BX 5131 .S3 1888 CHUEOH DOOTEINE, BIBLE TEUTH. BY THE REV. M. F. SADLER, M.A, PREBENDARY OF WELLS, AND RECTOR OF HONITON ; AUTHOR OF "a CHURCH COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT," "the church teacher's manual," "the second ADAM AND THE NEW BIRTH," ETC. TH IR TY- NINTH THO USA ND . " I am the Vine, ye are the branches." " Holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God." "Exceeding great and precious promises, that by these ye might be pair- takers of the Divine nature." LONDON: GEORGE BELL AND YORK STREET, COYENT GARDEN. 1888. SONS, LONDON : PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS. PEEFACE. In the following treatise, I have first endeavoured to set forth what God, in His Holy Word, teaches us respecting Church principles, and then I have turned to the Prayer- book, in order to ascertain how far it reflects the teaching of the Scriptures. This book is not intended to be a treatise on the Prayer-book, or on the Chm^ch and Sacraments in their relations to the rest of Chi-istianity, much less is it in- tended to embrace the whole cii'cle of Christian doctrine and practice. My one purpose in writing it has been to show that all distinctive Chui'ch doctrine is found in the Bible, and that the particular statements of that doctrine in the Prayer-book, which a large number of religious English- men affect to treat as unscriptural, are the mere echo of certain Scriptui-e statements ; so that, so far as the matters treated of in this book are concerned, there is no difficulty whatsoever attaching to any assertion contained in the Prayer-book ; all difficulties of this kind resolving them- selves into mysteries inherent in certain assertions of God in His Holy Word. a 2 iv PREFACE. The Prayer-book has too often been assumed to need apology, on account of what it teaches respecting the effects of the Sacraments and the functions of the ministry, whereas if it did not contain the doctrine in question it would be indefensible, because it would not, so far, embody the teaching of Scripture. The Prayer-book most assui*edly does not add to the force of any statement contained in the Bible respecting the Sacraments or the ministry of the Chui'ch ; and I trust that it does not take away from the force of any such statement. From what we know of their history and theological leanings, it is not at all likely that our Reformers would have handed down to us the Church truth which we pos- sess, unless they had felt that the Scripture evidence for it was too decisive to be either exi^lained away or ignored. Much less would they have been likely to overstate any Sacramental or Church truth, and they certainly have not. AVith respect to the chapter on the Baptismal Offices (chap, iii.), a word of explanation is due to those who may be already in possession of my published treatise on the subject of Eegeneration in Baptism. In a chapter in which I aim at showing that our Bap- tismal Services embody Scripture truth, I have, of course, been obliged to use the same arguments as in the former treatise. I trust, however, that the reader will find them put, as far as possible, into a new shape, expressed in different words, and so arranged as best to bear upon the illustra- tion of our Baptismal Offices. PREFACE. I had, at first, intended to liave done little more than refer the reader to my other book. I was, however, very strongly advised to write independently on the matter oi Baptism, so that the purchasers of this present work might have in it a sort of hand-book on the Scripture grounds of all Church doctrine. This it could hardly pretend to be if such a subject as Baptism were not treated in it with that fulness which its importance demands. If the Sacramental statements in the Prayer-book are in accordance with God's word, it follows— 1. That a very large number of religious persons are holding aloof from, or actively opposing, the Chui'ch of this country, simply because it strictly adheres to Scripture truth in its formularies of faith and worship. Every bitter word shot against certain unpopular truths is, in fact, shot against Christ ; for the first and fullest teaching of these truths is in the very words of Christ Himself. 2. That a very large number of religious persons who profess to adhere to the Church of England, are habitually explaining away these Church truths and the Scripture statements on which they are founded, on precisely the same rationalistic grounds on which others are making void every assertion of God's word which involves a miracle, or the existence of an angel. If men treat the Scriptures as virtually uninspired when they reveal the Sacramental, how can they judge those who set the same Scriptures aside when they reveal the miraculous ? Vi PREFACE. 3. That tliey to whom God in His mercy has been pleased to reveal these truths, should be most careful to set them before their brethren in a Scripture form, and, as far as possible, in Scripture language ; and it behoves them not hastily to cast such truths on ground unfitted to receive them, but to prepare the minds of others for their reception, by the constant inculcation of the principles on which they are founded ; and, above all, by showing the practical results which the Apostles themselves make to depend upon them. It behoves them, too, to weigh well every word in which they strive to commend them to their brethren, lest it seem overstrained, or unreal, or at manifest variance with other clearly revealed truths, and so give occasion of stumbling to the weaker brethren, and of wilful mis- representation to the adversaries. Above all, it behoves those who " know these things " to pray very earnestly and constantly that the Great Head of the Church may give to all His people faith to apprehend the things pertaining to His mystical Body, and boldness to confess them when apprehended. For with respect to these things, as well as to all others which belong to Christ, His saying holds good — " He shall glorify Me, for He shall receive of Mine, and shall show it unto you." CONTENTS. CHAPTER L THE SCRIPTURE GOSPEL. PAGB The Gospel always appears in Scriptirre as the setting forth of certain facts in the history of Jesus Christ ... 1 Proofs of this— From the Gospels and Acts .... 5 From the Epistles 9 Provisions loliich the Church makes for insuring the setting forth of the Gospel under this Scripture aspect of it. I. By her yearly round of Fast and Festival 11 Her formularies would be unscriptnral if they did not recognise these days and seasons 12 No setting forth of abstract doctrine would be Scriptural 15 Historical aspect of the Gospel chosen by God as best calculated to work in us trust in Christ 16 The Prayer-book far more Scriptural than such documents as " The Westminster Confession," " Calvin's Insti- tutes," &c 17 II. Provision made by the Church for insuring the setting forth in her daily service of this Scripture form of the Gospel . . . . • 18 No Church or body of Christians can be Scriptm-al which leaves this to the will of the particular minister who conducts the service 22 viii CONTENTS. CHAPTER 11. CREED OF ST. ATHANASIUS. PAGB This Creed makes no greater demands on our faith than the Apostles* Creed 25 Answers a multitude of questions which are suggested, but not answered, by the Apostles' Creed 27 Its statements a necessary deduction from the Scriptures 29 Damnatory clauses 31 God insists on a right faith in the Person of His Son . 33 And fences the integrity of this faith by damnatory clauses 33 This Creed guards the simple statement that " Jesus Chi'ist is God's Only Begotten Son incarnate " 36 And so is a defence of the true paternity of the Father . 37 And a protest against prevalent fanaticism 39 CHAPTER III. BAPTISM AND THE BAPTISMAL SERVICES. Section I. THE VISIBLE CHURCH. The great " Church " truth of God's word 41 The visible Church alone recognised in God's word ... 42 Church Fellowship and individual personal religion ... 43 Cannot rightly be considered apart from one another ... 45 Baptismal Services fo be Scriptural must set forth the basis of Church Fellowship or Communion 46 Section II. THE teaching OF SCRIPTURE UPON BAPTISM. What the term " Scriptural " means 47 Scripture teaching relating to Baptism summed up under five heads 48 I. Places of Scriptiu-e directly connecting things pertain- ing to salvation with Baptism — John iii. 5 , .... 50 Mark xvi. 16 . 55 CONTENTS. ix PAGE Acts ii. 38 ; XX. 16 56 Eom. vi. 1—4 ; Coloss. ii. 11, 12 56 /Vote. — On the only sense in which we can be said to die to sin in Baptism 57 1 Ck)r. X. 1— 10 58 1 Cor. xii. 13 59 Gal. iii. 26 ; Ephes. v. 26 ; Titus iii. 5 ... 59 1 Peter iii. 21 60 General teacliing of these Scripture stattments G2 II. Christians always assumed to have been received into a state of grace in Baptism 64 Practical application of this by Scripture writers . 66 III. This state of salvation does not in all cases secure the present goodness or the final salvation of those once brought into it 69 IV. Apostles assume that all Christians who sin, sin because they fall from grace, not because God has not given them grace 73 V. Baptized Christians never called upon to be born again 75 Summary of Scripture teaching ... .... 77 Section III, EX-\MINATION OF THE BAPTISMAL SERVICES. I. In accordance with Scripture our services connect Ee- generation with Baptism, and assume that Kegeneration is the being grafted into Christ's body " . . . . 78 II. In accordance with Scripture they pronounce the bap- tized to be regenerate in Baptism S3 III. In accordance with Scripture they set forth Baptismal grace as a thing from which men are liable to faU . . 84 IV. In accordance with Scripture our services recognise but one Church, into which Church the person baptized is engrafted 85 Section IV. KEGENERATION OF INFANTS IN BAPTISjI. Infant Baptism, and Eegeneration of Infants in Baptism . . 87 Scripture evidence as to the nature and degree of faith re- quii-ed in Baptism . . . . . . , 87 CONTENTS. PAGB If there is any uncertainty respecting Infant Baptismal Ee- generation, we have no right to baptize Infants . . 92 We have no right to baptize Infants if conscious faith is essential to the reception of Eegeneration .... 93 Four very distinct Scripture warrants for baptizing Infants . 91 Two principles lead us to the same conclusion — 1. Analogy between the two Adams 9C 2. Analogy of circumcision 98 Infant Baptism has more distinct New Testament grounds than the keeping of Sunday 99 What we cannot but gather from our Lord's acts towards those who were unable to exercise conscious faith . , 100 Recapitulation of Scripture arguments 103 Especial fitness of Infants to receive Baptismal Eegeneration asserted in the services 104 Sponsors, and the service for private Baptism 104 Section V. CERTAIN DIFFICULTIES CONSIDERED. Whatever difficulties attach to the whole matter are Bible difficulties, not Prayer-book difficulties 107 St. John's statements respecting the complete sinlessness of the regenerate 108 Predestinarian difficulties bearing on Baptism not inherent in the Prayer-book, but in the Bible . . . , . 110 Section VI. THE hypothetical VIEW. Hypothetical view examined Ill No difficulty removed by this theory 113 Section VII. PRAYER-BOOK AND ARTICLES. Baptismal service compared with Thirty-nine Articles . . 115 Note. — Discrepancies between the Articles themselves greater than any between the Articles and Baptismal service . 120 OOKTENTS. Xi CHAPTER IV. HOLY COMMUNION. Section I. THE WOKDS OF INSTITUTION. PACB Mystery of tlie Person of Him who spake these words, and its bearing on their interpretation 125 The words of institution teach us to regard this Sacrament as primarily a means of grace 129 Everything concurs to assure us that some amazing grace is offered to us in this Sacrament 129 Section II. TRANSrBSTANTIATION UNSCRIPTLRAL . . . 131 Note on the Patristic Testimony against Transubstantiation . 133 Section III. THE MERELY FIGURATIVE VIEW. This dispensation a dispensation of realities and not of types and figures liO The acknowledged figurative language of Scripture, when examined, an evidence against the merely figurative view 143 Section TV. EXAMINATION OF JOHN "SI. No occasion except that of the institution of the Eucharist on which Christ uses language at all similar to that employed by Him here 145 St. Paul also uses this language solely in relation to the Eucharist 147 What the Jews stumble at 149 Eemarkable alteration of language in verse 51 — Up to this verse Christ had spoken of Himself as the bread of life ; here He begins to speak of men eating His/es/i 151 This change incompatible with any rationalizing view . . 152 Must indicate something more than a spiritual work of Christ on the heart or mind of the believer ... . . 153 xii CONTENTS. PAQ The drinking of the Blood 154 Note. — On allegorical interpretation 156 It is the spirit that qnickeneth " 157 Calvin's remarks on this 158 The words that I speak unto you ; they are spirit " . . . 159 None but those who have seen a Sacramental mystery in this discourse have dared to use its characteristic expressions IGO Section V. THE MYSTEKY. Clirist might have expressed Himself more spiritually. He purposely uses terms associated with the lower nature of flesh rather than with the higher nature of spirit . 162 When Clirist uses such words as " eatmg flesh," He cannot possibly mean only partaking of spirit " .... 164 Wherein consists the mystery 165 Note. — Extract from Dean Goulbm-n's Farewell Counsels 165 Hooker and Calvin on the mystery 1 66 Section VI. THE COMMUNION SERVICE. If our services are Scriptui-al, they must set forth — 1. That Holy Communion is ordained to enable us to partake of the body and blood of Christ. Proof that they do this 2. That in this partaking of the flesh and blood of Christ we receive certain unspeakable benefits .... 3. That this partaking must be connected with the resur- rection of the body The Prayer-book and IMissal compared on these two points. Holy Communion as a partaking of the body and blood of Christ, and benefits consequent thereupon, Bet forth far more clearly in the Prayer-book than in the Missal 4. That these benefits depend on the spiritual state of the recipient 5. That the outward part must be the consecrated bread and wine. Every notice of the Holy Communion in Scripture witnesses to the necessity of Consecration . CONTENTS. XUl Section V'II. the euchaeisnc sacrifice. TAGS Scripture and Antiquity unite in testifying that the Eucharist was the distinctive feature of early Chiistian worship . 183 Peculiar diflSculty which we in England have in realising the Eucharist as in any sense a sacrifice ...... 185 Intense sacrificial reality of the Eucharist 188 Note. — Extract fi-om Eev. P. G. Medd's Essay on the Eucha- ristic Sacrifice, and observations upon it of Wesley an Eeviewer 189 True sacrificial view contrasted with its opposite .... 191 The Eucharist a showing forth of Chi-ist's death, not of our faith in His death 194 Accordance of our service with this view 198 "VMien and in what way do we make the sacrificial memorial ? 202 Note I. — Examples of ancient forms of the Tersanctus or Hymn of the Seraphim 204 Note II. — On the Sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist . . . 206 CHAPTER V. THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. Section I. THE SCBIPTUEE DOCTKINE OF THE MINISTRY. God is pleased to impart to us certain spiritual benefits through the hands of our fellow-men 215 Powers claimed by the Church for her ministers . . . . 216 The whole matter a question of things, not of icords. Whether the word " priest" be used or not in the New Testament signifies nothing 217 Illustration from the vision in Isaiah vi 218 Patriarchal Dispensation. Abraham blessed by Melchizedek 220 Jewish Dispensation 221 That the whole Jewish nation were priests did not clash with the fact that God ordained special priests to minister at His altar . 223 xiv CONTENTS. PAGB The Jewish priests but ministers 225 Prophecies foretelling that there would be priests under the New Dispensation 226 The Christian Dispensation. Position of the Apostles between Christ and His ordinary followers 228 If Chrigt assigned to His Apostles any power of showing forth or applying His death, He gave them the highest functions of those who are called " priests" .... 231 He did this in respect of Baptism 232 The Lord's Supper 233 Absolution 234 Reason why the term " priest " was not originally applied to Christian ministers (note) 235 Their functions transmitted by " laying on of liands " . . . 237 Section H. absolution. Cannot be the power of proclaiming the terms of forgiveness merely 238 Cannot have been intended to be limited to the Apostles . . 240 Cannot have been limited to those who had the gift of *' discerning of spirits " 243 Section III. EXAMINATION OF THE ORDINAL. Terms in which Christ inaugurated the Christian ministry in- compatible with a low rationalizing view of its functions 2-16 If our Ordinal is Scriptural, it must embody the words in which Christ ordained the Christian ministry. Proof that it does this 249 Absolution in the Visitation of the Sick . 255 So worded as most carefully to guard against any sort of misconstruction, except wilful 256 Note. — This absolution not merely declaratory 258 Extracts from Law's Letters to Bishop of Bangor exposing certain ever-recurring fallacies 259 Extract from Kev. F, D. Maurice 2G6 CONTEXTS. XV CHAPTER VI. FORMS OF PRAYER AND THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE PEOPLE. PAGE Our Service-book a book of CoiniON Prayer 267 Not the private prayer of the individual minister, but the common property of tbe congregation.) Every opportunity given to the congregation to join in it by response 268 Evidence of Scripture on the subject 270 No specific directions respecting public worship in the Xew Testament, and absurd inference from this .... 278 Forms essential if the Laity are to take their part in tbe service 274 Primitive Liturgies 275 All Primitive Liturgies agi-ee in assigning to the lay people a share in the most solemn parts of tbe service . . . 276 Proofs of this so far as regards — 1. The Hymn of the Seraphim 276 2. The " Sursum corda," or " Lift up yom- hearts . . 277 3. The response after the recitation of our Lord's words . 279 4. The Lord's Prayer and the Preface to it . . . .280 5. The " Holy Things for Holy Persons " 282 Summary 283 Prayers of the Church adapted to the mixed state of the Church, as foretold by our Lord 287 CHAPTER yn. CHURCH GOVERNMENT. Section I. Christ has all offices in Himself 291 Position He assigned to the twelve Apostles 292 Apostolic oversight of the Pentecostal Church . » . . . 29c Seven Deacons . 296 Presidency of St, James , . 298 First mention of Elders 299 Unsolved questions respecting the government of the Church of Jerusalem 300 All the notices of it set fortb Apostolic rule merging into Episcopal 303 XTi CONTENTS. Apostleship of St. Paul . . 303 Constant assertion by himself of his Apostleship .... 304 Exercised parental, but still absolute authority, over all Churches planted by him 306 He never constituted or recognised in these Churches any government independent of his own 308 By what means he exercised Episcopal control over distant Churches 309 What provision he made for their government after his death 312 He provides for their government by individuals, but makes no provision for their government on any democratic model 313 No directions respecting government sent to the Churches themselves 314 Note. — On existing Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congrega- tional systems 314 No directions respecting the formation of presbyteries, or the conduct of popular assemblies for governing the Chm-ch 316 The Church rule practised by the Apostle could develop into nothing but Episcopacy 317 No original democratic constitution could have been superseded by Episcopacy 318 Apostolic government essentially hierarchical 321 All post- Apostolic Episcopacy must of necessity be a modifica- tion of the Apostolic 322 The mere names of Church oflScers can prove nothing . . . 323 But one principle of Church rule to be found in the New Testament 327 Note. — Government of Church not founded on that of the Synagogue 327 Section II. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION . . , . i 329 CHAPTER VIII. CONFIRMATION. Notices of it in the New Testament 339 Its continuance depends upon, and is a witness to, the perpetuity of the ApostoUc ministry 340 Answers to objections . , . , „ ^41 CONTENTS. xvii CHAPTER IX. THE ORDER FOR THE BURIAL OF THE DEAD, PAGE Its Scriptural views of the state of the departed contrasted witli the prevalent unscriptural views — 1. On the second coming of Christ 344 2. On the Scripture doctrine of reward ... . . 346 Waiting for the Second Advent 347 Examination of the service itself 349 The indiscriminate use of this service 351 'Sot one or two sentences, but the whole of it unsuitable to the case of the wicked 352 Indications from Scripture of the principle on which a burial service should be composed 353 CHAPTER X. CHURCH PRIXCIPLES AND ANTIQUITY. The providence of God in the publication of the New Testament would lead us to adopt primitive interpretations of it . 355 Justin Martyr on Baptism 359 Justin Martyr on the Eucharist 361 Zuinglian interpretation really traditional 362 Rapid declension of anti-sacramental Christianity .... 363 In Geneva and Switzerland 365 In Holland 366 In Poland, England, and America .... . . 367 Only one reason can be assigned for this decline .... 368 CHAPTER XI. THE EVANGELICAL SYSTEM. Men refuse to entertain Church principles because they think there is a counter scheme of doctrine fully and clearly revealed in Scripture 309 No one single book of the New Testament could have been written by one who held the modern Evangelical system 370 Impossibility of reconciling with this scheme — The Epistle to the Romans 370 Hebrews 373 Ephesians 373 I. Timothy . . 374 6 SCviii CONTENTS. PAGE St. Paul scarcely ever observes the (so-called) right sequence of Evangelical doctrine 375 Epistle of St. James wholly inconsistent with Evangelical scheme 376 Epistle General of St, John differs essentially from it . . . 376 Our blessed Lord's words also wholly incompatible with a " clear view " of this scheme . 377 The true view of the Sacraments on the side of free grace . 370 Note on the teaching of the Old Testament 3S0 CHAPTER XII. PREACHING AND SACRAMENTS. Folly of instituting any comparison between preaching and Sacraments shown by the recorded effects of St. Peter's Pentecostal Sermon 383 What St. Paul taught about the Church and Sacraments . . 384 St. Paul sent ''not to baptize, but to preach" 386 Modern Evangelical teaching at direct issue with the Apostles as to the effects of preaching . 388 CHAPTER XIII. CHURCH PRINCIPLES AND FREE THOUGHT. Modern Rationalism affects Church Principles only so far as it affects the credit of the entire Bible 389 Proof of this with respect to Baptism 390 The Lord's Supper 391 Absolution 391 Lord Macaulay on the effect of Progress on Religious Truth (note) 392 The Church Principles of the New Testament must be unalter- able in their application 393 No real progress discernible in Free Thought " writers . . 394 Remarkable reticence in writei'S of this school respecting the Godhead and Incarnation of Christ 395 Folly of rationalizing on Church or Sacramental doctrine whilst men profess to accept the truth of the Incarna- tion 396 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. OE AFTER I. THE SCEIPTUEE GOSPEL. Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the Gospel which 1 pyeached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye Tieep in memory ichat I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures ; and tliat He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures: and tliat He icas seen of Cephas, then of tlie twelve : . . . last of all He was seen of me also ; . . . therefore, ichether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed." (1 Cor. xy. 1 — 11 ) " Tlie Gospel of God (ichich He had promised afore by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures], concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh : and declared to be the Son of God miih power, according to ihe spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." (Eom. i. 1 — 4.) " Having i}ierefore obtained help of God, I conHnue unto this day^ npitncssing both to srruill and great, saying none other things tJian those which the prophets and Moses did say should come : that Christ 2 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. should suffer^ and that Ee should he the first that should rise froTh the dead, and should sheio light unto the people, and to the Gentiles,' (Acts xxvi. 22, 23.) " TJie beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Qirid, the Son of God.' (Bt. Mark i. 1.) **Bememher that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead according to my Gospel." (2 Tim. ii. 8.) npHE great work of the Churcli of Clirist is to set forth the Gospel of her Lord. If He has committed His truth to our keeping, it is for us to see that we retain that truth in its fulness, and that we transmit it unimpaired. It is plain also that if God has set forth the Gospel in some particular form, we must adhere to that form, and not substitute for it any other which may seem to the eye of man more spiritual or more practical. God best knows how to draw souls to Himself. He, and He only, sees in what way they can be most effectually moulded to suit His purposes. If He gives to us one aspect of His truth rather than another, we may rest assured that He has some all-sufficient reason for His choice, and so the Church must make it her first care to sot forth the Gospel in that form in which she has received it from God. The word " Gospel " in the New Testament is applied exclusively to the announcement of certain events occur- ring at a particular time in the history of the world. These are, the Incarnation, Birth, Baptism, Temptation, Ministry, Miracles, Betrayal, Condemnation, Death, Burial, and Eesurrection of Jesus. This is the meaning of the word " Gospel " in the opening sentence of St. Mark's Gospel. This is its meaning in the opening sentence of St. Paul's Epistle to the Komans, where the Apostle speaks of hian- self as "separated unto the Gospel of God, concerning T]IE SCRIPTUHE GOSPEL. 3 His Son Jesus Clirist, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of Holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." When St. Paul, in another placCj sets forth exijlicitly the Gospel which he preached, and by which his Eonverts were saved, — he declares it to be the record of three facts, " that Christ died for our sins, that He was bui'ied, and that He rose again the third day." ( 1 Cor. XV. 1-6.) If this be the aspect under which the Gcspel is set before us in the New Testament, then a Church which would set forth the Gospel as it is contained in Scripture must adhere to this Scripture form of it. It is not given to any Chui'ch to assume to be more spiritual than God's Holy Spirit — so as, in place of the sequence of events recorded in Scripture as " the Gospel," virtually to substi- tute a sequence of certain doctrines, beginning (say) with the secret decree of God respecting the election of the individual soul, proceeding to set forth the effectual calling, conversion, and justification of that soul so elected, and culminating in the present assurance of its salvation. Presenting the Gospel under such a form as this would not be Scriptural, for the Scriptures do not set forth this as the Gospel. I am not now denying that something like this respecting individual election, calling, justifica- tion, and sanctification, is to be found in Scripture, or to be inferred from some Scripture statements. I am pronouncing no opinion upon it, except that it is not presented in Scripture as " the Gospel." The Gospel does not appear in Scripture under the aspect of certain dealings of God udth the individual soul apart from its fellow souls. It does apnear as certain CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. events, or historical facts, having to do with the Second Person in the Ever-Blessed Trinity, which facts are — the Incarnation, Birth, Life, Death, Burial, Eesurrection, and Ascension of the Son of God. Let us first dwell somewhat on the proof of this which we derive from God's word. First of all, by far the greater part of the New Testa- ment is occupied with the history or life of Jesus of Nazareth, commencing with His Incarnation and ending with His Ascension. Secondly, in the doctrinal or hortatory part, viz. the Epistles, the leading events recorded in this historical part are always referred to as constituting "the Gospel," to the utter exclusion of any more doctrinal or abstract form of Divine truth ; and also to the exclusion of any expressions denoting God's particular love to individual souls as constituting the Gospel. First, then, by far the greater part of the New Testa- ment is occupied with the record of certain outward historical facts relating to Jesus of Nazareth. In order to impress the great outlines of tJiis history the deeper upon men's minds, God has caused this his- torical part to take the shape of four memoirs, or bio- graphical notices ; three of them going over substantially the same ground. Instead of one life of Christ containing all particulars in chronological order, God has given to us four, which, owing to small apparent discrepancies, we cannot weave together into one connected narrative ; so that we cannot make one perfect Gospel narrative or harmony, but ara obliged to read or study the four separately. Literary unity, and the exactness which characterises a single well- digested narrative, or memoir, are thus sacrificed, and the charge of repetition is incurred ; but all this is us THE SCRIPTURE GOSPEL. 5 nothing, for the intention of Almighty God is carried out, which is, that our minds should be saturated with the account of the Birth, Life, Death, and Resurrection of His dear Son. If repetition had been avoided, as it would have been in any book compiled to please men, the evangelic narra- tive might have been so compressed as to fill not half the space which it now occupies, and so more room might have been left for purely doctrinal teaching ; but, instead of this, we have the same incidents presented to us three or four times, so that our minds and memories must per- force retain them — retain, that is, the Gospel of Salvation in the narrative or outward objective form in which God has been pleased to embody it. Let us now examine the Gospels, with a view to this. First of all, let us take the Gospel of St. Matthew. The first chapter of this Gospel has always formed the opening page of the Book of God's New Covenant. It is occupied, first, with a genealogy of the Saviour ; secondly, with a notice of His Incarnation and Birth ex- pressed in the plainest and barest terms conceivable. The second chapter contains the visit of the Magi, tlie slaughter of the Innocents, and the flight into Egypt. The third contains the account of the preaching of Christ's forerunner, and of His own baptism by the hands of this forerunner. The fom-th, the account of the temptation of Christ and the call of the Apostles. Such is the opening of the New Testament. Now I ask the reader. Is such an opening of God's final and perfect revelation that which he would have expected, if, that is, he had been guided in his expectation of what God's revelation was likely to be, by that form of doctrine which, since the time of the Keformation, has undoubtedly taken most hold of the religious mind of this country ? 6 CHURCH DOnTRIN^, — BIBLE TRUTH. I am sure that it is not. A greater coTitrast cannot bo imagined between that presented by the first part of the Kew Testament, and the corresponding part of any treatise on the Christian religion which you may choose to take up. But wc pass on to St. Mark. This Gospel commences with the words, " The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God." These v/ords form part of the sacred text, consequently we have here the Holy Spirit's testimony to the fact that what St. Mark wrote was " The Gospel." But of all the four this Gospel contains by far the barest narrative oi facts. There is from the beginning to the end of it not one evangelical remark, in the modern or popular sense oi the word " evangelical." We next come to St. Luke. In the first verses we arc told that his object in witing was that a certain Christian named Theophilus might "know the certainty of the things in which he had been instructed." (Luke i. 4.) St. Luke also incidentally mentions that many other writers had " taken in hand to set forth a declaration of those things which were most surely believed by " the Apostolic Christians, " even as they delivered them who from the beginning were eye-witnesses." We learn, then, from th»is short preface what were the things which formed the substance of Apostolic teaching ; of the teaching, i.e. of those who "from the beginning were eye-witnesses." We learn what those things were which were "most sm-ely believed," and in which the first converts were " instructed," or " catechised." And what were these things ? The birth of the Bap- tist ; the Annunciation ; the Birth of Jesus , the Adora- cion by the shepherds ; the Presentation in the temple ; the Baptism of our Lord ; a second Genealogy ; and tho THE SCRIPTURE GOSPEL. account of the Tem2)tatiou, — all introductory to a na-rra- tive embodying, in slightly different language, and with some variety of circumstance, the same miracles and incidents which arc given in the Gosj^els of Saints Matthew and Mark, concluding with an account of the iJufferings, Death, and Eesurrection of Jesus; and all this without one word of what would now be called " evangelical application " from one end to the other. The Gospel of St. John commences with the most dog- matic enunciation possible of the great objective fact upon which all Christianity depends, viz., the Incarna- tion. It is by far the most doctrinal of the four, but all its doctrine has reference to two great outward facts in the history of God's dealings with men ; the first, that God had sent His Son, and the second, that He looiild send His Spirit. The doctrine of this Gospel throughout is Catholic, not Puritan. It is the setting forth of Christ as the Incarnate Son or Word — as the Giver of His Flesh to be the Bread of Life — as the Eesurrection — as the True Vine — as giving to His Apostles a commission similar to that of His own. It concludes with a fourth and independent narrative of the events connected with the Death of Christ, and of His appearances after His Eesurrection. The next book which the Holy Spirit has caused to be written for our learning is also historical, giving an account of the setting-up of the Christian Church, and the teaching of the Apostles. This book contains the abstract of two sermons, one preached by St. Peter, the other by St. Paul, in addition to a number of short detached notices, from which we gather the principal features of Apostolic teaching. In the second chapter we have the first Christian 8 CHURCH DOCTRINE,— BIBLE TRtJTIT. sermon ever preaclied, and tlie most successful ; and in ]t we have the Apostle building his call to repentance and baptism on the outward facts of the Miracles, Crucifixion, Death, Descent into Hell, and Resurrection of Jesus. The only sermon of the Apostle St. Paul on record (in Acts xiii.) is an exact counterpart, in somewhat different language, to this sermon of St. Peter ; it is a call to repentance and faith, grounded on the Death, Burial (which is especially mentioned), Resurrection, and appearances after His Resurrection, of the Son of David. The shorter notices of Apostolic preaching scattered throughout this book are all to the same effect. When an Apostle is chosen into the place of the traitor, it is that " he may be a witness of the Resurrection." (Acts i. 22.) When we are told of the force and energy with which the Apostles preached, it is in the words, " with great power gave the Apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus." (Acts iv. 33.) When the door of faith was opened to the Gentiles, and words were told Cornelius whereby he and his house were to be saved, the words as recorded are, " God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power, who went about doing good .... whom they slew and hanged on a tree. Him God raised up the third day, and showed Him openly, not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before of God, even to us who did eat and drink with Him after He rose from the dead. To Him give all the prophets witness that whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts x. 38—43.) Again, St. Paul's preaching is described in the words "Opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead, and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ." (Acts xvii. 3.) THE SCmPTURE GOSPEL. 9 Again, lie himself describes his own preaching in similar terms, " Saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come, that Christ should suffer, and that He should he the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light to the people and to the Gentiles." (Acts xxvi. 23.) All the notices of Apostolic preaching which we have in this book bear witness to the same fact— that the Gospel of the primitive Church was the proclamation of God's love to a sinful world, as set forth in the Death, Burial, and Eesui-rection of Jesus. No single Apostolic discourse which has come down to us is conceived in the spirit of a modern revival sermon. Even if we have only the outlines of the Apostolic discourses, these outlines imply that the form of primitive doctrine resembled rather the articles of the creed than a Calvinistic or Methodistic system. They are outlines which could not possibly be filled up with what is now called a Gospel sermon. We now come to the Epistles. The fii'st of these in order in our Bibles, and the most important of all from the nature of its contents, is the Epistle to the Romans. This Epistle begins with an enunciation of the Gospel exactly similar to those which we have found in the historical part of the New Testament : " The Gospel of God, concerning His Son Jesus Chi-ist, which was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of Holiness, by the resui'rection from the dead." (Rom. i. 1.) But in this Epistle we have the Apostle practically applying his " Gospel " to the consolation and assurance of his converts, and so we have the Gospel as applied 10 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BJBLE TRUTH. by God's Holy Spirit to tlic assurance and comfort of the individual ; and we find that it is still represented a? consisting in the record of the same outward facts, and not as so much inward experience, or abstract declarations of the love of God, or of the all-sufficiency of the work of Christ. For instance, in applying the fact that Abraham was justified by faith to the present assurance of the Roman Christians, St. Paul writes, "It was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification." (Eom. iv. 23—25.) Let the reader mark these words. The Apostle hero asserts that righteousness is imputed to a man, not when he believes that his sins are forgiven — not when he believes that he is personally justified and accepted — not when he realises that Christ died for him in particular, — but when he believes that God the Father raised up God the Son from the dead. So at least asserts the Apostle. Whether circumstances require that the strict meaning of his words should be modified I do not stop to inquire. Again, we find similar words in the tenth chapter of this Epistle : " The word of faith which we preach, that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in tliy heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (Rom x. 9.) Similarly St. Peter says, " You, who by Him do believe in God that raised Him from the dead, and gave Him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God." (1 Peter i. 21.) Again, w^hen St. John would fill his converts with fulness of joy, he writes, not of God's secret election, not THE SCRIPTURE GOSPEL. n of individual assurance, but of Lis own personal witness to the truth of the fact of the Incarnation. " That whict was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with oui' eyes, which we have looked upon, and oiu' hands have handled of the Word of Life . . . that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with ug, and truly our fellow- ship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ, and these things icrite we unto you that your joy may he full." (1 John i. 1—4.) In accordance with all this. St. Paul, in declaring to the Corinthians the Gospel which he preached, and in which his converts stood, sets forth to them first of all that which he had also received, how that " Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptui*es, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptm-es." (1 Cor. xv. 1—4.) Such is the aspect under which the Gospel is presented to us in the Scriptm^es. What provision does the Church make that this " Gospel of the kingdom " should be set before her child- ren under the form in which it always appears in Scrip- ture ? "What means does she emjDloy in order that it should have the same prominent place in her system which it undoubtedly occupies in the Bible ? Very remarkable indeed is the provision which the Church makes for this, for it is by far the most prominent and noticeable thing in her service book. She pro- vides for the setting forth of the Gospel under this its one Scriptm-e aspect by embodying it in her yearly round of Fast and Fcsti^ral. She commemorates the crreat facts of Eedemption on her great days of religious ob- servance. On these days she sets fwith the great features of the 12 CHTJRCH BOCTHINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Gospel rather as events or facts than as doctrines. She makes these days great days, and she does her best to invest them with a sanctity above that of other days, and this according to their reLT,tive importance. Unquestionably, the Eesiirrection of Jesus as the seal of His Messiahship and God's own assurance of the full efficacy of His Son's Death is the first event in the New Testament, and so Easter Day is the Queen of Days in the Church's year. Next to it are Christmas Day, Good Friday, Ascension Day, and Whit Sunday, as setting forth the Incarnation and Birth, the Atoning Death, and Exaltation of Jesus, and the Fulfilment of the Promise of the Father. Then come Advent, Epiphany, and certain Saints' Days. And on various other Sundays, from Christmas to Trinity, we have certain great facts or leading events in the Saviour's life. On the festival of the Epiphany we have His adoration by the Magi as the firstfruits of the Gentile world; on the firut Sunday after the Epiphany we have the one incident recorded in Scripture of the early youth of the Saviour ; on the first Sunday in Lent His Temptation by the devil ; and on the first Sunday after Easter the most remarkable of His appearances after His Resurrection. A week of sacred service is given to the events im- mediately preceding His Crucifixion, and to the circum- stances of the Crucifixion itself, such as His entrance into Jerusalem, His anointing for His Burial, Institution of the Eucharist, Betrayal, Agony, Condemnation, Scourging, tlrowning with thorns, Death and Burial. Now I do not merely say that it is Scriptural to fasten these events on these days, and to associate as far as possible the day with the deed ; I go much further, and say that no form of public prayer or liturgy, or any THE SCRIPTURE GOSPEL. 13 directory of public worship, or any mode of conducting public worship without form or liturgy, can be accounted Scriptural unless it similarly recognises these days and seasons, for no other way is now possible of setting forth in the public services of the Church that historical aspect of the Gospel which, as we have seen, is the only one con- tained in Scripture. No other way, I say, is now possible except the one which the Catholic Church has adopted from the very first, and which by its universal adop- tion or recognition, has forestalled every other means of accomplishing this end. It is not as if either Christendom, or any Churches or sects in Christendom, could now meet together and strike out some new mode. The mode has been struck out and determined on long ago, so that the earliest Christian histories exhibit it in full operation ; the very earliest fact in ecclesiastical history being a dispute respecting the time of observing Easter. Of com'se, other plans of setting forth in public wor- ship the historical form in which God has embodied the Gospel are conceivable, but, omng to the course which events have taken since the Eeformation, they arc not possible. The sects who at the time of the Reformation flung to the winds the observance of Easter and Christmas, equally flung to the winds the great outward facts of Eedemption as the evidences of God's goodwill to the sinner, and sub- stituted for them the evidence of inward personal experi- ences. I do not, of course, for a moment mean to say that they denied the facts, hut they suhstituted otJier comi- derations for the evangelical apiAication of these facts. They would seek to inspire Christian joy, for instance, not, as St. John did, by the direct application of such a fact as the Incarnation (1 John i. 1 — 4), but by such 14 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BJBLE TRUTH. doctrines as effectual calling, sensible conversion, imputed rigliteousness, and final perseverance. For ever blessed be God's Holy Name, wben He brought about the Eeformation of the Chui'cli of England, He so ordered it that this recognition of the historical form of the Gospel which pervaded the unreformed service books was not cast aside, but preserved in its fulness, and we enjoy it now in our yearly round of sacred Fast and Festival. By the teaching of Collect, Epistle, Gospel, proper pre- face in Holy Communion, and proper Lessons on various days of the Church's year, we soberly and reverently con- nect the very j)assage of time with the great facts of Redemption. The year in its silent course preaches the very Gospel of Scripture. Unless we had this yearly teaching of Gospel facts, our service books would not be . Scriptural, if by " Scriptural " v^'c mean in accordance with the teaching of Scripture, for Scripture never brings before us the Gospel of Christ, except as the record of certain facts respecting Him. Scrij3ture reveals to us the mind of God towards us, not in abstract doctrine, or treatise, or essay, but in the record of facts, and these facts the Incarnation, Death, Eesur- rection, and Ascension of the Saviour. So that it is as strictly in accordance with Scripture to keep Christmas, Epiphany, and Good Friday, though there is not one word m Scripture respecting the keeping of these days, as it is Scriptural to teach in a Sunday School, though there is not one word in Scripture about such an institution as a Sunday School. The keeping of these days with special Lessons and Gospels and Psalms is our mode of assigning to certain facts, which manifest God's lo7e to the world tLat exceeding prominence which we find assigned to them in God's word, just as they who teach in a Sunday School THE SCRITTURE GOSPEL. 