops or ministry exclusively—but
the Church prescribes that bishops shall
ordinarily ordain ministers; but, in cer¬
tain contingencies, any other elders may
perform the duty. Presbyterian, Episco¬
palian, and Baptist Churches, hold in
substance the same doctrine.
This view of the question also gets
entirely rid of the needless argument as
to what officers in a Church, whether
248 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
presbyters or bishops, have the right to
ordain. The Church ordains.
XXXIV.
ORDINATION OF DR. COKE.
In regard to the Methodist Churches
in America, not a little has been said
and written about the ordination of Dr.
Coke by Mr. "Wesley.
This point is likewise more fully treated
in the Ecclesiastical Constitution, but a
few observations may not be out of place
here.
And first, I remark, that if every thing
that has been said or thought or sup¬
posed in regard to it by friends or foes
were true—if any thing possible about it
were true, it could have not the slightest
effect upon the legal existence or charac¬
ter of Churches or Christians which are
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 249
in being now. The idea that illegality
there—whatever illegality may be sup¬
posed—could work legal taint now upon
Churches or ministers, is so far erroneous
that it is preposterous.
If any persons who participated in the
ordination of Dr. Coke did wrong, mo¬
rally or legally, then they were liable to
blame and punishment by any body of
men having cognizance of such transac¬
tions. They were praiseworthy or blame¬
worthy, as the case might be. The men
themselves are dead, and their acts be¬
long to history. That is the beginning
and the end of that matter, so far as its
right or wrong is concerned.
The facts are these. The Methodist
Church had now long ago become a dis¬
tinct ecclesiastical government, to all in¬
tents and purposes; as much so as it, or
any integral part of it, is now. As we
250 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
have seen, and as is the manner in which
all Churches have come into being, it
grew gradually into a separate independ¬
ent existence. It had for some time been
a complete Church; as complete as any
Church can be. Mr. "Wesley was its
bishop—using that term in the modern
sense of a superintendent, and not in the
original sense of a pastor. Mr. Wesley
was the Methodist bishop, not in form
but in fact; not because he was a pres¬
byter, for Dr. Coke was himself a pres¬
byter, and so were others, and they were
not bishops in the modern sense. Mr.
Wesley was a bishop because he was a
superintendent, and did superintend .this
Church with the consent and acquies¬
cence of the entire body.
His ordination of Dr. Coke was irregu¬
lar ; and hence many suppose it was ille¬
gal. This is because they do not under-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 251
stand the legal import of the terms regular
and legal. An act is not necessarily ille¬
gal because it is irregular.
Mr. "Wesley had not formally dissevered
his connection with the English Church.
He still acknowledged its jurisdiction
over him. Now, if you regard him as
performing this act under the auspices of
the English Church, it was irregular be¬
cause it was not the regular or usual way
of making a bishop in the English
Church. And if you regard him as act¬
ing under the separate auspices of the
Methodist Church, it was irregular be¬
cause the ordination preceded the action
of the Church.
We have seen that ordination, no mat¬
ter to what, requires, first, the action of
the Church, to select and designate the
person to be ordained; and, secondly, the
act of the person to administer the obli-
252 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
gation and make the investiture patent.
Moreover, at that time the Methodist
Church had not authorized Mr. "Wesley
to ordain Dr. Coke, nor had it prescribed
the manner in which a bishop should be
made, though it had repeatedly requested,
urged, and "importuned" him to give
them the benefit of his power—his actual
episcopal power—to furnish them an or¬
dained ministry. So that in either case,
regarding him as acting in the English
or the Methodist Church, the act was
irregular.
But was it illegal? In defending or
blaming Mr. Wesley, that is the question.
I do not much fancy the argument
based on "the exigence of necessity,"
first, I believe, made by Hooker, and fre¬
quently made since, because those terms
are not quite sufficiently distinct and spe¬
cific for legal exegesis.
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 253
In inquiring into the question of its
legality, supposing it to be in the Church
of England, we find that a large body of
Christians were without the sacraments;
and the English Church did not and
would not afford them those means of
duty and of grace. The circumstances
were such—no matter how they came so—
that they must receive relief in these im¬
portant premises, from Mr. "Wesley, or
not at all. The English bishops could
have afforded the relief, and so could Mr.
Wesley; and there were then no other
persons on earth who could. The former
would not. And now the question whe¬
ther it would be legal for Mr. Wesley to
do so, regarding him, as we now are, as
a clergyman of the English Church, is
narrowed down to the question, whether
it was legal for him to obey God rather
than men.
254 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
Must a man obey the plain laws of
Christianity when the rest of his Church
refuses to do so ?
He must. This is the very essence,
pith, and pivot of Protestantism.
Then the question of legality is settled,
regarding Mr. Wesley as a clergyman of
the Church of England. We must obey
God rather than men, no matter what
men.
The case of Wesley is here exactly a
legal parallel to the case of Luther. The
acts of both were strictly legal. The
acts of the Church, in both cases, were
illegal.
But regarding Mr. Wesley as acting
under the- auspices of the Methodist
Church, how stands the case ? We have
seen that the ordination was irregular;
but was it illegal ?
The act of an agent is irregular when
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 255
performed outside of his power of attor¬
ney. But whether it is legal or not, de¬
pends upon the question whether the
principal ratifies it afterwards. A subse¬
quent ratification makes the act as com¬
pletely legal, in all respects, as though it
had been previously specifically written
in the power of attorney.
This act of Mr. Wesley is precisely a
case in point. He acted outside of the
specific instructions of his Church ; and
the question of legality now is simply
narrowed down to the question, whether
the Methodist Church did or did not
ratify the act by receiving and acknow¬
ledging Dr. Coke as their bishop. Did
the Church acquiesce in the act ? Did
the Church cooperate with Wesley in
making Dr. Coke a bishop ?
Everybody knows that it did. And
every sound lawyer knows that, legally,
256 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
it can make no difference whether the
Church acted first or last.
Mr. "Wesley ran the risk. He could
not know with absolute legal certainty
what the Church would do. Suppose
the Church in America and elsewhere
had repudiated the Doctor—would not
receive him—sent him home. In this
case every one sees that the whole matter
^would have fallen to the ground. But it
turns out that Mr. Wesley was correct, and
there was entire harmony between them.
Mr. Wesley did his part, the ordination;
and the Church did its part, the designa¬
tion, the election, the selection. These
are the two naturally essential things in
ordination, as we have seen.
Nothing could be more strictly legal.
So much for this argument. But this
is an argument touching merely the con¬
duct of one John Wesley, a clergyman,
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 257
who lived in England many years ago.
And it is not an argument touching the
legality or illegality of any presently ex-
existing Church. The Methodist Church
—any Methodist Church—is just as good,
just as had, as if the act had been illegal.
Eor, suppose, after all—the thing is
humanly possible — suppose there was
some mistake about the matter, and Dr.
Coke was not quite rightly and properly
ordained, or even ordained at all—there
is no more certainty of this ordination
than of hundreds of others a hundred or
a thousand years ago — is all lost? Is
this Church no Church, and are these
Christians no Christians?
Pshaw! Let the "fable" of the apos¬
tolic succession—of transmitted minis¬
terial authority—of inherent right in a
Church officer to ordain—go with other
fables, and remain with them.
9
258 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
The validity of an existing Church and
ministry is just as much dependent on
the ordination of Dr. Coke, as on that of
Mr. Wesley who ordained him, or on
that of the man who ordained him, or
the one who ordained him, or the one
who ordained him. Why not, in inquir¬
ing into the legality of existing minis¬
terial orders, inquire into the certain
reality and legality of the ordination of
Wake in 1715, Bancroft,in 1604, of
Becket in 1162, or Austin in 596, or of
Pothinus or Polycarp? If we rest on
the doctrine of connected transmitted
ministerial authority, then we are inte¬
rested, equally interested, in all—if not,
in none.
Let us be consistent.
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 259
THE RIGHT TO ORDAIN.
Much, has been said about the right to
ordain; and, first and last, we have had
no little disagreement in opinion as to
what Church officers possess this right.
By right, here, I suppose is meant, just
claim, ownership, the legal power of ex¬
clusive possession, enjoyment, immunity,
privilege, as these are the definitions of
the word right in the sense in which I
presume it is here used.
Before the legality of this right can he
inquired into, we must determine to what
it pertains—that is, we must determine
what is meant by the ordination. And I
believe that ordination is here meant to
include all that is essential in making a
minister. A man, it is said, becomes a
260 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
minister by being ordained. Then some
certain Church officers have the exclu¬
sive claim—the ownership of the power
—the legal power of the exclusive pos¬
session—the immunity or the privilege
—which none others possess, of making
a minister. This right is inherent in the
office to which it attaches; it is insepar¬
able from it, and is found nowhere else.
Then a man becomes a minister of the
gospel—how ? Why, by being ordained
—that is, by having the functions con¬
ferred upon him by one who possesses
them, and has the right to confer them.
And of course he was made a minister in
the same way—that is, he transmits the
authority he received in his ordination.
And so, men are made ministers by re¬
ceiving a right from a predecessor—a
right which includes the power to confer
it upon a successor; and so the minis-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 261
terial authority descends from man to
man in this way by personal investment.
And then we complain of men for
holding and teaching this very doctrine,
if they call it by a name which is not
euphonious in our ears. "When called
the apostolic succession, it is a very bad
doctrine; but when not called by any par¬
ticular name, it is a very good doctrine.
This is not fair. I must treat an oppo¬
nent with as much fairness as I would a
friend.