15 do it as the most feasible mode of fulfilling tlie plain Scripture duty of instructing in religion tlie children of those who, from want of inclination or ability, do not in- struct them themselves. So that when other bodies of Christians turn round upon the Church, and ask her reasons for keeping certain days of observance which are not mentioned in Scripture, she must, if she is faithful, say to them, " It is true I have special prayers and special in- struction for these days. It is my mode — a mode handed down to me from the time of the Apostles — of falling in with the mind of the Spirit as to the form in which the Gospel is to be presented to man. The Spirit who in- spired the Scriptures has in these Scriptures wrapped up Salvation in certain facts, and made the Gospel of Sal- vation to be the preaching of these facts. Do you who question me make any attempt to guarantee to those who put themselves under youi* guidance that they should have the Gospel presented to them in that particular form in which it appears in Holy Writ ? Have you any plan whatsoever for effecting this ? I, by celebrating the great facts of Eedemption on certain days, do my best to insure that the order which I find in Scripture is adhered to. I have a plan to insure as far as possible adherence to the teaching of the Spii'it on this momentous matter. What plan have you ?" I shall now make one or two observations on the fore- going matter. In the first place, it is quite evident that no setting forth of certain abstract doctrines, no matter how true or needful, can, if we submit to be guided by Scripture, be substituted for the facts which are set forth in Scripture as the Gospel. Take the Passion of Christ, that is, His Betrayal, Agony, Desertion, Denial by Peter, Crucifixion, and Death. The doctrine dependent upon these facts is 16 CHURCH DOCTIIINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. tliat of the Atonement. " He was wounded for oui transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed." Now it may be said that the outward circumstances of the Passion of Christ, precious though they are, are only the shell or husk of a hidden reality, which reality is the Atonement ; so we must pass over them, and fix our attention on the Atonement alone. But to do so, however plausible, would be to the last degree imscriptural, if " Scriptural " means to be in accordance with that which is contained in Scripture ; for the Spirit has caused the inspired writers to dwell much on the Sufferings of the Saviour. He has also given to us the blessed result of these Sufferings in the recon -filiation of God to man. But the comj^arative space in the sacred volume occupied by these two things is the reverse of what many would have expected. Instead of little being said about the Atoning Sufferings, and much about the doctrine of Atonement, little (comparatively speaking) is said about Atonement, and much about the Sufferings which purchased it. Scripture teaches very distinctly the doctrine of vica- rious Atonement ; but if it be the one great intention of God in the ins^^iration of Holy Scripture to lead us to trust in His dear Son, and if He Who made our souls knows best how to lead them to exercise the truest trust in Christ, then, so far as we can gather from the contents of Holy Scripture, that purpose of God is most effectually accomplished, not by our ignoring the Sufferings in order to dwell upon the abstract doctrine of Atonement, but by our assigning to the actual Sufferings of the God-man tho exceeding prominence which God lias assigned to them in His word, THE SCRIPTiniE GOSPEL. 17 For anything that we know, the exclusiYe contempla- tion of the doctrines apart from the facts of Eeclemptiou may nourish a Christian character very different from that which God desires to see in His children. The Christian character which has been formed by the exclusive contemplation of the doctrines usually (and rightly) called Evangelical, is certainly not humble, not for- bearing, not forgiving, not peaceable, not childlike, not unobtrusive. There is very deep instruction to be gathered from the fact that the most decided doctrinal statements respecting the vicarious natui-e of Chi-ist's Death are thrown in by an inspired Apostle, almost incidentally, in a passage in which the wi'iter is exhorting slaves to be " subject to their masters with all fear," and to " take it patiently," if they " suffer wrongfully," because in this they are called to follow Him Who, whilst He was " bearing oui* sins in His own body on the tree," left us an example of not reviling figain when we are reviled. (1 Pet. ii. 18 — 25.) If in the preceding pages I have given a fair represen- tation of what is in the Bible and in the Prayer-book, then the Prayer-book is incomparably more Scriptural than such documents as the " Westminster Confession," or Calvia's " Institutes ;" and this quite apart from the truth or falsehood of any particular doctrinal statements contained in these books, for in these books Christianity is cast into a different form altogether from what we find it in the Bible. In Scripture, what is now called " doctrine " almost invariably comes in incidentally.^ It is almost inextricably mixed up with narrative, history, and practical teaching. * With one notable exception: the doctrine of the Incarnation and Deity of our Lord ; wliich is stated dogmatically in John i. • ) John i. ; Hebrews i. G 18 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. It is almost always suggested by circumstances wliich must be understood and taken into full account if we would ascertain tbe exact view which the writer himself took of the doctrine. Thus, to take an example, the abstract doctrine of Election is never discussed in Scripture. It always ap- pears either in connexion with the choosing of the Apostles, or with the casting away of the Jews, and the calling of the Gentiles. Of course certain Scripture texts can be adduced for each doctrinal statement in the books which I have alluded to; but these texts multiplied tenfold would not make such books Scrij)tural, for they would still fail to present Christianity to us under the form in which God has pre- sented it. Scripture is not a collection of texts arranged in order after the manner of Bishop Gastrell's "Insti- tutes," or Chalmers's " Scripture References." Its order is of an immeasurably higher character, and betokens some far deeper design on God's part than to furnish us with a magazine of texts wherewith to support some systematic view of His truth. I now proceed to consider how the Scripture view of the Gospel as the record of certain outward facts is set before us in the daily services of the Church. If the Gospel consists (as St. Paul asserts that it does) in the facts that God's Son, Jesus Christ, was " made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Eom. i. 1, 2); that He " died for our sins, and was buried, and rose again the third day " (1 Cor. xv. 3, 4) ; then the Church has made ample provision that this Scripture aspect of it should be set forth fully and practically in the daily service of prayer and praise. For, first of all, we confess twice in daily prayer that THE SCRIPTURE GOSPEL. 19 Apostles' Creed in which wo recount the great facts which alone are designated in Scripture as the Gospel. Secondly, we turn this Creed into a psalm of praise (the Te Deum), and in it glorify God for the knowledge of the same great facts of Redemption. Thirdly, we have, on three days of the week, a solemn Litany in which we recount again these same facts of the Sci-ipture Gospel, and entreat the Saviour to deliver us, because He Himself underwent for our sakes the Humiliation or Sufferings which they set forth. So that three times in each of her more frequented week-day services does the Church require her children to recount the facts of Eedemption. In the Apostles' Creed, we profess our belief in Him Who redeemed us, " Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Vii'gin Mary," — in Him Whose humiliation on our behalf the Holy Spirit sets forth in the very first page of the New Testament. The words of the Creed are very plain, very bare, they may be called ; but equally plainly and even barely is the fact stated in the Scriptures. " Mary was foimd with child of the Holy Ghost." "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." " She brought forth her firstborn son, and he called his name Jesus." (Matt. i. 18, 20, 25.) This fact, so simply and abruptly stated, this Conception and Birth of God's Son, is the foundation of -all which follows. It is the fiii'st step in God's work of redeeming men, and raising them up to Himself. There is wrapped up in this bare fact, thus simply stated, Power, and Love, and Condescension, and Wisdom unspeakable, x^ll the Deeds, and Sufferings, and Victories of Jesus, by which our souls and bodies are redeemed, all of them derive all their redeeming power from this,, that He Who wrought, 20 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. or suffered, or conquered, v/as " God's only Son, conceived by tlie Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary," The Holy Spirit, I say, on the first page of the New Testament, sets forth this fact in the fewest words and in the most concise way possible ; and in the Creed the Church echoes these words of the Spirit, and in that simplest Creed adds nothing to them, but, having pronounced them, proceeds to confess the Sufferings, Crucifixion and Death of Jesus in equally plain terms ; for in the four Gospels she finds these things stated without comment of any sort. In the first Gospel, " And they crucified Him ;" in the second, " When they had crucified Him ;" in the third, " There they crucified Him ;" in the fourth, " Golgotha, where they crucified Him." And so with His atoning and reconciling Death. The first Gospel records, Jesus, when He had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost ;" the second, "And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost ;" the third, " He gave up the ghost ;" the fourth, " He bowed His head, and gave up the ghost." And so with His Burial, His Eesurrection, His Ascen- sion; all are stated in the Gospels as facts, and so we follow the strict line which the Spirit has marked out, and twice every day confess that we believe these facts of Redemption, feeling that, though at times we must expand them, and comment on them, and apply them, yet at times we must state them as the Spirit has thus stated them, and leave them in the bare and naked simplicity in which the Spirit has left them, when He first caused them to be set down as objects of faith. But in the second place the Church has turned this Creed, Le. these statements of Gospel facts — into a psalm of praise, which she uses in daily service : so that not only do wo daily confess the Scripture Gospel, but we THE SCRIFl'URE GOSPEL. 21 daily praise God for it in words marvellous for their holy fervour and chasteiied sublimity. " Thou art the King of Glory : 0 Christ. Thou art the everlasting Son : of the Father. ^Vhen Thou tookest upon Thee to deliver man : Thou didst net abhor the Virgin's womb. When Thou hadst overcome the sharpness of death : Thou didst open tlie Kingdom of Heaven to all believers." In the third place, the Church in her chief service of supplication and intercession has made provision for re- counting a third time these facts of Eedemption. In the Litany we are directed to beseech the Saviour to deliver us "By the mystery of His Holy Incarnation ; by His Holy Nativity and Circumcision ; by His Baptism, Fasting, and Temptation; by His Agony and Bloody Sweat ; by His Cross and Passion ; by His precious Death and Burial ; by His glorious Eesurrection and Ascension j and by the coming of the Holy Ghost." If we are to judge of the mind of God by what is written in the Scriptures, no appeal can be so acceptable as this, for we here appeal to the Saviour to do for us in accordance with what He has already done and suffered on our behalf, and the Scriptures tell us of nothing which He has done for us which can be compared to these great things. The Prayer-book, then, is Scriptural on the subject, of all others, of the greatest moment, which is, the exhibition of the Gospel under tlie form in which it is presented to us in Scripture, The Gospel appears in Scripture as the record or pro- clamation of the Incarnation, Death, Eesurrection, and Ascension of Jesus ; and the Church, in her yearly round of Fftst and Festival, and in her daily offering of Prayer 22 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. and Praise, fastens the attention of lier children on that outward, objective, historical view of the Gospel which the Scripture puts immeasurably before every other. Consequently no Church, or body of men calling them- selves a Church, which has no order or plan for accom- plishing this end, but leaves to the imaginings of each individual minister the form under which he shall present the Gospel, can be Scriptural ; more especially if such Church or body has an authorised confession of faith, or standard of doctrine, in which such historical form of the Gospel is studiously replaced by some more doctrinal form, no matter how true that form be. Before leaving this part of the subject, I desire to cor- rect one or two misapprehensions which may arise from the foregoing remarks. I have shown, I think, conclusively, that the Gospel appears in Scripture as the record of facts, rather than as doctrines, theories, or experiences. But let it not be for one moment supposed that I have done this in order to dej)reciate doctrinal teaching. I maintain, and will uphold so long as God gives me grace to do so, the natural sense of the Thirty-nine Articles. I regard them as the most perfect form ever presented to man of the doctrine of the New Testament, separated from the historical and practical matter, which is so closely connected with it in the Scriptures ; but then we have no right to separate the doctrinal from the historical and practical matter with which God has connected it. What God has joined together it is not for us to put asunder. If the Church had the Articles alone as her standard of reference, she would not be Scriptural, no matter how clearly each statement in them might be proved from Scripture. It may bo said that they are the spirit or essence of THE SCRIPTURE GOSPEL 23 Scripture. Yes ; but what authority has God given us to put Scripture into our intellectual alembic and distil its spirit or essence out of it ? At least, what right have we to do so, and represent the product as Scriptural ? I would uphold, then, the Articles in theii' plain, literal sense ; but I would uphold them as part and parcel of the Prayer-book. Taken in connexion with the Prayer- book, they admirably serve the purpose of exhibiting the doctrinal aspect of God's truth, separated for a certain needful purpose, but still not in connexion with what God has joined with it. In the next place, it has been suggested to me that some statements in the foregoing pages might be miscon- strued as implying that I believe that a mere historical faith is what God requires. On the contrary, I believe that the only faith effectual to salvation is a realising faith. I have said nothing whatsoever respecting tho nature and ef&cacy of that faith in the soul which goes foslh to meet and embrace the external facts or realities which God has placed before it for its acceptance. My object has been to determine what are the outward realities which God offers to the acceptance of oui- internal faith, not the nature of the faith which accepts them, and to this point I have carefully adhered. Still it may be asked. Why have any other book besides the Bible ? What need of any book in public worship to represent Scripture if you have Scripture itself? To which we answer, that no body or sect of Christians in existence uses the Scriptures alone in public worship. The service of the Catholic Church is the only approach to such a thing. Above two-thirds of the Daily Service of the Church consists of extracts from Scripture. The public services of the various Protestant sects con- 24 CHURCH DOCTRINE, BIBLE TRUTH. sist of prayers supposed, in most cases, to be extempore, and so assumed to be the composition of the minister, and on that account, of course, not Scripture itself, nor, of necessity. Scriptural, even though they may be full of Scriptui'e phrases ; to this is sometimes added the reading of portions of Scripture, the selection of which is also entirely in the hands of him who conducts the service ; and the singing of metrical hymns from some book peculiar to the sect or congregation, and sermons. Having care- fully ascertained not only the mode of performing Divine worship among the various sects of Dissenters, but also the nature and quality of the worship itself, I speak with confidence when I say that in no case is there anything approaching to a rule or method for bringing before the people of these sects the facts of Eedemption as they are presented to us in the Scripture narrative.' The only fixed form or Liturgy of any of these sects is their hymn- book, in which the hymns are always arranged according to the leading features of the Calvinistic scheme, or according to the heads of individual Christian experience. ' Of course this does not apply to certaiu congregations, espe- cially among the Wesleyaus and others, in which the Prayer-booic is partially used. CREED OF ST. ATHANASIUS. 25 CHAPTEB II, CKEEE OF ST. ATHANASIUS. The objections taken, even by many sincere believers in the ever-blessed Trinity, to the Creed of St. Athanasius, are twofold. First, it is supposed to make greater demands upon our faith than the other creeds. Secondly, its damnatory clauses are assumed to bo un- warrantably severe and uncharitable. 1st. This Creed is supposed to make gi-eater demands upon our submissive faith than the other two creeds, especially than the Apostles'. It is undoubtedly longer, and contains more dogmatic assertions, and so unthinking persons suppose there must be, on this account, less cer- tainty that all the statements contained in it can be proved from Scriptm-e. We have three creeds. The Apostles', which is the shortest, and expressed apparently in the most familial* terms. The Niccne Creed, which is, on one head, some- what more diffuse ; and the Creed we are now considering, v» hich is certainly much longer, and contains terms, such as " Incomprehensible," " Incarnation," " confusion of substance," " unity of person," which requii'O some little knowledge of the elements of Theology before they can bo realised. But v.hich of these creeds is in reality the most difficudt ? 26 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. I am supposing that we think of what we say in solemn worship ; that we endeavour to gain as clear a notion as we can of the meaning of the words we use, and to what we commit ourselves by using them. Now, if we weigh well the meaning of the words com- posing each clause of these three creeds ; which, of course, all Christians who use them ought to do ; then we shall find that the Apostles' Creed, simple as it seems, contains one statement which, as it is there expressed, is incom- parably harder than anything in the Creed of St. Athan- asius; and this is, that "Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord, was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary." For this statement, simple as it seems to those who repeat words without realising them, is a declaration, in very abrupt terms, of the greatest and deepest mystery of the faith ; and it is a bare statement, accompanied by no explanation which may show us that this mystery, whilst it is above our reason, is yet in accordance with it. It must, of course, be understood that in saying this, I am not saying one word in disparagement of such a formulary as the creed of our Baptism — God forbid. I an? merely directing attention to a fact ; and what I have said applies equally to the enunciation of the Incarnation, which we have in the first page of the New Testament. There the Incarnation is revealed in terms equally abrupt and plain. " Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife ; for that which is con- ceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." " A virgin sball be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel." Now the bare terms of the first chapter of St. Matthew require to be expanded, and their meaning put into other words, for if the Incarnation were set forth in no other CREED OF ST. ATHANASIUS. 27 terms but these, we should be utterly in the dark about It — we could form no conception respecting Its nature, and God's intention in bringing It about. But God has given to us, in the first chapter of St. John's Gospel, Bome insight into the mystery. There we find other words in which God has set forth this great truth, which enable us to form some conception of it. " In the be- ginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him. .... And the AYord was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth." Kow, to an untJiinking person, these words in St. John would sound harder than the apparently more simple terms in St. Matthew, " That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost ;" whilst to a thinJcing person the words used by St. John would be the easier, because they give a more logical and intellectual view of the mystery, and answer a number of questions which must suggest themselves to the thinking mind in reading the first chapter of St. Matthew, to which the words used by that Evangelist suggest no answer. So it is with the two creeds which we are comparing. The unthinking person sees less difficulty in the Apostles' Creed, simply because he gives himself no trouble about understanding the words which he uses; whereas the thoughtful person sees the value of the longer and more dogmatic Creed, because it gives him a logical view of the truth. It answers a thousand questions which the few simple words of the shorter creed suggest, but do not solve. Take the words of the Apostles' Creed, " I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord, who was con- ceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Yii'gin Mary." 28 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. See what questions can be raised upon these woids, to which they, taken by themselves, afford no answer. First — Who is this Jesus, that we should profess to " believe " in Him in the same terms in which we profess that we believe in God ? Wo go on to profess that this Jesus is God's only Son. W^iy God's only Son? Arc we not all " sons " of God in one sense ? Ai-e not good men sons of God in a higher sense, because " born of God ?" How, then, is this Jesus God's only Son f And how came this " Only Son " of the Maker of all things to bear tho name of a man ? Then, how is it that a man is called " Our Lord ?" Surely in the highest worship the name of " Lord " should be restricted to the One God? Then, how came it to pass that the Son of God could be " con- ceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary Who is the Holy Ghost, that through Him the Son of God should be conceived ? Then, how could the Son of God be .born of a woman; of a virgin? Agaiis, how could the Son of God suffer and die ? If a son partakes of his father's nature, then the only Son of God partakes of His Father's nature, and so He must be infinitely Above the reach of suffering and death ; for it is contrary to the first principles of Theology to suppose that the Divine Nature can suffer, and it is blasphemy to assert ^jhat the Divine Nature can die. All these questions are suggested by those words of the Apostles' Creed to which we have alluded, and the creed itself suggests no answer to them, whereas the Creed of St. Athanasius answers them all. The greater part of the Creed of St. Athanasius Liay be supposed to have been written for the purpose of answering these questions which may be raised upon this part of the Apostles' Creed. For, firstj it lays down that the Divine Natui-e is One, CEEED OF ST. ATHANASIUS. 