The apostolic succession is the common
technical name of an ecclesiastical doc-
trine which teaches that ministers are
made by the transmission of the minis¬
terial right and authority from one
Church officer, who possesses the right,
to another who has it not, aniLthenAhe
newly made minister possesses the same
power and right of transmission, and so on.
2G2 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
Now, I have the same regard for
this doctrine with or without the name.
I repudiate it wholly, because I hold that
no Church officer possesses the right to
ordain.
You may understand ordination to
mean the making of a minister out and
out, or the public investiture, as herein¬
before described, and in neither case can
it be said that the right inheres in any
Church officer.
And after all, I believe the doctrine of
a right to ordain is held only in theory;
for, so far as I know, it is held to be real
and practical only in regard to the pope
by Papists. "With this single exception,
if any Church or Christian people ever
held that, really and practically, some
certain Church officer had the right to
ordain, I am not aware of it.
The notion that an elder or presbyter
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 263
has the right to ordain, is, as everybody
knows, a mere fiction. I am a presbyter
—have I a right to ordain ? Everybody
knows I have not. No Church or people
ever allowed a presbyter to possess such
a right inherently.
It is supposed by some that elders have
or had this right, but have relinquished
it, or refrain from exercising it, for the
supposed public good. This is not true
in fact. I have not at any time relin¬
quished any ecclesiastical right I ever
had. Nor is it in anywise discretionary
with me, nor was it ever, whether I would
or would not ordain, looking to the pub¬
lic good. I never had the right at all.
And the very same argument tnay be
made in regard to bishops. Everybody
knows that no Protestant Episcopal or
Methodist or Church of England bishop
ever exercised such right, or was held
264 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
to possess it, except as a mere legal
fiction.
Mr. James 0. Andrew is a bishop, and
so is Mr. J. H. Otey of Tennessee. You
go to either of them and apply for ordi¬
nation. You might as well apply to any
other Church member. And we all
know very well that if Bishop Andrew
were to ordain a man, independently, by
right claimed to be inherent in him,
such orders would not be recognized as
valid in our Church. And just so in the
Protestant Episcopal Church.
Those bishops, when they ordain, do
not pretend to do so by inherent right.
They never touch a man with ordaining
hands until the Church has first specifi¬
cally and distinctly marked and set apart
from all others the individual man, and
presented him to the bishop for ordina¬
tion ; that is, they ordain by special direc-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 265
tion of the Church in each particular
case. This is the law of those Churches.
Any thing outside of this would be ille¬
gal and void.
It is apparent that a Church officer has
not the independent right to ordain—that
is, to make a minister—to invest with
the ministerial prerogatives and power.
There is nothing absolute or positive
about ordination. It is merely tempo¬
rary and contingent. The ordaining
minister cannot secure to the ordained
the possession of these functions for a
single year or a single day. In a day, or
a year, or in forty years after ordination,
he is liable to be brought before another
tribunal, composed of different persons
altogether, his credentials are quashed,
and he is no longer a minister. And
the supposed right in the minister who
chanced to ordain him to make him an
• 266 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
absolute investment of this prerogative,
is never regarded or thought of.
XXXVI.
WHAT KIND OF RIGHT?
What kind of right is that which is sup¬
posed to inhere in some Church officer,
and which is called a right to ordain ?
Rights are of different kinds—that is,
they arise out of different fundamental
positions. Some rights are natural, as the
right of life, of the use of the limbs, of
the possession and services of children,
etc. Othejrjdghts are called Divine, be¬
cause the grant to such property or privi-
lege is found secured to us in revelation.
&uch are the rights of Worship, of the
Sabbath, of Christian communion, etc.
Some rights are civil, so called because
they arise out of the popular grants of
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 267
the Constitution and laws of a country.
Such are the rights of office, of franchise,
of citizenship, etc. Rights to the exclu¬
sive possession and use of certain pro-,
perty are called legal rights, because they
grow out of and are secured to us by
legislative law. Some rights are eccle¬
siastical, because they grow out of Church
laws or proceedings. Such are the rights
to religious teaching and oversight, to
Church trial in certain cases, to attend
class-meetings, where there are any, etc.
Any right which exists can be defined
and specified—that is, its foundation can
be distinctly specified.
Row, the right in question must, I pre¬
sume, be either a Divine or an ecclesiastical
right. If it be a Divine right, then the
question with High Churchmen is settled
in their favor, and the precise persons to
whom the grantTs made by the Almighty-
268 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
the property or privilege in question, is
theirs perpetually.
"We are then, I suppose, narrowed
down to this, that it is an ecclesiastical
right.
And then, a difficulty is, that, in fact,
no Church ever conferred such a grant
upon any man or men, or class of men.
Who can establish his right ? And where
is his grant or deed? It is not, so far
as I am aware, on the records of any
Church.
There is a difference between a right
and a duty. It cannot be said to he the
right of a sheriff, for instance, to MU men.
And yet it is sometimes his duty to take
the life of a certain person. And so, it
cannot he said to be the right of some
certain Church officer, a bishop, for in¬
stance, to ordain men, though sometimes
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 269
it becomes bis duty to ordain a particular
person individually specified.
Most assuredly this is a plain, simple
question. *Men confuse language some¬
times, and mean duties when they talk of
rights.
XXXVII.
"A PRESBYTER IS THE SAME AS A BISHOP."
Much stress seems to be laid upon this
declaration, and by it much advantage is
supposed to be gained in debates about
apostolic succession with High Church
Episcopalians.
The facts seem to be these. In the
Hew Testament the words, as descriptive
nouns, are frequently used synonymously
and sometimes interchangeably. This is
apparent; and for many years, if not cen¬
turies afterward, the two words were used
to mean the same, and then very nearly
270 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
the same thing. But in process of time
the presiding elders, or the bishops, who
in one way or other exercised the func¬
tions of supervision or of presidency,
came to he separate from other bishops
or presbyters, by haying additional func-
tiomTof office, ancLsDAhoy had to .Tin alia;
tinguished verbally, or else you could not
speak of them separately. And so, in
time, the presiding bishops took the name
of bishop, and the others that of elder or
presbyter.
Then the two words formerly meant
the same thing. But they do not mean
the something now. Everybody knows
that bishop means not only elder, but,
farther and beyond that, a superintend¬
ent, or overseer, or pastor of ordinary
elders. Then the two words do not mean
the same.
To say that a presbyter is the same aH a
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 271
bishop, means that persons or officers with
the same functions are interchangeably
called sometimes by these different names.
But this we all know is not the case. But
we are told a bishop is " jprimus inter pares"
—chief among equals.
This is impossible. A chief is not,
cannot be among equals. He was equal
before he became chief. But to say that
a chief is an equal, is a contradiction in
terms.
Abishop is a chief, or presiding, or super¬
intending, or overseeing presbyter. Then
he is no longer the equal—that is, with¬
out any distinction or additional function.
You cannot say that he does and does
not, at the same time, possess distinction
among elders.
Here we are told that the sameness uT
___
the presbyterate and Episcopacy refers to
the order, and not to the office; and to
272 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
this I have no objection, though I am un¬
able to see the advantage supposed to l?e
gained by it. If you prove that a pres¬
byter is the same order as a bishop,
then the question arises, "What does that
prove ?
It proves that a presbyter may do any
thing that a bishop may lawfully do in
the same circumstances—that is, that a
presbyter, by being a bishop, has no in¬
herent power that he did not possess
before.
But what advantage does this give you
in an argument against the doctrine of
transmitted ministerial authority, the
apostolic succession?
Hone at all. It enables you to transfer
the argument from one place to another;
but not in the slightest degree to get rid
of it. It enables you to compel your
opponent to acknowledge that the apos-
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 273
tolic succession is good if it be trans¬
mitted in a line of presbyters and bishops
in common, and that it is not necessary
it be confined to a line of bishops exclu¬
sively. But you are as deeply involved
in the doctrine of transmitted authority
as you were before. You are trying to
get rid of the doctrine, but you have only
established the point, that the descend¬
ing authority transmitted in ordination
is good in elders. But that leaves you
just where you were before, so far as the
doctrine itself is concerned.
In an argument with a High Church¬
man, you may, in this way, prove that
your presbyterial orders are as good as Ms
Episcopal orders, for so far as the minis¬
terial orders of the ordainer are concerned,
they are the same in both cases. But
that proves nothing with regard to either.
He, in order to establish the validity of
274 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
his orders, must trace his succession up
through a line of bishops. And you to
establish yours—in this way—must trace
your succession up through a line of
elders. And you say that elders are the
same as bishops ; so you have to do pre¬
cisely what you say he has to do, and
which you say is both impossible and
unnecessary.
Truly they are both impossible; the
difficulty in the one case is precisely the
difficulty in the other.
The right to ordain—that is, to give the
ministerial authority with power to trans¬
mit it on, does not reside inherently in
"any Church officer. That is the difficulty
with the doctrine of transmitted autho¬
rity, whether you trace the succession in
a line of bishops or of elders—that is,
elders and bishops in common. The doc¬
trine is wrong.
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 275
XXXYIII.
OBLIGATIONS OP CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP.
The obligations of Church-member¬
ship are both universal and absolute. The
obligations of Church-membership are
precisely identical with the obligations
of Christianity. The idea that the duty
of being a Christian is one thing, and
that of being a member of the Church
another, is a palpable fallacy, and neces¬
sarily supposes both impiety and igno¬
rance. You might as well suppose a child
to be obedient, loving, and dutiful, and
refuse to be a member of the family. The
one supposes and is inseparable from the
other. A soldier cannot be, at the same
time, loyal and obedient, and out of the
ranks and in social fellowship with the
enemy.