29 and yet is wliolly shared by Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost — that these Persons so par- take of the Divine Nature that Each One by Himself is God and Lord, and yet that this is not to be understood as if we believed in three Gods, or three Lords. In order to this, the Creed in question takes all the names or attributes applied to the Divine Being in Scrip- ture — that He is Uncreated, Eternal, Incomprehensible, Almighty, Lord, God ; it declares that Each One of the Three Persons is all these, and yet that there is but One Almighty Uncreated Lord God. All this is a necessary deduction from our present Scriptm*es. If we take into full account all that is said in the Bible respecting the Unity of God, and all that is said of the Divine Nature and glory of Christ and of the Holy Ghost, we are driven to accept a doctrine identical with that stated in this Creed, that " there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost ; but the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all One ; the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal." The latter part of this Creed is written to give us sucli a view of the Person of the Saviour as will enable us to hold that He is in all respects God and in all respects sinless man ; His nature is not a mixture of the Divine and human : He is not partly God, and j;ar^/?/ man, but He is li'Jwlly God, and wholly man. Wholly partaking of His Father's Adorable and Infinite nature, and wholly partaking of our low and finite nature. The glory of the Godhead in Him does not extinguish one property essential to His Perfect Manhood, neither does the manhood take aught fi^om one attribute of His Godhead. All this is essential to our salvation, for if He were not God, all His love and sufi'erings could have had no power 30 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. to save us, and if He were not man, He could neitlier have truly suffered for us, nor could He truly sympathise with us. In no other way than in that set forth in this Creed can we truly and intellectually hokl that He is in very deed God, and in very deed our Brother. So that the opposition to this Creed from its supposed difficulties, arises from want of thought, for the Creed of St. Athanasius gives to the thinking mind a rational and intellectual view of the astounding mystery which is stated in all its naked difficulty in the Apostles' Creed. The Creed of St. Athanasius answers the question re- specting God's having an Only Son, for it teaches us that the nature of God is fully partaken of by Two Persons, Who bear to one another the relation of Father to Son. The Creed of St. Athanasius solves such questions as to how it came to pass that the Son of God was conceived and born, and had a man's name, and suffered and died a man's death : for we confess in it that Jesus our Lord is " God of the substance of His Father, begotten before the worlds, and man of the substance of His Mother, born in the world," and that this God and man is " One Christ, Who suffered for our salvation." That the Creed of St. Athanasius is more easy to a thinking mind than the Apostles' Creed, so far, at least, as its statement of the Incarnation is concerned, is only in accordance with what surely may be the fact, that a bare simple statement expressed in very plain words may be very difficult, and a more elaborate statement expressed in somewhat more scientific terms may be in reality far more easy to apprehend. This applies not only to the clauses in the Creed c f St. Athanasius compared with the corresponding clauses in the Apostles' Creed, but to the statements of tiio CREED OV ST. ATHANASITTS. 31 Incarnation in the same Creed (St. Athanasius') compared with certain Scripture statements. Take these three very plain assertions. " The Word was made flesh." (John i. 12.) " He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father." (John xiv. 9.) " Our hands have handled of the Word of Life." (1 John i. 1.) Here are three very plain statements, expressed almost in monosyllables, and yet every student in Theology knows that each one of these verses, taken as it stands, involves a far greater difficulty than anything asserted in the Creed of St. Athanasius. We have now to consider certai' expressions in this Creed which are assumed to be unscripturally harsh and uncharitable. I believe that, on examination, the objec- tions to these expressions will be found just as futile as the objections to the rest of it. What are called the "damnatory clauses" in this Creed are only the echo of certain " damnatory clauses " in the word of God, and are to be received in the same sense, and applied in the same way, and with the same limitations, as certain corresponding denunciations in the New Testament. I will take the best known of these denunciations, which forms a part of the last commission of Christ to His Apostles : " He that believeth not shall be damned ;" the whole commission being, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall bo damned." (St. Mark xvi. 16.) Now, suppose that with this commission I go to somo heathen city, and preach the Gospel, what message must I deliver? Evidently the message contained in my com- mission ; and this message is twofold. " He that believeth shall be saved." He that believeth not shall be damned." 82 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. If I am to be a faithful messenger, I must deliver all my message. If I think the terms are too harsh, as an honest man I have only one alternative — I must throw up my commission. If I am true to my Master's instructions, I have to tell my heathen hearers plainly that if they do not believe they will be damned. Now supposing that, after I have faithfully delivered my message, a heathen who has heard it dies in unbelief. Am I to say respecting that man that he is certainly lost ? No : clearly not — I have nothing more to do with him. He has passed to the bar of his Sovereign Judge. Now, 1 humbly trust that this Sovereign Judge has reserved to Himself the right of making allowances. I cannot but believe that He has reserved to Himself the right of modifying His decisions in particular cases according to the circumstances of each soul, which circumstances are known only to Him ; but though He has reserved to Himself this power, He has assuredly not given it to me. I have but one duty, to deliver His message unaltered and unmodified. Whilst my hearers are in life, then, I must say to them, " He that believe th not shall bo damned." When they pass to the bar of their Judge, I humbly hope that God will take every circumstance into consideration which can possibly tell in their favour. But I have no power to make any reservations, the terms of my commission being, " He that believeth not shall bo damned." For a legislator to make a law, and fence that law with a penalty, and at the same time to express all the possible modifications and exceptions, would make any law a dead letter. And as it is witk the law of man, so it must be with the law of God. The New Testament contains a multitude of denunciations of the wrath of God against all manner of sins, which denunciations would bo de- CREED OF ST. ATHANASIUS. 33 prived of all their force if they were accompanied with reservations, say in favour of those who sin ignorantly, or in particular degrees of ignorance, or of those who are educated in sin, as many are. And if, for obvious reasons, these reservations are not expressed in the Bible, neither must the Church express them when she denounces the punishment of God against impenitent sinners. Now all this is strictly applicable to the damnatory clauses of this Creed, and in somewhat of this way. God in His word lays down in the plainest possible terms, that belief in Jesus Christ is necessary to salvation. " Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." " If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins." This is so plain, and is so universally acknow- ledged, that I need say nothing more upon it. But another matter concerning this belief in Christ is quite as certain, though it is not now recognised in the popular religion of the day — which is, that the only belief in Jesus Christ which is recognised in Scripture is a belief in Christ's person, that He is God's only begotten Son come in the flesh. Belief, I say, in His person, rather than — though of course not excluding — belief in His ivork or in His love. Let us see whether this be not so. First, we have our Saviour saying, " God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish," &c. (John iii. 16.) Now, that this belief is belief in the person of Christ is evident from what follows : " He that believeth not is condemned ali'eady, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.'' Here is a damnatory clanise, for here is expressly laid down the condemnation of those who do not believe, — 34. CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TEUTH. but in what ? Why, do not believe in the name of the Only Begotten Son — not merely in the work of the Son of God, though that work be a "finished work" — not even in the love of the Son of God, though that love "passeth knowledge," but in the name of the Only Begotten, i.e., in that which distinguishes His Person as the Person of the Only Begotten. Again, " If ye believe not that I am [He], ye shall die in your sins." (John viii. 24.) Of course we must ask here, " What are we to believe that He is ?" And this is what the Jews asked, for we go on to read, " Then said they unto Him, Who art Thou ? And Jesus said unto them. Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning," Now up to this time Jesus had represented Himself to be the true, i.e., the only begotten Son of God, and because of this they had taken up stones to stone Him. He had as yet said little or nothing to them about His tvorJc, but He had said much about His Person; and naturally so, for how could they exercise any true trust in His work, except they realised His Person, for the all- sufSciency of His work depends wholly upon the greatness of His Person, that He is in very truth the Only Begotten Son— the " Word made flesh ?" Again, we have a confirmation of this in the very next chapter (John ix. 35). "Jesus heard that they had cast him out : and v/hen He had found him, He said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God 9 He answered and said, WJio is He, Lord, that I might believe on Him? And Jesus said unto him. Thou hast both seen Him, and it is He that talketh with thee. And he said. Lord, I believe. And he worshipped Him." And ag.ain, in the thirteenth chapter : " Novv I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I ara He." (John xiii. 19.) CREED OF ST. ATHANASIUS. 35 Again, \ye have the Saviour Himself saying, " Ye believe in God, believe also in Me " (John xiv. 1), mentioning Himself, that is His Person. Hov\^ could He put " believing in Himself" side by side with " believing in God," except that belief be the recognition of what He is, viz., the Son of God, and so in nature equal with God ? Again, when St. Paul began to preach, it is said that " he preached Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God." (Acts ix. 20.) Again, in the very first verses of the Epistle, to the Romans, the Gospel is set forth as having specially to do with Christ's Person. " The Gospel of God concerning His Son Jesus Chiist, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power .... by the resurrection from the dead." Here we have belief in the Resurrection of Christ set forth as subsidiary to belief in the Person of Christ as the Son of God, for St. Paul says, " He was declared to bo the Son of God with power, hy tlie resurrection from the dead:' Lastly, 1 John iv. 3 : " Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God : and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof," &c. With this we must join St. John's words in his Second Epistle: Many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Clu'ist is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God," &c. Here we have beKef in Christ's Person guarded with a very strong anathema. Now, what can the Apostle here mean by " confessing not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh ?" Evidently he can mean but one thing, viz., " confessing not " the 36 CHURCH DOCTRINE,— BIBLE TRUTH. Incarnation, for tlie Incarnation is the one thing which ilistinguishes the coming of Christ into the world from the coming of any other man into the world. He must mean, in fact, that truth of God which he sets forth in the very beginning of his Gospel, — ^" The Word v/as made flesh, and dwelt amongst us." All men come into the world in the flesh, so that there would be no meaning in the Apostle's denunciation of those who denied that Jesus Christ had "come in the flesh," unless Christ's coming "in the flesh" involved that which St. John elsewhere connects with it, viz., the Incarnation. From all this it is abundantly clear that the only belief in Christ which the Scriptures recognise is a belief in His Person as God's Only Begotten Son Incarnate. Now, the whole Creed of St. Athanasius, as I have shown, may be assumed to be written to defend, or hedge round, or guard, the simple statement that Jesus Christ is God's Only Begotten Son in our nature ; so that we should hold and confess this truth in the one real true sense which the salvation of such a world as oui-s requires. If any one holds in its integrity, without any reserva- tion, the statement that Jesus Christ is God's true and Only Begotten Son in our nature, he commits himself to the belief of every statement respecting the Trinity and Incarnation in the Creed of St. Athanasius. He may not be conscious of so doing, but he unquestionably does so. For if the Son of God be His Only Begotten Son, and not His Son by adoption or by regeneration, then He must be Eternal, Incomprehensible, Uncreated, Almighty, Lord, and God, for it is the very nature of the Godhead to be all this, and so if He be the true actual Begotten Son of God He must be all this — otherwise the glory of the First Person as " the Father " would be taken away ; for if the ChEED OF ST. ATHANASIUS. 87 Son of God be in essence inferior to His Father, then tlie Eternal Father has begotten a Son to Whom Ho has com- municated an inferior and created, and so less glorious, nature than His Own. On any hypothesis short of the Athanasian, the relation of the Son to the Father in the Godhead would be nothing like so intimate and close as the relation of any human son to his father. By the Creed of St. Athanasius we hold and confess that "Son" means "Son," that "begetting" means the real communication of nature — of what constitutes Deity ; that these terms when applied to the Godhead have no unreal meaning, but betoken the same intimate relation- ship as the same words do when used to denote true fatherhood and sonship amongst men. They may have a higher meaning, but we will not for a moment allow them to have a lower. If we give them a lower, we lose our whole conception of the " love of the Father " to sinners. The more real the Sonship of the Son to the Father, the greater the love of the Father in giving Him. The Creed of St. Athanasius is the great defence of tho reality of the love of God the Father. " God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son," and the Creed of St. Athanasius obliges us to realise and confess that this Son Whom He gave is really and actually His Only Begotten. So that in giving Him, God manifested a love to us sinners infinitely greater than if He. had given the highest archangel from before His throne. So that when we confess the damnatory clauses of this Creed v/e say, perhaps in stern and somewhat harsh, but still in true language, what the Scriptures say, that to bo eaved we must believe in the Person of the Eedeemer as the True and Only Son of the Living God, and so a par- 38 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. taker of all His Father's glorious and Divine perfections, and at the same time as true Son of man, and so partaker of all that constitutes unfallen human nature. When we repeat these clauses, we say what our Lord says : " He that believeth not shall be damned and by the rest of the Creed we make this belief to be — what the Scriptures evidently imply that it is— a belief in the Person of the Redeemer as the Son of God Incarnate. If we are to be faithful to God on the one hand, and to souls on the other, we must set forth this belief in the Name of the Only Begotten as it is set forth in Scripture. God says that to be saved we must believe in His Son, and we must say so too ; and if we would be free from men's blood, we must assert that this belief must be, in the first place, a real bond fide acceptance of what the Scriptures say respecting Jesus, that He is the Only Begotten Son of God, and that He has "come in the flesh." We do this, and then leave the matter to God, to deal with the man who comes short as seems good to Him. So then in the use of these denunciations we are not pronouncing on the eternal state of any one. We are simply saying what Scripture says or implies — that saving faith in Christ must fully recognise Who He is. And we should be unfaithful to our trust if we said less. Though we humbly trust that God will make every allowance, and take into full account the education or circumstances which have led to the heresy of parti cular persons, w^e have no power to make exceptions or reservations. If the Scriptures are to be relied upon, God denounces eternal wrath, not only against sins of the flesh, but against sins of the spirit, such as unbelief — more particu- larly unbelief in the glory of His Son s Person ; and it CREED OF ST. ATHANASIUS. 39 must be eo, for the unbelief whicli refuses assent to the glory of Christ's Person as the Only Begotten Son of God, strikes at the root of that manifestation of the love of the Father to us which is implied in His having given His Only Son, for it makes Him to have given a creatui-e Whom He has created, and not a Son Who shares His ossn nature. It strikes also, as is evident, at the root of the Scripture manifestation of the loving condescension of the Eternal Son, for the condescension of the Son is this, that being the true Son of God He became the true Son of man, and to save us abhorred neither the womb, nor pain, nor disgrace, nor death. In conclusion, this Creed is not only a protest against past or present forms of unbelief, or misbelief, it is also a standing protest against the prevalent fanaticism of the day, which calls frantically on the sinner to trust in Christ's " blood," or " finished work," without any re- ference to, or with very little reference to, His Person. It is a fact that books are now written and circulated by hundi-eds of thousands, urging men to believe in Chi'ist, without telling them what they are to believe about Him.^ I say again, we have books written to invite men to come to Christ just as they are, to cast themselves upon * I allude to such books as Reid's " Blood of Jesus." I doubt not God often conveys good through such books, just as He un- doubtedly conveyed benefit to thousands of souls by the preaching of such men as St. Francis of Assisi ; but Scriptural they are not, I once had an interesting conversation with a great revival preacher of our Cliurch. I asked him what place the application of the vioc trine of the Incarnation had in the matter of the present saving of a soul. He seemed to think that it iiad none. He was surprised at the question, and yet the Incarnation is the first thiDg in each of the four Gospels. 40 CHURCH DOCTHINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. llim, to wash themselves in His blood, and so on, and the writers of these books marvellously ignore the one thing which makes His Blood to be saving. I may be told that these men are quite orthodox on the Divinity of our Lord. No doubt they are, just as many a " legal" teacher is quite orthodox on justification. But if we are to be guided by Scripture, it is not enough to be orthodox on this point. It must be brought out in the first place, for it is the first thing in the New Testament. And the bringing forward prominently the Person of Christ as God's only Begotten Son Incarnate, makes the most marked difference in all Christian teaching. It alters its whole tone. It engenders, or, at least, is calculated to engender sober, reverential, humble confidence, rather than noisy, boasting, obtrusive profession. It damps fanaticism, because it is clearly out of character with that irreverent familiarity which is the life and soul of fanatical teaching. If we realise that He Who died to save us is God Incarnate, we never can be tormented with doubts about His ability and willingness to save, or whether we have an interest in Him. We are raised into an atmosphere above all this. Able to save you ? why. He is your God ! Willing to save you ? why. He took yoiu* flesh for this one purpose ! Have you an interest in His Blood ? If He shed His Blood for a select few, you probably have not. If He be the Eternal Word made flesh to redeem mankind and to be our Second Adam, then there seems to be no room for doubt about the matter. BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 41 CHAPTER III. BAPTISMAL SEItVICES. SECTION 1. THE \ ISIBLE CHUECII. The next subject \\-liioli demands our attention is a great principle pervading the whole of Scripture, and which more particularly finds its enunciation in the Baptismal Services. It is also clearly expressed in the Catechism, and in the Confirmation Service, and will be found, on examination, to be recognised in every part of the Prayer- book, just as it is recognised in every part of the Bible. It may be called the great " Chiu^ch " truth of God's word ; anjd may be stated somewhat as follows : — • From the time of Abraham to the present time it has been God's will to save men, not only by working in them individual personal religion, but by joining them together in a body, or family, or kingdom, or Chui'ch. This body has always been an outward and visible body known by certain outward and visible marks. Men have always been admitted into this Church by a rite or ordinance which betokened God's special goodwill towards each one of them. This Church, or body, has always been governed and instructed by a visible ministry. This Church, or body, or family, always has been, and, till the Second Advent, always will be, a mixed body ; i.e., it has always consisted of two sets of persons, good and bad> 42 CHTTRCH DOCTKINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. penitent and impenitent, those who realise God's love, and those who do not. The Covenant of God has always been with this visible Church. The word of God has always been addi-essed to this outward visible body. The members of this body or Church are always as- sumed to be, or to have once been, in the favour of God. Each member is assiuned to partake, or to have once partaken, of the covenant grace, whatever that grace be. When any member of this Church commits sin, he is always assumed to sin against grace, of which he has been once made a partaker. Never, for one moment, is it supposed that he sins because God has withheld grace from him. No interior or " invisible " Church within this outward body is ever recognised in God's word as a separate Church. When a man who belongs to the visible body lives contrary to his profession, he is nowhere bid to ex- amine himself as to whether he belongs to the visible body only, and not to the invisible. He is never bidden to get into some inner true fold. Another way of speaking is adopted in his case. He is rather told to believe and realise that the Church, in which he is already, is the fold of God, and so his condemnation will be the greater if he do not live and love accordingly. He is not bidden to examine himself as to whether he be a member of the true Church, but as to whether he bo a true member of the Church. Such is, in brief, what we may call the great Church principle of Scripture, and its practical application. The follo wing remarks may serve further to illustrate it :— God, I saidj saves men, not merely by making them one BAITISMAL SERVICES. 