276 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
It is preposterous and absurd, then, to
suppose that the obligation of Church-
membership is removed or lightened, or
is rendered more weighty and resistless
by some incidental circumstances, such
as age, being more or less moral, more or
less religious, having made up one's
mind to this or that, believing this or
that, or feeling thus or so, or being in
these or those circumstances.
"When you say the obligation of Church-
membership is absolute, you must not
next pull up your axiom aud say it is con¬
tingent, contingent on any thing.
Christianity is simply right — univer¬
sally, absolutely right. The absence of
Christianity is universally and absolutely
wrong. It is not wrong sometimes, in
these or those circumstances, with a per¬
son of this age or that, but absolutely
wrong. And we have sufficiently seen—
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 277
and it is hoped it may be remembered—
that Church and Church-fellowship are
inseparable from Christianity.
Christianity being universally right,
and its absence universally wrong, it be¬
comes, of logical necessity, absurd and
ridiculous to suppose that the obligation
is different as to persons of one year old,
or of five, or ten, or forty. To suppose it
to be right, ever, to be out of the Church,
is to suppose that there is a wrong
time to do right, which is, I suppose, a
transparent contradiction and absurdity.
Ah! But what are you going to do
with children and idiots?
I do with them, in this regard, pre¬
cisely as I do with all other persons. If
Christianity is not of universal obliga¬
tion and universally applicable, then it is
defective.
If they are not personally responsible
278 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
for their conduct, somebody else is. The
obligation is universal, and rests some¬
where. Somebody is always responsible
for the acts of infants and idiots.
A parent is under the same obligation
to use all reasonable diligence to prevent
his child from setting a house on fire, as
to prevent himself from doing so. And
he is blameworthy in either case. And
just so of any other wrong committed by
an idiot of your household.. Somebody
is to some extent responsible.
You have no more right to suffer your
child to remain out of the Church—out
of Christianity—than you have to aban¬
don him to heathenism, or to abandon
him to any thing else. A child is as
capable of an obligation as a man. He
buys and sells property, and binds him¬
self by contract here or there; and if in¬
capable of making a contract himself,
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 279
personally, there is some one else to do it
for him, and in his name. It is impos¬
sible there can be a reason why a child is
released from this obligation.
The idea that the absence of faith, of
belief \ releases him, supposes, to mean any
thing and be consistent, that the obliga¬
tion of Christianity is contingent on the
possession of saving faith, wjgich is ab¬
surd, because this supposes that the
neglect of one duty releases one from
another. A man is not punishable for
one offence because he committed another.
A man is guilty of the high crime of
refusing to obey God and be religious,
and this offence releases him from the
obligation of Church-membership, whichj
duty is inseparable from the other ! To
commit one offence releases a man from
another, and also from the same !
That is rather lame logic.
280 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
And if feebleness or imbecility of mind,
or insanity, removes tbe Cburch obliga¬
tion, tben, of course, sickness will do so.
For a man is personally as incapable of
every thing in the one ease as the other.
Therefore, when a man becomes so ill as
to be unable to walk, or talk, or think
logically about religion, you should have
his name taken off the Church book. Of
course, then, it is wrong to suffer any
one to die in the Church, when it is prac¬
ticable to remove his name.
I am obliged to suppose that men are
consistent with themselves.
Were infants, idiots, and insane per¬
sons excluded from the Church among
the ante-Messiah Christians ? And is the
theory of religion less expansive now ?
Both the Church and religion are de¬
signed to be universal in this fallen race
of ours.
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 281
There are many persons, and several
classes of persons, who for the time are
totally incapable of performing either
the moral or physical duties of religion;
such as infancy, old age, insanity, sick¬
ness, and the like. K"ow, if Church-
membership ought to abate because of in- j
ability to perform the duties of religion,
or any of them, then be it so, and let the I
abatement occur where the reason exists.^
The truth is, that both religion and
Church-membership are right, absolutely,
and are designed to be coextensive with
the race for which they were planned.
If from any incidental cause a man can¬
not perform the duties or functions de¬
signed by God, the rule is not repealed;
but the way is, for these things to be per¬
formed for him by some one whose duty
it may be, in an imperfect manner, or
perhaps not at all, as necessity may re-
282 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
quire. If a man becomes blind or lame,
some one else must see and walk for bim
if practicable; if not, tbe walking must
go undone.
If some persons ought not to be Chris¬
tians— in the Church of course—then
some persons ought to be heathen. There
are but the two classes.
If Christianity, and of necessity Church-
membership with it, is a settled question,
then let us act upon it as a settled ques¬
tion, and not treat it as a question open
for debate, and fluctuating with floating
opinions.