43 by one, individually and personally religions; but by joining them togetlier in a Chui-ch or com m unity. When God says, in the book of Proverbs, " Keep thy heart with all diligence," He seems to ask for nothing but individual, personal, internal religion. Such a thing might be said to one living apart by himself — cut off from all outwai'd means of grace. But when God says of the Jews, in the opening of the prophecy of Isaiah, " Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider," it is clear that He recognises something over and above personal religion, or personal responsibility. He looks upon the whole people of Israel as one man, and calls them by the name of this one man ; and though the sin for which He upbraids them was made up of, and could all be resolved into, the sins of individuals, God, in this place, chooses rather to recognise it as the sin of a whole family or Church. Now let the reader remember that in every place in which God speaks of the Jews as " His people," " His flock," " Jacob," " Israel," &c.. He recognises this Church principle. In no one case does God, by such terms as " My people," "Mine Inheritance," "Jacob," or " Israel," mean certain godly individuals, considered as an invisible or inner Chui'ch. He always means, by these terms, the whole visible body or Church. It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the prominence which this Church principle occupies in Old Testament teaching, for every place in which the Jews or Israelites are called by such collective appellations as "Jacob," " Israel." bears witness to it.^ ^ 1 liavc discussed at some length the Old Testament " Church ' terms and their application, in " The Second Adam and tlie New Birth," chapter v., and in Appendix A. of the same work I have collected together a vast mass of examples of theix use. 44 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Again, when Christ says, " Como unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden," His words (taken by them- selves) appear to encourage sinners, as individual units — considered apart from any organization or Church — to come to Him ; but when He says (John xv.), " I am the true vine " — " Every branch in me that beareth not fruit God taketh away " — " I am the vine, ye are the branches," — it is quite evident that our Lord recognises something over and above the internal religion of the individual, fie considers the individual as belonging to an organiza- tion or body ; for a branch of a tree, whilst it is in the tree, cannot but be associated with a multitude of other branches which together make up the tree. In this similitude of the " Vine and its branches " we have a further development of the idea of the union of the people of God in one fellowship. In the Old Testament they were merely planted together, side by side, as in a vineyard. (Isaiah v.) In our Lord's parable they are united in one organization, of which He is the Koot or Stem. Again, the Parable of the Sower may be considered to refer solely to the individual reception of the Gospel by various classes of persons, but the parables of the " Field sown with wheat and tares," of the " Draw-net," and of the " Grain of mustard seed," refer to the thing which Christ was about to establish as being a Church or polity. Again, when St. James says, " Cleanse your hands, ye sinners," and " Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you," his words may be taken as only recognising the private personal access of each soul to God. But when St. Paul says that " we being many are one body in Christ," and that "Christ is the Head of His body, the Church," it is quite clear that further considerations como in besides those pertaining to each man's individual intercourse with his Maker. BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 46 The extent to whicli Cliurcli teaching, and considera- tions arising from it, prevail in the New Testament, may be judged from the fact that of the thirteen Epistles of St. Paul only one is addressed to a private Christian, and this one is wholly occupied with a matter of domestic interest, and contains not so much as one doctrinal re- mark. All the remainder are addressed to Churches, or to overseers of Churches. The Epistle to the Ephesians is wholly based on Church teaching. Every Evangelical privilege alluded to in the first three chapters is supposed to belong to the whole body or Chui'ch, as being a part of the Body of Christ. Every practical duty urged in the three later chapters is urged on Church principles, for it is com- mended to their obedience upon considerations drawn from the mystical imion betwixt Christ and His Church, and the coherence of all the members under the One Head. ^Yhen it is stated above that we find in Scripture both individual religion and also this great Church principle, it is not for a moment to be supposed that they can be separated. For what is personal religion ? It can only mean the individual submission of each man's soul to God, so that he should receive and realise God's word as the word of his Creator, Eedeemer, and Sanctifier. Now this word of God clearly reveals that Jesus Christ came not merely to make men individually religious, but to gather them together into a kingdom or fellowship, which He deigns to call His Body. He instituted means of grace by which they were to be brought into, or to be continued in, this fellowship, and after His departure, His Spirit, through the Apostles, expanded and developed this Church element of His system. If, then, personal religion consists in each one recog- 46 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. nising aud realising God's word as His word, then each Clu'istian must strive, heart and soul, to realise the truths pertaining 'to the fellowship of Christ's body, which occupy so remarkable a place in God's word. If a man v/ilfully fails to do this, he wilfully comes short of what God has revealed, and so comes short of that personal religion which God requires of him. When once God has clearly revealed a matter, then no really submissive, i.e., no really believing soul can try to evade the reception of it on such a plea as that other matters are of more importance. A thoroughly en- lightened man will say, "I cannot afford to lose one motive to love and serve God. If I regard my Saviour as the ' Word,' and the ' Light,' I must hear His every word, and follow His every leading." If this Church principle be clearly revealed in Scrip- ture, then no service book can be accounted Scriptural which does not provide for its recognition, and especially does it seem appropriate to recognise it when a person is admitted into the Church ; or if he be admitted as an infant, then it should be recognised in any formula in which he is to be instructed before he makes his solemn public profession before the Church. In embodying this Church principle of Scripture in any formulary used at the admission of a person into the Church, it will be found impossible to evade the question, On what basis is the Church founded — on a broad or on a narrow one ? If the Church is founded on the broad basis that all persons professing the faith of Chrise, and baptized into His name, are to be accounted as belonging to it ; then this must be unequivocally set forth, for in this case the baptized are the Church — or at least are to be accounted tbo Church so far as this, that they occupy exactly the BAPTISMAL SERVICES, 47 same position (as tlie people or Israel of God) wliicli tlie circumcised Jews occupied before the coming of Christ, and which the whole body of the baptized Corinthian and Galatian Christians occupied in Apostolic times. On this principle, then, the baptized must all be addressed as re- sponsible for the grace of having been received into the family of God, and for the grace of having been made members of Chiist. If, on the contrary, the Church is established on a narrower or more select basis, such as this, — that none ai'e to be accounted as belonging to it who have not con- sciously come to Christ and consciously received forgive- ness from Him, — then this must also, in mercy to men's souls, be most clearly set forth. In such a case the services used when men ai^e admitted into the Church should unmistakeably declare the truth, — that admission into the so-called visible Church is really nothing, and that admission into a more select inner cii'cle, or invisible Chui'ch, has yet to be sought. The rite of Baptism should be made to set forth not its own efficiency, but its own inefficiency. It should declare, on the face of it, that so far from being an ordinance in which God re- generates, it is only to be accounted as witnessing to the need of a regeneration, which God almost invariably confers at some other time, and in the use of altogether diiferent means. SECTION IL THE TEACHiyG OF SCRIPTUEE UPON BAFHSM. I now proceed to examine as to whether our Services, especially our Baptismal Services, duly reflect this great Church principle of Scriptm-e. 48 CHURCH DOCTRINE,— BIBLE TRUTH. There is, of course, but one way of ascertaining whether documents are Scriptural, i. e., by seeing whether they agree with Scripture. It is needful continually to remind tho reader of this, for with many persons the word "Scriptural" does not mean in accordance with "Scrip- ture," but in accordance with a certain scheme or form of doctrine which they have deduced from certain parts of Scripture, ignoring all that does not at once fall in with this their scheme, no matter how plainly it is revealed. If these Services are " Scriptural," they must embody or reflect what " Scripture " teaches respecting Baptism ; they must also reflect or embody what Scripture says respecting the status or spiritual condition of the bap« tized, for Baptism is but the entrance into a state or condition. The Scripture teaching bearing upon Baptism may be summed up under the five following heads : — I. In about twelve places in Scripture Christ or His Apostles connect Salvation with Baptism. II. The Christians of tl^e Apostolic Churches are always addressed as having been brought into a state of Salvation or Regeneration at their Baptism. III. This state of Salvation or Eegeneration does not insure the final salvation of those brought into it. On the contrary, the members of these Churches are always supposed to be in danger of falling into sin, and liable to be cast away. lY. Those who thus fall away are always assumed to fall from grace. They are never for a moment sup- posed to fall into sin because God has withheld grace from them. BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 49 V. In no one case are Baptized Christians called upon to become regenerate. They are called to repent — to turn to God — to cleanse their hands — to purify their hearts ; never to become regenerate. I. In above twelve places have we things pertaining to salvation — such as the New Birth, Remission of sins, &c. — connected with Baptism. These places are the following : 1. John iii. 3—5 ; " Verily, verily, I say imto thee, Except a man be boru again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto liim. How can a man be boru when lie is old ? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born ? Jesus answered. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God." 2. Marli xvi. 16 : " He that beli'jveth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." 3. Acts ii. 38, 39 : " Eepeut, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you and so your childi-en." 4. Acts xxii. 16: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." 5. Bom. vi. 1—4 : " What shall we say then ? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein ? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death ? Therefore we are buried with Him by Baptism into death ; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." 6. 1 Cor. X. 1 — 10 : " Moreover, brethi-en, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud» and all passed through the sea ; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea .... but with many of them God was not well pleased ; for they were overthrown in the wilderness." Taken in connexion with Jude 5 : "I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not." 50 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. 7. 1 Cor. xii, 12 — 27 : For as the body is one, and hatli many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ, for by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body. , . . Yo are the body of Christ a.nd members in particular." 8. Gal. iii. 27 : *' Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." 9. Eph. V. 25, 26 : " Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it \Yith the washing of water by the word." 10. Col. ii. 12 : "Buried with Him in Baptism, wherein also ye nre risen with Hhn through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead." 11. Titus iii. 5 : " Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing [or font] of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." 12. 1 Peter iii. 21 . "The like figure whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The proper understanding of the first of these places, John iii. 3 — 5, is essential to our taking a just view of the whole subject. For it is the one sole reference throughout the discourses of our Lord to Regeneration or to the New Birth. The Church also grounds the necessity of Baptism itself, and its connexion with the New Birth, on this place, when she says at the commencement of the Service, " Forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin, and that our Saviour Christ saith. None can enter into the kingdom of God except he be regenerate and born anew of water and of the Holy Ghost." In endeavouring, then, to ascertain the bearing of these words on Baptism and on Eegeneration, I shall first ob- serve that our Lord here can allude to one thing, and to one thing only. In the third verse Ho speaks of a birtli, BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 51 *' Except a man be born again," and in the fifth He ex- phims what He means by describing it as a "birth of water and of the Spirit." If He speaks of one thing, occurring at one point of time, in the third verse, He must speak of one thing, occurring at one point of time, in the fifth ; for a birth cannot »be divided. It can be but one thing taking place at one time. A man cannot be born partly at one time and partly at another. The consideration of this at once disposes of all interpretations which would involve a double birth, that is, a ceremonial birth of water in Baptism, and a moral or spiritual birth of the Spirit, when a nominal Christian becomes a spiritual one. On this hypothesis our Lord would explain one thing (" Ye must be born again ") by two things by no means necessarily connected, and differing from one another so very widely in their relative importance, that no reason whatsoever can be given why He should associate the two together. The application of water in Baptism is of itself the most insignificant of all ceremonies, whereas the change from sin to holiness is the greatest of all internal changes. It is not likely, then, that our Lord can allude, by the words, *'Born of water and of the Spiiit," to tv;o births so immeasurably different in their respective importance. For if He meant by being " born of water " a mere cere- mony of external profession, and by being " born of the Spirit " the great internal change from sin to holiness, then He would elevate the mere external reception of the ceremonial rite in which men are " born of water," to an equality with the great internal spiritual change ; for Ho calls them jointly by the name of " birth," and asserts that both are needful to salvation. 52 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. In the next place we cannot, on any reasonable prin- ciple of interpretation, suppose that our Lord meant to impress upon Nicodemus the need of some merely moral change, as, for instance, the change which takes place when a bad man becomes a good one, or when a formalist becomes a spiritual man, for on this hypothesis our Lord's second answer (" Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit") instead of explaining His first (" Except a man be born again ") increases its difficulty tenfold. We have one writer laying down that Regeneration is simply moral goodness, and asserting that if an unbapfcized man has " goodness " before Baptism, he has all the essen- tials of Eegeneration — all that he receives in Baptism being an increase (generally inappreciable) of what he had before. But it cannot be supposed, if our Lord meant to im- press upon Nicodemus the need of any branch of moral goodness, that He would have clothed His explanation in more difficult words than His first assertion. If by being " born again " our Lord meant simply being made " good," it is strange that He should have expressed so simple a matter by such a periphrasis as being " born of water and of the Spirit," when He could have made His meaning so perfectly plain by saying, " Except ye be good — except ye repent — except ye be cleansed from sin — except ye be renewed in your affections and desires — except ye be holy — ye cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Again, it is equally impossible to suppose that our Lord meant to impress upon Nicodemus the need of some change synonymous with a strong conviction of sin, or with believing on Him, or with relying upon His merits, or with not trusting in our own ritjhtoousness, for such a BAPTKMAL SERVICES. 58 plirasG as " Except a man bo born of water anil of the Spirit " is no help to us in realising such things. If by " Except a man be born again " our Lord had meant " Except a man believe in Me and rely on My righteousness," He never would have explained so plain a truth by so comparatively obscure a circumlocution as " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit." If being " born again " be synonymous with any such change as "conversion," or "repentance," or "a new heart," then our Lord's second answer, i.e.., His explana- tion, is more difficult than the matter of which it is the explanation ; and the difficulty of course arises from the fact of His having associated in His second answer " water " with the " Holy Spirit " as concurring to pro- duce in a man such a change as Eegeneration — if, that is, Eegeneration be what it is popularly but wrongly supposed to be. The more carefully and reverently we consider these words of Christ, the more impossible will it be found to escape the conclusion that our Lord here alludes to some deep mystery — far deeper than any which attaches to the ordinary working of the Holy Spirit on the heart in con- vincing it of sin or of the need of Christ's righteousness. This mystery, too, must be connected with the applica- tion of the element of water. The " water " here must bo literal water, for no reason can be assigned why our Lord should double the difficulty to a sincere inquirer by ex- plaining the single metaphor, being "born again," by a double metaphor, being " born of water and of the Spirit." The " water " here alluded to can be no other than that used in the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism. If this place contained the only allusion throughout the New Testament to an evangelical work wrought by God 51 CHURCH DOCTRINE,— BIBLE TRUTH. in that Sacrament, then we might have hesitated about the reference to Baptism here : but when we find that in almost every other place where Baptism is mentioned, it is connected with some grace pertaining to salvation, then it is impossible to resist the conclusion that the " water " here is that which God has sanctified to the "mystical washing away of sin." This place is only one out of twelve or more in which things pertaining to salvation are connected with the initiatory Sacrament. In three places, for instance, Baptism is connected with remission of sins (Acts ii. 38, xxii. 16 ; Eph. v. 26) ; in three others with Salvation (Mark xvi. 16; Titus iii. 5 ; 1 Peter iii. 21); in two with a mystical burial with Christ (Rom. vi. 1 — 4 ; Col. ii. 12). Taking these facts into consideration, it is impossible to resist the conclusion that our Lord in these words alludes to some grace or blessing associated with, or to be expected in, Holy Baptism. Another point beyond dispute is that the water, being a senseless material thing, cannot of itself contribute any- thing to the New Birth. It can only be regarded as the instrument by which the Holy Spirit works a specific work, or as indicating (by its ritual use) the particular time at which He is pleased to bring about a certain evangelical result. Our Lord's intention, then, in associating such a tiling as " water" as a joint agent with the Holy Spii'it in bring- ing about the New Birth, cannot be mistaken. It behoves us to remember that God must have some wise design in thus connecting inward grace with an outward visible sign, and that we must fall in with His design, and humble ourselves to receive mysteries, and not, out of a false aud spurious spirituality, determine to give some BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 55 explanation of the New Bii'th which will, as a riilo, dissever it from Baptism. The very contrast which we cannot but draw between the worthlessness of the vile element, the water, and the unspeakable greatness of the Other Agent, the Holy Spirit, should make us fear exceedingly lest we proudly Bet om'selves above Chiist, by putting asunder, on ration- alistic grounds, things which He has joined together. It is clear, also, that this birth of " water and of the Spirit " was a mystery unknown to the Fathers of the Old Covenant, as we find no allusion to it in the books of the Old Testament. It must be a New Testament mystery ; which it could n,ot be if it were the same as repentance or conversion, both of which terms we find used abundantly in the book of the Old Covenant. It must be also an entrance into a state, and that state the Kingdom of God, or present Chiu'ch of God. Now, the things said of the Church, as the mystical body of Christ, are so great and mysterious, that a supernatural birth, as an entrance into it, seems required by the nature of things. The next place which demas^ds our attention is Mark xvi. 16 : " He that believeth and is baptized shall bo saved : but he that believeth not shall be damned." On this place I would only remark, in passing, that, in a system so spiritual as the Christian Eeligion, in which 60 very high a position is ascribed to faith, and which stands in such strong contrast with the Jewish system which it superseded in the very matter of ceremonial and typical observance — in such a system this juxtaposition of two such things as " faith " and " baptism " in our Lord's last commission is exceedingly noteworthy. How are we to regard the fact that ova- blessed Lord Himself associates the deepest principle of our spiiitual natui'e 56 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BifiLE TRUTH. ffiih. a mere outward rite ? We may treat this matter in one of two ways. We may angrily or contemptuously push it aside, as is usually done, and persist in saying that there is no meaning in it, and that those who strive to give some adequate reason for this connexion are self- deceived formalists; or we may reverently acknowledge the mystery in that God has caused two such different agents to concur, as it were, in bringing about our New Birth, and confess that His ways are not our ways, nor His thoughts our thoughts. (3.) Acts ii. 38 : " Men and brethren, what shall we do ?" (to be saved). " Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." So that, in the first Christian sermon ever preached, Remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, are made to depend upon repentance joined with baptism. So also in Acts xxii. 16 ("Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins,") the washing away of sin is made to depend upon Baptism as the means in the use of which God first formally imparts it. Ananias, who was sent to St. Paul by the Saviour Himself, does not say, " Believe, and thy sins are forgiven," but he says, " Be baptized, and wash away thy sins." We can scarcely believe that a man who had dim or incorrect views on such a matter as the forgiveness of sin would have been sent to such an one as St. Paul. (5.) In Romans vi. 1 — 4, all baptized Christians are said to have died to sin, because Baptism is a co-burial v,dth Christ in His grave, and a resurrection with Him out of His grave. In no mere figure, but in some mysterious reality, — the tomb of the Saviour is, by means of this holy rite, always open in His Church; so that at the very outset BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 57 of onr Clii-istian career we are accounted to descend into it in, and witli, Him, and to rise again out of it in, and with, Him, and so are accounted to have sacramentally suffered death, the penalty of sin, in Him, and to have been made partakers of the very life by which He lives for ever. In this sense Baptism is a " death to sin," because it unites the baptized with Christ in His " death to sin," (" He died unto sin once,") and makes him partaker of Chi-ist's risen life ; but whether sin be actually mortified in the baptized man, so that he loathes it, and is delivered altogether from its power, is another matter.'"