To suffer children to remain out of the
Church, supposes its right or wrong, with
them, to be an open question, subject to
decision by their opinions. "Whereas
their opinion against it mast be wrong.
We teach them to read and write; why
not wait and see what they think about it ?
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 283
And religion out of the Church is ano¬
malous, unreasonable, and unnatural. It
is not Bible religion at all, for religion
supposes association and fellowship, as
we have seen.
It is therefore naturally impossible for
a person to determine to be religious and
remain out of the Church wilfully an
hour. Thousands of persons want to he
religious, and remain out for years. But
this is a very different thing. Thousands
want religion, annexing to it many fool¬
ish conditions. But a person determin¬
ing to have the religion of the Bible, as
it is, goes into the Church as quickly and
as certainly as a hungry man goes to the
table, or a stone sinks in water.
Outside of the pale of the Church is
inside of the unceasing maledictions of
God.
284 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
CONDITIONS OF CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP.
There can be, properly, no conditions
of Church-membership separate from and
outside of the conditions of Christianity.
They are identical, because the Church is
the acting out in life, the natural flow or
immediate result, of the religion it sup¬
poses. The rules prescribing the duties
of Christianity necessarily prescribe, in
substance, all Church duties. And so, in
like manner, the conditions and obliga¬
tions of the one are the conditions and
obligations of the other.
And so, when you look into the Scrip¬
tures, you see it most clearly and abund¬
antly set forth that the conditions of fel¬
lowship are these and these alone—belief
in Christ—that he came in the flesh—
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 285
and a walk and conversation correspond¬
ing thereto.
The Church is the Church of Christ.
He is the Head of the Church because he
is the Head of Christianity—the Head of
true religion. There is hut one Church
because there is hut one God.
Then it is exceedingly unwise for men
to undertake, by legislation, to prescribe
that such and such shall be conditions of
membership in this or that branch of the
Church. What we call the canon of
Scripture is the body of these conditions,
already settled both by Divine legislation
and the nature of things.
Some persons imagine that a man is
not entitled to membership in this or that
Church, unless he believe just so and so
about some controverted point in theo-
togy-
If his belief does not amount to belief
286 the church and ministry.
in Christ as our Saviour, then he cannot,
naturally, he in Christian communion
with any body, and it would be wrong to
regard or consider him, either morally or
legally, in such fellowship, here or there,
for the act would belie the fact. But if
he be entitled to Christian - fellowship
anywhere, most assuredly, and for that
that very reason, he is everywhere.
Some imagine, for instance, that it
would be wrong to admit a man who be¬
lieved what is called Calvinism, into the
Methodist Church.
Let us glance at the logic.
I apply to a Methodist minister for ad¬
mission, and, in answer to his inquiry, I
inform him of my belief in Calvinism.
You cannot come into this Church, sir;
this is a Methodist Church.
For what reason do you exclude me ?
Minister.—Your theological opinions
the church and ministry. 287
are erroneous, and bad theology is very
likely to lead to bad religion.
Applicant.—What is the object of your
Church ?
Minister.—To teach religious truth,
and inculcate religious principle and
practice.
Applicant.—And you refuse me these
helps and teachings because I need them
more than others.
A person is refused admittance into a
hospital because he is sick—into a school
because he is uneducated—into a Church
because he most needs the teachings and
pastorate of such Church !
Again, some inconsiderate persons sup¬
pose that a .man should not be admitted
into a Church until he has attained some
certain state of grace.
This of course supposes that the man
is more likely to attain that state of
288 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
grace out of the Church than in it. And
so, of course, if a man becomes cold and
low in religion, let him go out of the
Church that he may he revived.
The truth is, it is every man's duty now
to he a Church-member. And to suppose
there can he a reason why a man should
he prevented from doing his duty, is ab¬
surd and ridiculous. It makes man a
better judge of morals than God.
Properly speaking, there is no such
thing as conditions of Church-fellowship, or
Church-membership, if any one prefers
that term; they both mean the same
thing. Church-fellowship, religious com¬
munion, Church-membership, is the abso¬
lute and universal duty of all. It is just
such a duty as it is to tell the truth—
to be honest—to be virtuous—to do right.
Then, on what conditions may a man
tell the truth ? What are the conditions
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 289
of honesty ? On what conditions may I
do right ? These questions are unintelli¬
gible. On what conditions may I obey
God ? Conditions are not predicated of
duty, but of privilege — of immunity.
And when it is said that belief in Christ
and moral conduct are the divinely pre¬
scribed conditions of Church-fellowship,
it is merely meant that Church-fellow-
ship cannot truly and properly exist
where these things are absent, and where
they are truly present this is certain to
follow. The principle exists necessarily,
and the practice will follow where it is
practicable.
XL.
EXCOMMUNICATION.
Excommunication is the judicial sepa¬
ration between a particular Church or
religious society and an individual mem-
10
290 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
ber thereof. This can be based properly
on nothing else than immorality or apos¬
tasy ; and they are seldom if ever found
to exist separately. They belong toge¬
ther. Virtually, in all proper acts of this
sort, the man first separates himself from
the Church by violating his obligations
to God and his compact with the Church;
and then the Church, after a proper find¬
ing in the case, pronounces judicially, and
makes patent that which was before really
true.
Excommunication includes no punish¬
ment further than that which may natu¬
rally, without any procurement of the
Church, follow a simple and silent with¬
drawal of the Church from him, or, what
is ^je same thing, the withholding from
him, during his persistence in the con¬
tinuance of the disability, of the rites
and communion of the Church.
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 291
It is necessarily temporary, and never
final; that is to say, the Church is always
ready and willing to enter into fellowship
with and to assist any living human per¬
son to get to heaven, the worst as well as
the best. But it cannot assist and com¬
mune with those who will not be assisted,
and who will not, in good faith, be
Christians, and enter into and live in the
communion which Christianity supposes.
And it must not seem, or appear, or pro¬
fess to do that which it does not really cfo.
The annexation of penal effects, or of
civil or political disabilities, to Church
exclusion, is unjust and preposterous, and
grows out of the attempt to form an un¬
natural alliance between the Church and
the civil government.
The right of a Church to excommuni¬
cate a member grows out of the very
nature of human association. Men could
292 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
not associate for a particular purpose,
and carry out these objects in a regular
and healthful manner, without the right
of exclusion. The one supposes the
other.
In conducting a Church trial it is erro¬
neous to suppose that it should proceed
upon judicial principles different from
those which are pursued in other cases
involving the rights of parties. The 'prin¬
ciples of justice are the same everywhere,
arifl in relation to every question. An
ecclesiastical court possesses the same
common functions of judicature as any
other court. The relations of the parties
litigant are the same; and so of the
court. The relevancy and legal effects
of testimony $re always the same. An
indictment, declaration, charge, com¬
plaint, or whatever you choose to call
the bill of allegations, is always the same
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 293
in principle, whatever form it may have
as matter of mere expediency.
Court rules are matters of mere expe¬
diency; but the principles of jurispru¬
dence are immutable, however well or
however poorly they may be understood
by men. And they grow out of the na¬
ture of human government.
Excommunication extends only to the
limits of the jurisdiction of the Church
then acting. If it -foe a confederate
Church, embracing many separate, single
Churches, as the Presbyterian, Cumber¬
land Presbyterian, or the Methodist
Churches, then the excommunication
extends to the limits of that denomina¬
tion or confederation of Churches. If a
congregational Church, as the Baptist,
and some other Churches, which are
singly independent and not confederate,
then the excommunication can only
294 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
extend to the limits of that single Church
or congregation, because that is the limits
of its jurisdiction.
The question whether one Church,
either a confederate Church or single
society, ought, as a .matter of Christian
courtesy and propriety, to recognize the
judgment of excommunication of a sister
Church, and treat the expelled person as
such, depends not upon any thing in¬
trinsic in the trial, such as testimony,
proof, etc., because these things must be
presumed to be correct, and the finding
legal in all regularly existing Churches.
But it depends upon the question whether
the allegation against him was inconsist¬
ent with Christianity.
If it was—that is, if the charge was for
immoral conduct or disbelief in Christ—
for nothing else than one or both of these
things is inconsistent with Christianity—
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 295
then the verdict of excommunication
should be respected by all sister Churches;
but not otherwise. Expulsion for believ¬
ing this or that doctrine of the Bible
which may be held by some Christians
and denied by others, is oppression, and
ought not to be recognized. And the
same may be said with regard to such
excommunications as sometimes take
place for violation of some mere arbitrary
rules of Churches, not vital to Chris¬
tianity.
These things result necessarily from
the consideration that the Church is not
a mere voluntary human association set
up by men for supposed pleasure or ad¬
vantage, but is the natural aggregation
of religious persons forming a society or
compact.
296 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
XLI.
CLOSING REFLECTIONS.
Of the existence and most general
characteristics of the Church and min¬
istry, there is not, so far as I am aware,
a very material difference of opinion
among Christians. The foregoing argu¬
ments are designed mainly to answer
the question, how they came into exist¬
ence; and, consequently, to show their
natural relation to the Christian religion.
The Church is the Church of God,
not of men. It is the Church of God
for the reason and in the sense that the
religion of Christianity, which is its foun¬
dation and the cause for its existence, is
the religion of God. It is the Church
of God naturally, and cannot be con¬
ceived of in any other light, unless we
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 297
look upon it as a mere positive institu¬
tion, set up as human institutions are set
up-
Many persons, regarding the Church
as an institution planned and established
for the Benefit or accommodation of such
religiously disposed persons as choose to
avail themselves of its supposed Benefits,
conclude that they may or may not avail
themselves of these advantages as they
may choose. They naturally class the
Church with other social institutions, the
obligations of which are binding only
upon such persons as may place them¬
selves under its rules and restrictions.