^ He is made a partaker of Christ's death ^ and resuiTcction, in order that he may walk in newness of life. We have the same teaching respecting Baptism ex- ^ The reader will find a fuller discussion of the moaning and practical application of this passage in my " Second Adam and New Bhth," fourth edition, page 93—98. ' The death to sin here cannot mean a death to sin in the sense of Bin being annihilated, or rendered powerless in the person so dead, and for this reason, that a few verses further on St. Paul writes to these very persons who were thus asserted to be dead to sin " in Baptism, to exliort them not to let sin " reign in their mortal bodies, that they should obey it in the lusts thereof." If sin were dead in them, or if they had died to sin in the sense of being altogether delivered from its presence and power, there would be no sense in writing to them to bid them not to allow sin to reign in them, for in such a case sin, so far from reigning, would scarcely be felt in them. The whole context of the passage shows that the persons thus addressed as " dead," were dead sacramentally only [in baptism], and not dead to sin in heart and affection, or they would have needed no exhortations of the sort contiiined in this chapter. Their sacramental death was a step to the mortification of sin, and a reason why they should mortify sin, not the com- plete mortification of sin. Tliey were to rcclcon themselves dead to sin (verse 11) in or ler that sin miglit not reign in them (verse 12). 58 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BtBLS TRUTH. pressed in the same words in Col. ii. 12, and the same application of that teaching in Col. iii. 1 — 10. In Col. ii. 11, 12, the whole Colossian Church is as- sumed to have been buried with Christ in Baptism, and in Col. iii. these same persons are all assumed to have risen with Christ, and (ver. 3) to have a hidden life treasured up for them in their risen and exalted Head, and yet (ver. 5) they are bidden to mortify their members which are upon the earth — fornication, evil concupiscence, and covetousness. The very same assumption of a sacramental death is required to reconcile the third and fifth verses in this chapter with one another, which is required to make several expressions in Rom. vi. consistent with one another, for in the third verse the Colossian Christians are all assumed to be dead (or to have died) to sin, and in the fifth they are bidden to mortify fornication, un clean- ness, and covetousness. (6.) In 1 Cor. x. 1 — 10, it is assumed that all baptized Christians have in baptism experienced a deliverance analo- gous to that of the Israelites at the passage of the Red Sea. The greatest deliverance of the ancient Church is thus made to symbolize one supposed to take place in Baptism. If there be any analogy between these two deliverances, then the one in Baptism must be participated in by the whole body of the baptized, for the salvation at the Red Sea, which was a type of it, was participated in by the whole Israelitish Church ; and the Apostle fastens atten- tion on this very 4'eatui'e of the type, when he says to the Corinthians, "I would not that ye should be ignorant how that ALL our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." And St. Jude, in drawing precisely the same lesson from the same chaptar BAPTISMAL SETv VICES. 69 of Old Testament history, notices tliat God saved the people of Israel, but afterwards destroyed them that believed not. But this benefit, though betokening such present love on God's part, could be received, and was received, in vain. The great bulk of those who were saved effectually at the passage of the Eed Sea were lost in the wilderness. They who were brought out of Egypt in order that they might possess the Promised Land, were hindered by their own sin from entering into possession. And the Apostle brings the example of their first deliver- ance and final doom as a type of God's dealings with Chi'istians in order to keep them from sin. But the reference to the Israelitish Baptism and the deliverance therein, loses all its point if there be no cor- responding blessing in Christian Baptism. (7.) In 1 Cor. xii. 12, the Fathers and the Divines of the time of the Beformation, without exception, find a re- ference to water Baptism as the outward and formal means by which the Holy Spirit grafts men into the mystical body of Chi-ist.' This text can only mean this, for St. Paid, as the whole context shows, is evidently speak- ing of a something which pertains to the whole Corinthian Church and to every individual member of it. But the m-oral state of this Church was such that they could not be said to have all been baptized into one body, if this Baptism was a work of the Spirit which had made each one, so baptized, spiritually religious; for the whole Epistle shows that very many among them were not this. 1 It is GO uuder^tood by Calvin, Hooker, Jeremy Taylor, and Wesley. For references to, and extracts from these writers, see my "Second Adam," page 36 (fourth edition). Wesley's paraplirase is, " For by that one Spirit which we received in Baptism, we are all united in one body, whether Jews or Gentiles." 60 GHimCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. (8.) In Gal. iii. 26, 27, the Apostle asserts that all those who had been baptized into Christ had put on, or had been clothed with, Christ, and so were God's children by faith : " Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ J csus : for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (9.) In Eph. V. 26, Christ is said to cleanse the Church in Baptism ; for " He gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." Observe here that Christ is said to have given Himself for the Church, not to cleanse it without, or apart from, ordinances, but to make one ordinance at least efficacious for its cleansing. (10.) In Titus iii. 5, the " bath of New Birth " is along with the "renewing of the Holy Ghost " asserted by the Apostle to be the instrument by which God saved us. Nothing can be clearer than the reference to the baptismal bath or font in the original words, Sta Xovrpov TroXtyyeyco-tas.^ How the renewing of the Holy Ghost is connected with Baptism 1 do not now stop to inquire. ^Yhat I ask the reader to observe is, that God associates Baptism with it in the matter of our salvation. The last place is 1 Pet. iii. 22;' "The like figm-e \Thereunto," [i.e., to the salvation of the ancient Church by water in the ark] " even Baptism, doth also now savo us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God) by the resur- rection of Jesus Christ." 1 This place is understood as referring to Baptism by every early Christian writer who cites it ; and among modern writers by Luther, Melanctlion, Calvin, Jewel, Hooker, Mede, Jeremy Taylor, Barrow, Bisi.op Hall, Beveridge, Wesley, Alford, Howson, Wordsworth, and Eilicott. 2 I follow here the English Bible. No other rendering affects the reference t ) Doptism. BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 61 The assertion " Baptism doth now save," taken in con- nexion with the limiting clause, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God," moans, of coui-se, that Baptism saves only vrhen received in repentance and faith ; for no man can give the " answer of a good conscience towards God '* except he repents and believes. "We gather, then, fi'om this place, if it has any consist- ent meaning, that the believing adult is saved, not hefore, but in Baptism. God has some wise reason for linking the communication of Salvation with Baptism ; so that, if we adhere to the teaching of the Spii'it, we cannot accoimt the believing catechumen saved before Baptism. The limitation, " not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience," shows that the Apostle recognised that God ordained Baptism for the salvation of those whom man in his presumption declares to have already received salvation, because they already believe. The Apostle, on the contrary, asserts that those who can return the answer of a good conscience towards God are saved in Baptism by the Eesurrection of Jesus Chi-ist, I.e., they receive the grace of His risen life in Bap- tism. (Compare Eom. v. 10, vi. 4 ; Col. ii. 12, 13, iii. 3.) A very little consideration will serve to show tiiat the sacramental interpretation of this text is in reality the most evangelical of any which can be suggested. It has been said,^ in order to get rid of any reference to the sacrament, that the Apostle, after expressly mentioning that Baptism saves, means to undo in the very next sentence the plain meaning of his own words, by as- sei-ting that he means by the word " Baptism," not the Chi-istian ordinance, but simply the " answer of a good ^ Dr. McNcile, Dean of Eipon, in his pamplilet, " Baptism dotb save." 62 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. conscience," independently of Baptism. But if so, theii he affirms that something of our own, on which we can rely, and on which self-righteous men do rely, viz., the answer of a good conscience, saves us, which is of course contrary to the first principles of Evangelical Beligion. But no one can suppose that such a thing as Baptism has, of itself, any saving efficacy. It can only be said to save because it is a means whereby the Saving Blood of the Kedeemer is applied to the penitent. The Sacrament in itself is too insignificant to be relied on — it cannot eve* «em, of itself, to have any saving power ; whereas, if a good conscience saves, it seems to save because of its own intrinsic merit or excellence. The Sacrament can have no such glory : it is a passive instrument in the hands of One Who alone saves ; but then, if we are to believe His words, it is Ilis instrument, or at least His token that He works in ns a certain work needful to salvation. Such are the statements of Scripture respecting the benefits which God is pleased to make over to a man, when he duly receives the rite of initiation into the Church of Christ. It is clear that no Baptismal Service which professes to set forth Christian doctrine on this matter, can for a moment be accounted " Scriptural," unless it is in harmony with these " Scripture statements ;" which it cannot be, unless it leads the Christian to expect to receive, or to believe that he has received, some great benefit or benefits in this Sacrament, Any service, or formulary, or confession of faith, which would lead men to regard Baptism as a mere edifying rite, or as a solemn dedication, or as a means whereby we merely profess an acceptance of Christ's salvation, is unscriptural, if, that is, to be " Scriptural " means to be in accordance with express Scripture statement. BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 63 It (Ices seem an unreal and exaggerated wpj of speat ingj to characterise a mere rite of dedicatio^a, or solemn profession, in such extraordinary terms as "a bui'ial and rL Surrection with Christ ;" a means by which Christ sanctifies and cleanses His Church," the bath of Xew Birth," whereby we are saved — the antitype of the Noachic water, whereby we are " now saved," and to connect it as needful to Salvation with Eepentancc, Faith, and the New Birth of the Spirit. (Rom. vi. 1—4 ; Ephes. v. 26 ; Tit. iii. 6 ; Mark xvi. 16 ; John iii. 5.) Then, in the next place, I would remark that there are no counter passages to these — no Scripture statements can be produced, which modify these statements or explain j them away — no statements which contrast " water " with ; " Spii'it " Baptism, so as to lead Christians to believe that I God's Son, after having solemnly annexed a certain bless- ing to the due reception of Baptism, has withdi-awn that blessing. The reader will also notice, that if the natm'al meaning of the above passages be the true one, then the reception of Baptism is a divinely-specified link in that sequence of truth which men call the " Plan of Salvation." If Chi'ist declared the terms of salvation in His discourse with Nieodemus, then to be " born of water and of the Spirit " is an essential to salvation. If St. Peter proclaimed aright the jdan of salvation in the fii'st Christian sermon ever preached, then to be " baptized for the remission of sins " forms a part of that plan. If there be a true scheme of Chi-istian doctrine revealed in the Epistle to the Eomans, then Baptism, as a " burial and resurrection with Christ," forms an important practical feature of that scheme. Amongst the great things pertaining to salvation, grouped together in the beginning of the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians, we have " one Baptism " men 64 CHURCH D0CTRINE,~B1BLE TRUTH. tioned along with " One Lord," and " One God and Father of all." It is plain, then, that no symbolical book, service book, or confession of faith can be Scriptural which ignores the place of Baptism amongst the great things of the Gospel. I am well aware that there is great difficulty in ascer- taining the relation of this Sacrament to predestination, justification by faith, conversion, and other matters of the highest importance ; but what of this ? God requires us to believe His statements, not to reconcile them with one another, or determine their exact places in the Christian scheme. So far for the direct Scripture assertions respecting the grace which God is pleased to communicate to us in this Sacrament. II. We now oome to consider another point of equal importance with the above direct statements, which ie this, that the Christians of the Apostolic Churches are always addressed in God's word as having entered into a state of Grace, or Eegeneration, or Salvation, at their Baptism. The proof of this statement we shall deduce from the Apostolical Epistles. These letters are, with three trifling exceptions, addressed to certain Christian communities, or to their clergy. All the members of these Churches are assumed to be in a state of grace, and that state of grace one and the same in all cases, though it is described sometimes in one way, sometimes in another. The Members of these Churches are all assumed to be dytot, or saints, i.e. holy ; but saints, or holy, not by any means in the sense of being all spiritual, or good, or pure, which they are never all assumed to be, but in the sense BAPTISMAL SERVICES. of "dedicated to God," and "set apart," or consecrated to His service. (Rom. i. 7 ; 1 Cor. i. 2 ; 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Eph. i. 1 ; &c.) They are all addressed as " in Christ." (Gal. iii. 27, 28 ; Eph. i. 1, ii. 21, 22 ; Phil. i. 1 ; Col. i. 2.) They had all "put on Christ." (Gal. iii. 27.) They had all been "buried with Christ in Baptism." (Rom, vi. 1 — 4 ; Col. ii. 12.) As having been all thus buried, they were all to reckon themselves "dead to sin." (Rom. vi. 11; Col. iii. 3.) They had " all by one Spii'it been baptized into one body." (1 Cor. xii. 13.) They are all " the body of Christ, and members in particular." (Rom. xii. 4, 6 ; 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13, 27 ; Eph. v. 30.) The bodies of fill of them are " the members of Chi-ist" (1 Cor. vi. 15) ; the " temples of the Spirit " (1 Cor. vi. 19). Collectively, also, they are " the temple of God." (1 Cor. iii. 16.) They are "espoused to one husband." (2 Cor. xi. 2.) They partake in common of one holy and heavenly caUing. (Heb. iii. 1 ; 1 Pet. i. 15, ii. 21, iii. 9.) They all have a birthi-ight, and so are all heirs. (1 Pet. iii. 7 ; Heb. xii. 16.) They have all " come to the Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb. xii. 22) ; the heavenly Jerusalem is their mother (Gal. iv. 26). They are " of the household of God," and are " builded together for an habitation of God." (Eph. ii. 19, 21, 22.) They are all in some sense " the people of God." (1 Pet. ii. 10.) They are within," whilst the Gentiles amongst whom they live are " without." (1 Cor. v. 11—13; 1 Thess. iv. 12.) They are the elect or chosen of God. (1 Pet. i. 2, ii. 9 ; 2 Pet. i. 10.) They are ail sons of God by adoption. (Gal. iv. 5, 6.) They are all the " flock of God." ^Acts xx. 28 ; 1 Pet. v. 2.) They are all begotten by God's will. (Jas.. i. 18 ; 1 Pet. i. 23.) Finally, they are all "brethren." ' The brethren" F 66 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. is tlie comnion designation of Christians in the Acts and Epistles. All these terms, each presupposing some gi*ace received from God, are applied to all the members of the Apos- tolic Churches indiscriminately, and without the slightest reservation expressed or understood. There is not one word throughout the Epistles which would lead us to suppose that God recognises two Churches, a visible Church of mere professing Christians, and an invisible one of true believers; there is not one word about two callings, an effectual calling, and an ineffectual one ; there is not one word about two elections, an inner election to glory amidst an outer election to mere eccle- siastical privilege ; there is not one word respecting two brotherhoods, but all are brethren — all are assumed to be in one family, one household. The reader can form no idea of the extent to which this inclusive mode of address pervades the Apostolical writings, unless he examines them himself with a view to this matter, and marks each place that bears upon it.