The Church being neither a sacrament
nor a theocracy, and still a positive insti¬
tution, they very logically conclude that
it cannot possess traits of Divine prero¬
gative in the mere compact of human
persons. And then those who have not
298 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
assumed the obligations of membership
by personal arrangement with their fel¬
low-men cannot be under the obligations
of its rules.
This is the reasoning which we see
floating about among men, to th*e injury
of millions. And so, it is held an open
question whether these or those persons,
in these or those circumstances, ought to
join the Church. And considerations re¬
specting age, condition, morals, and other
incidental things, are brought forward,
pro and con, as reasons on the question;
as though there could be any conflicting
reasons in the case, or any adventitious
reasons for Church-membership.
But if religious fellowship, or Church-
membership, whichever any one chooses
to call it, for they both mean the same
thing, be regarded as naturally insepar¬
able from Christianity, which-is really
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 299
the case, it becomes preposterous to sup¬
pose that human persons can be exempt
from the obligation. Because, to sup¬
pose that there can be an exempt case
among living human persons, where this
obligation is not immediately and equally
binding, is to suppose that Christianity
itself is an open question, which is both
preposterous and impious.
Nor is this rule in the slightest degree
interfered with from the consideration
that some persons, such as very small
children, persons extremely low and de¬
bilitated in sickness, or those partially,
temporarily, or wholly insane, are inca¬
pable of performing the moral or external
duties of religion. The laws of Chris¬
tianity, like the laws of social morals, are
not intended for some people, but-for
mankind. And if, from such considera¬
tions as those suggested above, some
300 THE .CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
individual persons are not capable of
moral obliquity, why, then, you do not
punish them; but that does not repeal
or restrict the obligation or the law, for
they are universal.
"* Suppose we were to enact a law that a
person should not be held to be obliged
to tell the truth until he should arrive at
nearly mature years, and then not until
t such person should, by some solemn act,
declare himself under an obligation to
refrain from falsehood.
This is precisely the light in which the
obligation of Christianity is held by some
persons in regard to children and youths.
The obligation of Church-membership
does not attach until they choose to say so.
A child should be inside of Christianity
only when he thinks it best. This is
strange reasoning.
If the Church be something else than
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 301
Christianity—something outside—some¬
thing invented and made for mere adven¬
titious aids or probable extrinsic helps to
religion, then its utility is not absolutely
certain and itself .absolutely necessary in
all possible conditions in which mankind
may or can be found, but becomes expe¬
dient and useful here or there, to these or
those persons only under favorable cir¬
cumstances.
The Church is not a mere adjunct of
Christianity, but is its natural emana¬
tion, as much so as is the enjoyment
of religion, or the growth of piety in
the soul.
To decline Church-membership, there¬
fore, in any case, is palpably and openly
to repudiate Christianity.
If Christianity be absolutely right, and
not merely contingently or probably ex¬
pedient, then to suppose there are any
302 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY.
possible reasons, of any kind, why a per¬
son, old or young, moral or immoral,
should not come into the Church now, is
exactly the same thing as to suppose that
there may be a wrong, time to do right.
If a person is not of sufficient age to join
the Church, then he is not of sufficient
age to do right, either of himself or by
his parents or guardians acting in his
behalf. Can any thing more absurd be
supposed, than that a person is not suffi¬
ciently moral or virtuous to obey God,
_to do right, to be in the Church ?
Some persons seem to imagine, though
I hold it to be impossible for any Chris¬
tian soberly to believe, that some certain
state of grace, or of religious experience,
or morals, must be attained before it be¬
comes a man's duty to do right, in obey¬
ing God in this particular. That is the
same precisely as to suppose that the
THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY. 303
neglect of one duty justifies the neglect
of another; or that the commission of
one offence is a proper and legal atone¬
ment for another—an absurdity-which has
been previously noted.
The truth is, that Christianity is in¬
tended to be exactly coextensive with the
human race; and if it is not so in one
case, or a million, it is because somebody
refuses to obey God. And if there is to¬
day any "world" outside of the Church,
outside of Christianity, it is because of
the very same thing.
There ought not to be a human person
outside of Christianity. And, the Scrip¬
tures and the philosophy of religion being
true, the time is coming when there will
not be.
The religion of Christianity being right,
absolutely, universally right, and being
exactly adapted to human nature and
304 THE CHURCH AND MINISTRY."
human wants, every thing else in the
system, Church, Church - membership,
ministry, duties, obligations, all follow of
unavoidable necessity, by the inevitable
laws of logic and common sense.
THE END.