^ The great Church principle, that God has one Chui'ch, the mystical body of His Son — that this Church is, by its very nature, a visible organised body, and yet that all the members of this Church are assumed to be in God's favour or grace, or to have once been in it — this great Church principle pervades the Apostolical Epistles, to the total exclusion of any counter principle. Some of the more important Epistles open v>^ith its enunciation, in that they begin with salutations to the whole body of Christians in each locality. The Epistle to the Romans, for instance, is addressed to " all that are in ^ The reader will find a review of the Apostolical Epistles with reference to the use of tliese tenns in my " Second Adam and New Birth," chapters ix.. x., xi. BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 67 Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints." Tbe Epistle to the Corintbians, " To tbe Cburch of God wbicb is at Corinth, with all that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Chiist." The Second to the Corinthians is du-ected to the " Church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia the Epistle to the Galatians, to " the Churches of Galatia." But, besides this, it must be remarked that these gi'eat thiugs said of t-he Chui'ch are all said with the view of influencing the practice of the individual members of that b:dy. Does the Apostle, for instance, hold the Eoman Chris- tians to have been all bui^ied with Chi'ist in Baptism ? It is that they may all " walk in ne^^Tiess of life," and not suffer sin to reign in their mortal bodies." (Rom. vi. 4, 12.) Does the Apostle speak of them all as being " one body in Christ " (Rom. xii. 2 — 6) '? It is that every man among I them may think of himself soberly. ; Ai-e the Corinthian Christians reminded (1 Cor. iii. 17) ' that they are the " temple of God " ? They are reminded I of it in order that they may fear exceedingly lest they i defile or destroy that temple. Ave they reminded that their " bodies " ai'e the " members of Chi-ist,'"' and temples of the Spu-it " ? It is that they may keep those bodies in temperance, soberness, and chastity. (1 Cor. Ti, 15—20.) Ai-e they all addressed as '* by one Spii'it baptized into one body ? It is that they may regard all theii' fellow- Christians as fellow-members of Christ's body, and so sympathise with, and care for, one another. (1 Cor. xii. 13—27.) Are all the Galatian Chi-istians assumed to have " put on Chi-ist " in Baptism ? It is that they may stand fast in €8 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Him, and not fall back upon the works of the law as their justification in God's sight. Let the reader remark that this assumption, that all the Apostles' converts were members of Christ, and the exhortations to be good and holy grounded on the assumption, are alike general, and stand or fall together. If, for instance, any number of the members of the Corinthian Church had not been engrafted into Christ's body, the whole Chui'ch could not with any propriety be bidden in perfectly general terms (as they are) to demean themselves as becometh members of such a body Precepts ui*ging to love and good works, grounded on some common grace or privilege, could not possibly be addressed to all, unless the privilege or grace were the common possession of all. If it were a matter of great doubt whether some of these persons were really members of Christ, the very first thing to be done would be that each professing Christian should, for himself, resolve that doubt in his own case, and ascertain whether he ever had been made a member of Christ ; but so far from this, the Apostolic Christians are bidden to dismiss all doubts upon the subject. So that, whether we regard the tei-ms which the Apostles api)ly to theii* converts, or the precepts of holy living which they groimd on the fact that such terms arc applicable to all the baptized, our position, that all the Apostolic Christians were in the same state of grace, is abundantly proved. Christians are assumed to have entered into this state not at the moment when they first believed, or when they felt themselves justified, or forgiven, or when the peace of God was first shed abroad in their hearts, but at the moment when they entered into the visible Church by Baptism ; for there and then they were buried and raised BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 69 again with Clu-ist (Rom. vi. 1, 4; Col. ii. 12); then they were all baptized into one body by One Spirit (1 Cor. xii. 13) ; there and then they experienced the deliverance symbolized by the salvation of Noah in the ark (1 Pet. iii. 21), and of the Israelites at the Exodus (1 Cor. x. 1 — 10) ; then they washed away the sins of theii* heathen or Jewish state (Acts xxii. 16), were sanctified and cleansed with the washing of water by the word (Ephes. V. 26), and by God's mercy were saved by the bath of New Bii-th 'Titus iii. 5). III. Our next point is : — That this state of regeneration, or salvation, does not necessarily imply the present goodness, or the final per- severance in grace of all once admitted into it: on the contraiy, the Apostolic Christians are always assumed to be in danger of falling into deadly sin, and some of thera are reproved for having so fallen. I desire to di'aw particular attention to this point, for the opponents of Church principles have asserted that the members of the Apostolic Churches were all enlightened, converted, or regenerate persons in the modern and popular acceptation of these terms, and so (they say) we cannot safely argue fi*om the terms used in describing their state of grace, that baptized Christians now have been admitted into the same state. It has even been asserted that the Christians of these Chui'ches were assumed by the Apostolic ^vriters to be all perfectly good — the end of theii* course anticipated at the very beginning — nay, that, sin was assimied to be impossible in them. Let us see what the facts are. The Eoman Christians are all assumed to have been *' buried with Christ," and so to be " dead to sin " (Bom. 70 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. vi. 2—4) in Baptism, and yet in the very same chapter the Apostle, so far from accounting them all to be personally free from sin, bids them not to let sin reign in their mortal bodies (vi. 12). He addresses them all as "called saints," and as having received the Spirit of adoption (viii. 15), and yet, so far from presuming that they would finally persevere, he takes occasion to say (xi. 21, 22), "If God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest lie also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God : towards them that fell, severity ; but towards thee goodness, if thou continue in His goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." The Apostle assumes all to be members of Christ when he writes, " I say to every man that is A:\roNG you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith ; . . . for as we have mamj members in one body and all members have not the same office, so we being many are one body in Christ, and evevT/ one members one of another " (Eom. xii. 5) ; and yet to these members of Christ he says in the next chapter, " Let us walk honestly as in the day, not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying" (xiii. 13). Again, the Apostle writes to all the Corinthian Christians as " the Church of God which is at Corinth, to them which are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints." He assumes them all to be members of Christ, "by one Spirit baptized into one body" (1 Cor. xii. 13 — 27), and yet he speaks to them as carnal (iii. 1 — 3), as— some of them — unjust, and unrighteous, and unchaste (vi. 8, 13 — 17, 20), as liable to fall by idolatry, murmur- ing, and tempting Christ (x. 1 — 10). He takes occasion it) warn them against gross profanation of the Lord's BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 71 table (xi. 21), and against unbelief in tbe doctrine of the Resurrection of the body (xv. 12). He bids tbem awake to righteousness, for some have not the knowledge of God (xv. 34). He beseeches them not to receive the grace of God in vain (2 Cor. vi. 1); he expresses fear lest when he came again he should find not only debates, wrath, strife, backbitiugs, but also uucleanness, fornication, and lasciviousness unrepented of (xii. 20). He asserts that all the Galatians were "children of God by faith in Christ Jesus," because " so many of them '* as had "been baptized into Christ had put on Christ" (Gal. iii. 26), and yet they had been " bewitched, so as not to obey the truth " (iii. 1). He is afraid that he has bestowed labour in vain upon them, and he feels it needful to warn them against such works of the flesh as adultery, fornication, uncleanness, and lasciviousness (v. 21). The Ephesian Christians are all assumed to have been made nigh, to be fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, to be all members of one body (Ephes. ii. 13, 19; iv. 4, 25), and yet the Apostle bids them put away lying, stealing, all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamour and evil speaking — not to have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, — not to be di-unk with wine (iv. 25, 28, 31, 32 ; v. 3, 5, 11, 18). The Hebrew Christians are all addressed as "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling " (Heb. iii. 1), but, like their Corinthian brethren, are bidden to tako warning from the example of the Israelites perishing in the Vv'ilderness because of unbelief (iii. iv.). They are all assumed to have a birthright, and yet they are bidden to beware, lest any of them, like Esau, profanely sell his birthright (xii. 15—17). Again, those to whom St. James \\Tites are all • brethren," " begotten of God's will," and yet these same 72 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. persons are bidden to lay aside all filthiness and super- fluity of naughtiness, bitter envying and strife, evil speak- ing one of another, and grudging one against another; they are bidden to cleanse their hands and purify their hearts. (James i. 21; iii. 14; iv. 8.) Similarly, those to whom St. Peter writes are assumed to be " a chosen generation," " elect," and " born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible." (1 Pet. i. 2, 23; ii. 9.) And yet they are bidden to lay aside "all malice and all guile, and hypocrisies and envying, and all evil speaking," to " abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul," and they are none of them to " suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evil doer" (ii. 1, 11; iv. 15). Nothing, then, can be more untrue than the surmise that the Christians of the Apostolic age are all assumed to be converted or spiritual men in the modern sense of the words, or even that they are all supposed to be " good," still less that they are all assumed to have final perseverance vouchsafed to them. Some of them are supposed to be all that even an Apostle could desii-e them to be. The Apostle hopes the best of all. St. Paul commends the faith of the Koman Church, as " spoken of throughout the whole world." (Rom. i. 8.) The state of the Phi- lippian Church, as a Church, was such that the Apostle " thanks God upon every remembrance of them." (Phil, i. 3.) He remembered too, without ceasing, the " work of faith and labour of love and patience of hope" of the Thessalonian Christians. (1 Thess. i. 3.) But with all these reasons for thankfulness there are distinct intimations in every Epistle that there were some among them — in some cases many — who were not living Christian lives. These lapsed or lapsing Christians may BAPTISMAL SliRVICES. 73 have been, in some Clmrches, few compared with the faithful ones, but their existence is always recognised. IV. This brings us to our fourth point. How do the Apostles meet the case of fallen or falling ( 'liristians ? There are two ways in which they might meet the cascTfl of such persons. When professing Christians sinned, or fell away, the Apostles might use such a fall as evidence that such persons had not received effectual grace in Baptism — that they had never been really engrafted into Christ's Church, and were not to be accounted as " brethren." Or the Apostles might treat them as persons who had once received God's grace and received it in vain, and so were cutting themselves off from His favour after He had gathered them into His fold, and were grieving and vexing His Holy Spirit. Now, the Apostles invariably adopt the latter of these alternatives, and eschew the former. Those among the Apostolic Christians who fall into sin are assumed to go counter to grace once received. They are never supposed to fall into sin because God has with- held grace— always because they resist grace or receive it in vain. Thus if the Roman Christians continued in sin, the Apostle assumes that they went counter to the grace which in Baptism had buried and raised them again with Christ, in order that they might walk in newness of life, (Rom. vi. 1 — -i.) They were, in a sense, in God's good- ness, because they had been engrafted into the Divine Olive-tree of His Church (xi. 17, 22); unless they con- tinued in this they would be cut off. If the Corinthian Christians defiled themselves, they 74 CHURCH DOCTEINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. defiled the temple of God (1 Cor. iii. 16, 17), and would be destroyed accordingly ; " for the temple of God," the Apostle tells them, is holy, " which temple ye are" (iii. 17). If they committed fornication they sinned against the grace of incorporation into Christ, by which their very bodies had been made members of Christ, and the temples of the Spirit (vi. 15 — 20). It was the fact of their mem bers having been once made the members of Christ which made their sin the more sinful. If, after the example of the Israelites in the wilderness, they lusted after evil things, committed idolatry or forni- cation, tempted Christ, or murmured, they went counter to that baptismal grace or salvation of which the salvation of the Israelites at the Ecd Sea was a type. (1 Cor. x. 1—10.) When the Galatian Christians fell back upon Justifica- tion by the Law, they fell from the gTace which had adopted them into God's family, and of which the outward sign and seal was their Baptism. (Gal. iii. 26, 27.) If the Ephesian Christians gave place to Satan by lying, stealing, speaking defiling language, bitterness, wrath, anger, clamour, evil speaking, or still worse sins (Ephes. iv, 25, 28, 29 ; v. 3, 11), then they grieved the Holy Spirit by which they had been " sealed " (iv. 30). The commission of these evil things was, in the Apostle's C3^cs, no proof that they had not been sealed by the Spirit, or that their Baptism had been without its characteristic grace ; it was rather a proof that they had received it in vain. If the Colossian Christians did not "mortify thei-r members " in the matter of " adultery, fornication, un- cleanness, lasciviousuess," &c., they sinned against the grace which had united them in a mystical death and re- eiirrection with their Saviour. (Col. ii. 12 ; iii, 3.) BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 75 if the Thessalonians were unmindful of the purity to which they were pledged, and so defrauded one another, they despised God, lolio had also given unto them His Holy Spirit. (1 Thess. iv. 8.) When the Hebrew Christians denied their profession, by so doing they counted the " blood wherewith they had been sanctified unholy," did " despite to the Spirit of grace," and forfeited a birthright already received. (Heb. X. 29 ; xii. 15—17.) Similarly, the Christians to whom St. Peter WTote are told that they who lacked virtue, knowledge, temperance, &c., had " forgotten that they had been purged from their old sins." (2 Pet. i. 9.) Above all, Christians are bidden by St. Jude to take warning from the doom of the " angels who kej)t not their first estate." "We cannot well imagine beings in a more sure state of grace than angels in heaven, and yet Chris- tians are warned by two Apostles (2 Pet. ii. 3, 4; Jude G), lest after the example of these wicked spirits they fall away and share their punishment. It seems impossible to draw but one inference from such an example, which is, that, when baptized Christians fall, they fall from grace. Be the explanation, then, what it may, no fact is more certain than that the Apostles conclude that all Christians have been, or are, in a state of grace, from which state of grace the}' are in danger of falling by very gross and grievous sins, and of being cast away for ever ; and whei? the}^ thus sin it is distinctly implied that they sin (not because God has not given grace, but) against grace which He has given, and the seal of this grace is their Baptism. V. But, lastly, in no one case do the Apostles call upon. Binning Christians to become regenerate. They arc biddeij 76 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. to repent — not to receive God's grace in vain — to cleanse their hands, and to purify their hearts ; but never to be " born again." In no single instance does an Apostle call upon any- lapsing Christian to enter, as if for the first time, into that state which is allowed, on all hands, to be synonymous with Regeneration. No baptized Christian is ever called upon to become a member of Christ, or a member of His Church or mystical Body. No baptized Christian is ever bidden to get himself grafted, as for the first time, into Christ. No baptized Christian is ever called upon to become a saint (ayios), or a brother (ciSeX^o's). In no one case is a falling or sinning Christian bidden to stand in doubt as to whether he ever has been effectually called ; he is rather enjoined to see whether he is walking worthy of a calling wherewith he is always assumed to have been called. The reader can form no conception of the amount of this testimony in favour of Church teaching, unless he examines thoroughly the Apostolic Epistles for himself. He will then ascertain for himself how invariably the Apostles assume that all Christians have received grace ; how carefully they avoid all assertions which might tend to throw doubt on the efficacy of the means of grace, or on the fact that all the members of the Apostolic Churches had once been grafted into Christ. No contrast can be more marked than that which exists between the Avay in which the Apostles addressed baptized sinners in their day, and that adopted by those in this day who profess to be guided by them. The Apostle addresses the sinner as one who sins against grace : the modern Evangelical addresses the sinner as one who sins because God has withheld grace from him. Such is the nature of the Scripture evidence for the BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 77 connexion of Eegeneration vnth Baptism. The professing Christian enters by a new birth of " water and of the Spirit" into the kingdom of God. This "kingdom of God " is the Chui'ch, or mystical Body of Christ. The root of all the blessings and privileges of this state is union icitli Christ as the Second Adam. Through union with Him, as a member of His Body, the Christian re- ceives Adoption into God's family, and a bii'thright ; the sins of his heathen or natural state are blotted out; — and these are not merely outward privileges, but there goes along with them a certain measure of internal spii-itual grace, to enable the member of Christ to appre- hend the mysteries of the kingdom of God, and to avoid sin. This Church state, or state of salvation, or state of Eegeneration, the professing Christian enters into, or is to be accounted to have entered into, at his Baptism ; not (if he has been a heathen) at the time of his conversion ; nor (if he has been ba2)tized in infancy) at the moment when he first consciously realises his interest in Christ's pro- mises ; but at the moment when he receives Baptism : and this because thi-oughout the New Testament he is supposed to have received things pertaining to salvation at his Baptism — because all the baptized are assumed to have been once grafted into Christ, or into His mystical Body, or saved by the bath of a New Birth ; and, when they fall they are always assimied to fall from this state of grace and salvation — because in no one case is the Baptism of any professing Christian supposed to have been an unreality, or to have been dissevered from its inward aud spiritual grace ; all exhortations calculated to tlii-ow doubt on the reality of the calling of each baptized Christian being carefully avoided by the Apostles. I shall afterwards consider the adjustment of the re- spective claims of Faith and Baptism, and, also, how far 78 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. the blessings which many suppose that Scripture connccta only with the Baptism of adult;; can belong to the Baptism of infants. SECTION ni. EXAMINATION OP THE BAPTISMAL SERVICES. I now proceed to examine the Baptismal and other ser- vices of the Book of Common Prayer, as to how far they embody or reflect the teaching of Scripture on this matter. From the express statements and general language of Scripture which I have adduced, it is clear that if these services are to be accounted Scriptural, they must first of all connect the peculiar blessing of the new covenant or dispensation, i.e., the New Birth, with Baptism. They must connect this " New Birth " with forgiveness, with adoption into God's family, with grafting into Christ's Body, or Church, and with the gift of some internal grace or strength to live to the terms of t]io Christian Covenant. Unless our services did this, they would be unscrip- tural, because they would fall short of express Scripture statements upon this matter. In the second place, if our services are Scriptural, they must pronounce the baptized to be regenerate, or grafted into Christ's Church, and made members of Christ. They must so pronounce because the Scripture so pronounces, and because the education of the baptized person, if it is to be Scriptural, must proceed upon the assumption that he has been brought into Christ's Church and into God's family. BAPTISMAL SEKTICES. 79 In the third place, if our services are Scriptural, tliey must represent the grace received in Baptism as gi'ace from which men can fall ; they must represent the in- heritance therein assigned to the baptized as one vrhich ■may be forfeited, and the " state of salvation " into which the baptized are received as one which does not imply final perseverance on the part of those who are received into it. Lastly, if the services are Scriptural, they will give no countenance to the notion that the baptized fall away be- cause God has withheld grace from them, nor to the idea that the Church into which the baptized is admitted is not the one Church or Body of Christ ; for God in the Scrip- tures makes mention of only one Church, and makes no mention whatsoever of any invisible body within the visible, to which invisible Church He may have restricted saving grace. First, then, the services, if they arc Scriptural, will connect the New Birth with Baptism, and assmne that this New Birth implies a grafting into Christ's mystical body, and, with this, remission of sins, and some gift of God's Holy Spirit. The Baptismal Services of the Church gi'ound the necessity for receiving Baptism, and its connexion with Regeneration, on our Lord's words to Nicodemus. Both services begin with a short address, in which is set forth, in Christ's words, that a man must be " rege- nerate and bom anew of water and of the Holy Ghost," and the congregation are called upon to pray that the person may be " baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ's Holy Church." Here, then, being " regenerate " is identified with being " bom anew of water and of the Holy Ghost." It is also 80 CHURCH DOCTRINE,— BIBLE TRXTTH. identified with, or connected vdth, " reception into Christ's Holy Church," which is St. Paul's way of describing the state of Kegeneration. In the next prayer another aspect of Holy Baptism, as set forth in Scripture, is recognised : for God is appealed to as having " figured His Holy Baptism" by the salva- tion of Noah in the ark, and the salvation of the children of Israel at the Eed Sea. (1 Cor. x. 1—10 ; 1 Pet. iii. 21.) In this prayer we recognise the honour put by God upon Baptism by the submission of His Son J esus Christ to receive it. It is assumed that the Eternal Son of God Most High could not be baptized in the element of water without consecrating it to be the channel of some heavenly and supernatural benefit. Seeing, then, that God has made such remarkable deli verances of His people the types of Baptism, and has so consecrated the use of the element of water by the submis- sion of His Incarnate Son to receive Baptism, we appeal to Him to do for the persons baptized according to the tenor of such gracious intimations of His good will — that is, to wash and sanctify the persons before Him, that, being delivered from His wrath, they may be received into the ark of Chi'ist's Church, d'c. In the next prayer request is made that the persons (or infants) coming to His Holy Baptism may " receive remission of their sins by spiritual regeneration." I desire to draw particular attention to this phrase, for the use of it betrays cither the deepest spiritual ignorance on the part of the compilers of our Services, or else it claims for them a far profounder insight into the relations of the several doctrines of our redemption with one another, than is possessed by those who now criticise their work. BAPTISilAL SERVICES. 81 Judged by the spirit and letter of the modern Evan- gelical system, no phrase can betray greater ignorance; for if " spiritual regeneration " be a " new heart," or any internal work of the Holy Spii'it in enlightening the understanding, then assiu-edly it is not the insti'iiment by which we receive " remission of sins." Such a prayer is equivalent to asking that vre may receive remission of our sins by internal Sanctification, vdiich is so contrary to the very first axiom of (so called) Evangelical truth, that the man who asserts such a thing is accounted " unenlightened.'* lie has to learn the first rudiments. He has to take the first step'. There is not a local preacher among the Eanters who cannot look down with pity upon the men ^^•ho shed their blood that we might retain our open English Bible, and point at oui* Reformers as unen- lightened men, for not at once perceiving the incongruity of such a phrase with the fii'st principles of Evangelic truth. But if our Services are to be " Scriptural," i.e., in ac- cordance with express Scripture statement, they must contain this phrase, or some equivalent one, for the same *' water " of which the Saviour tells us we must, in con- junction with the Spirit, be "born again" (John iii. 5), and the same water which is called by St. Paul " the bath of New Birth " (Titus iii. 5), is that in which St. Peter called on the fii'st converts to be baptized for the rer.iission of sins (Acts ii. 38), and by which Christ is said by an inspired Apostle to " sanctify and cleanse His Church." (Ephes. V. 26.) Let us put these things together. When we come to Holy Baptism, we pray that we may receive " remission of our sins by Spiritual Regeneration." Why ? Because by Regeneration in Baptism God trans- lei's us from the first Adam, who is our condemnation, a 82 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. into Christ the Second Adam, "Who is our salvation from the guilt of sin. Wc are there and then " buried with Christ," and it is absurd to suppose that we can be "buried with Christ" to any spiritual or evangelical purpose without receiving remission of sins. The root idea of Regeneration is " Union with Christ, the second Adam," and as by generation we are, in some inscrutable way, made partakers of the sin of the first Adam, so by Eegeneration, which is its correlative and opposite, we must be made partakers of the atoning merit of the Second Adam ; and so some such phrase as " Re- mission of sins by Spiritual Regeneration " is required, if our Services are to be considered " Scriptural." The Gospel in the Service for the " Baptism of such as are of Riper Years," is that part of our Lord's discourse with Nicodemus which relates to the New Birth, and in the exhortation following we have our Lord's commission to the Apostles to preach and baptize. (St. Mark xvi. 16.) In the same exhortation are embodied St. Peter's words respecting Baptism for the I'emission of sins in his sermon in Acts ii., and also his reference to its saving jDower in his first general Epistle. (1 Pet. iii. 21.) We have also St. Paul's peculiar teaching respecting Baptism being a " burial with Christ " (Rom. vi. ; Col. ii.) cited in the post-baptismal thanksgiving (that he being dead to sin, and living unto righteousness, and being buried with Christ in Ms death). We have also St. Paul's expression that by Baptism we " put on Christ," cited in the commencement of the address to the newly baptized in the Service for Adults. So that we have embodied in our Services the greater part of the passages in which the Holy Ghost has seen fit to teach us any truth respecting this Sacrament. Foi- the fact that these passages are all in one direction BAPTISMAL SERVICi:S. 83 — all ascribing some great blessing to the right reception of Baptism — the Church is not responsible. In the second place, if our Services are Scriptural, they must pronounce that the baptized are, by their Baptism, regenerate ; grafted into the body of Christ's Church, and made members of Christ. If we are to uphold the view of the efficacy of Baptism which is set forth in Holy Scripture, we must assert that Baptism effects now what it effected in Apostolic times — that they who have received it are in a different state with reference to God and Satan, Christ and Adam, the world and the Kingdom of God, from what they were before; that henceforth they are to be accounted as members of Christ, and are to be trained accordingly. The Church delivers this judgment on the altered con- dition of the baptized, when she says by her minister, respecting each person baptized, " Seeing now, dearly beloved, that these persons are (or that this child is) regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ's Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits, and with one accord make our prayers unto Him that they (or that this child) may lead the rest of their life according to this beginning." Without this assertion, or sometliing as plain and dog- matic, the Church would not he a faithful witness to the doctrine of Baptism contained in Holy Scripture, Her tes- timony would fall short at a most important point — the point of practical application, — for the Apostolic writers assert, or assume, that Christians have received in Bap- tism the great characteristic gift of the New Covenant, in order that ever after they may be under the most binding obligations to live holily. To those who realise the mass of Scripture assertion, 84 CPIURCII DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. and teaching grounded on it, wliicli I liave drawn out in the preceding pages, this statement of the Church needs no apology. The absence of such a statement would on Scripture grounds he indefensible. In the third place> if omr Baptismal Services are Scrip- tui'al, they must set lorth the grace received in Baptism as one from which men can fall ; for the Scriptures (as I have shown in pages 69 — 72), so far from asserting the final perseverance of those once grafted into Christ, assume that they may fall from their Christian standing, and fall irretrievably. Now here I desire the reader to bear in mind that wo cannot look for many assertions of this sort in our Bap- tismal Services. The administration of Baptism is, of course, a matter of religious joy to any right-minded Christian, and it would be contrary to all right feeling to make " falling from God," or " coming short of His grace," the key-note of such a Service. If, then, we find the danger of falling from grace and not attaining to ever- lasting Salvation once or twice distinctly recognised, it is as much as can be required to vindicate oui' Services as Scriptural on this head. In the first place, we have a prayer in both Services before the administration, in which we ask God that the person to be baptized may " ever remain in the number of His faithful and elect children." Then immediately after his Baptism he is signed with the sign of the cross, in token that he " must continue Christ's faithful soldier and servant to his life's end." Then after this, the congregation are called on to pray that he " may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning." And when, after being called upon, they do pray for him, they ask that being " buried with Christ in BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 85 His death, lie may crucify tlio old man," and " tiiat, as iio is partaker of the death of God's Son, he may also be partaker of His resurrection, so that finally, with the residue of God's Holy Chui-ch, he may be an inheritor of His everlasting kingdom." So also, in the Catechism, the child is made to say, " I pray unto God to give rae His grace, that I may continue in the same (state of Salvation) unto my life's end." So in the Order of Confii-mation, the Bishop in laying his hands upon the person confirmed is directed to pray, " Defend, 0 Lord, this Thy servant, that he may continue Thine for ever." So in the form of Solemnization of Matrimony. " It (Matrimony) was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication ; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and Tceep themselves unde- filed members of Christ's body." So, above all, in the Homily of Salvation or Justifica- tion (the statements in which, since it is referred to in the Eleventh Article, have more authority than those of any other homily), we read, " Our office is not to pass the time of this present life unfruitfully and idly, after that we are baptized or justified, not caring how few good works we do to the glory of God, and profit of our neigh- bours : much less is it our office, after that ice he made Christ's members, to live contrary to the same, making ourselves members of the devil and not God.'' In the last place, if our Services are to be Scriptural, they must give no countenance to the idea that there are two Churches — a visible and an invisible — to the former only of which we are supposed to be admitted at Baptism, whilst God has restricted saving grace to the latter. Our Services recofifnise but one Chiu'ch — the visible, 86 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. into which the person is admitted at Baptism ; for, first of all, the congregation are besought to pray that the person or child may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, and " received into Christ's Holy Church, and be made a lively member of the same." Here we have, at the very outset, the great Scripture truth set forth in our Lord's parable of the "Vine and the branches," that the One Church has within its pale different characters; not that the " lively " members are an invisible Church by themselves. Then the congregation do pray that he, "being de- livered from God's wrath, may be received into the Ark of Christ's Church." Then when the priest signs him, he " receives him into the congregation of Christ's flock." After this the congregation are called on to thank God that the person is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's Church ;" then they actually do thank God that the child or person is " incorporated into God's Holy Church." There is, then, but one Church recognised in the Services, and it is described in terms which leave no room for any other, for it is called Christ's " Holy Church," the " Ark of Christ's Church," the " Congregation of Christ's flock." In all this Scripture is adhered to, which knows of but one Church, but recognises that that Church is like a "net gathering of every kind," and like a vine, having fruit-bearing, barren, and decaying branches. BAPTISMAL SERVICES^ SECTION IV. EECTE>rER,\TION OF INFANTS IN BAPTISM. I liave now shown that the Baptismal Services of the Church of England are Scrij^tural, if to be " Scriptural " means to be in accordance with the boohs of the New Testament. It will be needful now to consider a difficulty which, in these latter days, has been raised respecting the appli- cation of all this to Infant Baptism. As a rule, we baptize infants who cannot exercise con- scions Faith : and it is assumed that there is some peculiar difficulty respecting infant Baptism, or, at least, in pro- nouncing infants regenerate when they are baptized. In order thoroughly to sift this matter, it will be need- ful to consider the relation between Faith and Baptism as it is set forth in Holy Scripture. Faith is 9^010 ^ considered as something antagonistic to Baptism. Men think to depress Baptism by exalting Faith ; and vice versa — they who uphold the grace of Baptism are assumed, by the very fact of their so doing, to detract from the efficacy of Faith. Now there is no antagonism between Faith and Baptism so much as hinted at in Scripture. So far from this, the two Epistles which ascribe most to Faith set forth, most unreservedly, the high position of Baptism in the Plan of Salvation. The Epistle to the Eomans is generally appealed to as upholding Justification by Faith ; and in it we have ' I say noic, for it assuredly was not so considered by the leaders of the Reformation, either in England or Germany. See my extracts from Luther, Cranmer, Melancthon, and Jewel, in Ani/endis B. of the " Second Adam and the New Birth." 88 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Baptism plainly set forth as a " death to sin," because in it we are made partakers of Christ's death by being "bm-ied with him." (Eom. vi. 1—4.) The Epistle to the Galatians was written for the express purpose of up- holding the sufficiency of Faith ; and yet in it Baptism is described as the needful supplement to Faith, for in it St. Paul lays down that the baptismal " putting on " of Christ is the proof of oiu* adoption or son ship through Faith. (Gal. iii. 27.) All the Galatian Christians were childi'en of God by Faith, because " as many of them as had been baptized into Christ had put on Christ." How is it then, that, with this in their Bibles, many now assume a sort of opposition between Faith and the Sacraments, especially Baptism? It arises principally from the fact that a view wholly unwarranted by Scrip- ture is taken by modern religionists of the intensity of the Faith of the Apostolic Chi'istians, and of the objects on which their Faith rested. The vast bulk of those who oppose Baptismal Eegenera- tion alloYf the name of Faith only to what they call a self-appropriating trust in Christ's work, as distinguished from the Catholic belief in the Divine Person and Mission of the Son of God. The greater part of them go as nearly as possible towards defining true Faith to be a trust in Christ's work, as foi the individual. They lay the utmost stress upon a man being able to say, "my Saviour," "Christ died for me;" instead of as St. Paul says, " Christ died for us ;" or St. John, "He is the propitiation for our sins." They then tm'n round upon those who hold Churcn doctrine, and say, " You have no right to apply the Apostolic expressions respectmg Baptism and the state of the baptized to the present race of baptized Christians, because the Apostolic Christians had all self-aj^propriating BAPrmiAIi SERVICES. 89 Faitli ; whereas tlie present generation of Christians wcve mostly baptized in infancy, and grow up little better than nominal Chi*istians/' Now we shall be able to ascertain from one of the Epistles to which I have alluded, somewhat of the natiu'e and degi'ee of that Faith which the Apostolic Chi'istians had, and which entitled them, in the view of the Apostle, to the name of " Childi-en of God by Faith." St. Paul wrote to the Galatians to reprove the deficiency of their Faith. They had been beguiled into supposing that Salvation by Christ was incomplete, and required to be supplemented by circumcision and the law. To these persons he wrote, " Ye are all the childi'cn of God by Faith in Chi-ist Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Here all the Galatian Chiistians are said to be " child- ren of God by Faith :" but what was the degree of this Faith in theii* case ? Was it a nominal, or historical, or was it a self-appropriating, realising Faith? All we know is, that the Apostle simply regarded it as a Faith which had led them to receive Baptism, and that was all. It was, in fact, with many of them, as the whole Epistle shows, only that general reception of the articles of the Christian Faith which led a man to renounce idols, and to believe in the Divinity and Messiahship of Jesus Chi'ist. One thing is certain, that the Apostle cannot here mean by Faith any high degree of it, such as leads a man to place implicit trust in his Saviour ; for if the Galatians had all possessed that realising Faith in the efficacy of Christ's work which many now insist on as being the only Faith recognised in Scripture, then St. Paul could never have had occasion to write such an Epistle to them, for this Epistle is wi-itten solely for the piu-pose oi reproving them for thc'r icanf of such Faitli. 90 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. It is absurd, tlicu, to suppcso that the Apostle would designate all these Galatians as children of God by Faith, if he meant, by Faith, self-appropriating Faith; since it is evident, from every part of this E^^istle, that, as a Church, they had not such Faith, for they were relapsing into Judaism. Besides, he could not possibly have appealed to their Baptism (as he docs) as a sign that they were children of God by Faith, if by Faith he meant some high degree of Faith ; for Baptism is not an evidence of the highest degree of Faith, but of the lowest. It is an evidence that a man believes that Jesus is the Son of God, and of nothing more. It is no gua- rantee that a man possesses Faith which purifies the heart because of its realising apprehension of the Saviour's work. With this agree all the intimations which we can gather from Scripture of the degree of Faith required before Baptism in the Apostolic times. When Philip said to the Eunuch who demanded to be baptized, " If thou believest with all thine heart, thou m-ayest," he answered, "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God.' (Acts viii. 37.) After St. Paul had enunciated three Articles of the Apostles' Creed to the Corinthians (" Christ died for our sin, and was buried, and rose again "), he added, " so we preach, and so ye believed." And, indeed, to ascribe a higher rather than a lower degree of Faith to the Christians of the Apostolic Churches is fatal to the principles of those who oppose Baptismal Eegeneration on Calvinistic grounds ; for the Apostolic writers always represent the possessors of this Faith as liable to fall way. (Rom. xi. 20, 22; Gal. i. 6, iii. 1, iv. 9, v. 7 ; Heb. iv. 14, x. 23.) The higher, then, the Faith is pitched, the more strongly does the language of tho Epistles tell against so-called Calvinistic doctrine BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 91 To demand somo very exalted degree of Faith before you administer Baptism, or count the baptized to havo received its characteristic blessing, is simply unscriptui-al. Our Church, it is to be remarked, in this as in other things, adheres closely to Scripture, when she demands of the person to be baptized, not whether he believes that his Saviour died for him, as distinguished from others, or whether he has abeady experienced " peace in believing," but whether he believes in " God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary," &c. All this respecting the nature and degree of Faitli bears directly upon the subject of Infant Baptism ; and in this w'ay : If we believe that baptismal grace is a reward for some highly-wrought act of Faith, it is, of course, ridiculous to expect that infants should receive it. If, on the other hand, the baptismal blessing is rather an cct of pm'c grace upon God's part, given to those who at 'present realise little, in order that, by its working in them, they may, if they are faithful, afterwards realise much, then there is less, if any, incongruity in supposing that it is bestowed upon infants in their Baptism. Before entering upon the subject of Infant Baptism, I shall make t^o remarks, which will, I trust, clear the way to a right view of the whole matter. I. If we are guided by Scripture, we can scarcely con- template Baptism apart from the state into w^hich a man is admitted by it ; just as we can hardly think of a door or a gate apart from the building or inclosure of which it is the entrance. In the Scriptures, all the baptized are assumed to have entered, at their Baptism, into the Kingdom of God upon earth. They are supposed to have been then " baptized 92 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. into one body,'' the body of Christ, and so brought within." They are supposed, there and then, to have been made partakers of the grace, privilege, calling, brotherhood, relative sanctification, or whatever else it may be called, of the Christian covenant. If they sin, they are assumed to fall from grace ; if they do not, they are supposed to continue in it. No matter what the difficulty of reconciling all this with theories or facts, it is so. There is no other mode of addressing professing Christians in the inspired volume. Baptism, then, even in the case of those adult persons who show deficiency of Faith, is always assumed to be the beginning of a life, the entrance into an inclosure, the grafting into a body, the means of joining a brotherhood or fellowship. From the moment of his Baptism, a man is, by the Apostles, instructed or warned on a different principle to what he would have been had he con- tinued a heathen. The highest possible appeal is made to him to live holily, for he is appealed to as a member of Christ. Now we have no right to baptize infants, if there be such doubt respecting the connexion of their Baptism with Re- generation as makes it improper for us to address them, as they grow up, in the same way as, if we follow Scripture, we must address persons baptized as adults. All Scripture teaching assumes the certainty of the baptized having, at the time of Baptism, received a specific benefit. " Know ye not that so many of us as were bap- tized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death ?" — "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ ?" If Infant Baptism involves the after-instruction of the person baptized in any uncertainty on this point, then we have no right to baptize infants ; because, as we cannot re-baptize tliem, we deprive ourselves of the power BAPTISMAL 5SERVICES. 98 of addressing them as members of Chi-ist with the same certaiuty with whj' ih the Apostles addressed the baptized in theii' daj.^ This point should be thoroughly understood. Baptism is not spoken of in the Xew Testament as if it were an edifying ceremony, or a solemn dedication. Very peculiar terms are applied to the thing, whatever that thing be, u hich God confers in it. "Whatsoever benefit Baptism is the instrument for conferring upon adults, it must convey the same to infants, or it is a different thing. TI. I would remark, in the second place, that if con- scious Faith be essential to the reception of Eegeneration, either in, or apart from. Baptism, then we have no right to baptize children, much less to pronounce them regenerate when baptized. If we baptize children on Scripture grounds, we must do so, not that they may make a profession, or be dedicated to God, but that they may receive the gift which God has annexed to the right reception of the Sacrament. Now if conscious Faith be essential before they can receive this gift, then Baptism does not belong to them, because they cannot receive the gift which Baptism was designed to convey, so long as they cannot, by an act of their own minds, appropriate Christ's work to themselves. It is no vindication of oui' practice of baptizing infants, and pronouncing them regenerate therein, to say that we do this as sealing them, or signing them as fit to receive some blessing afterwards — say, if they are of the number of the elect, or after they have fulfilled certain conditions ; for * Those v^ho deny Baptismal Ecgeneratiou seem conscious of this, for they seklom, if ever, make use of such terms as " members of Christ:" never certainly in their exhortations to purity. They habitually Cijche^v the use of the highest term which St Prail employs to denote the unioa of Christians with their Saviour. 94 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. we baptize them, not that they may receive Eegeneration in after life, but that they may receive it there and then in their unconscious state ; and after baptizing them we pro- nounce that they have received the gift ; for Christians in Scripture are held to have been sealed in Baptism with the Spirit — not sealed to receive Him afterwards, but sealed with the Spirit at the time. I now proceed to consider Infant Baptism, with especial reference to the Regeneration of infants therein. We are told that there is no command in the New Testa- ment to baptize infants, and no instance recorded therein of the Baptism of any infant. We deny this, and say that we find both the one and the other. We find, first of all, the Redeemer giving the charge, Go ye and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." We say that, taking into account the whole religious education of the Apostles, the words " all nations " would be understood by them to comprehend persons of every age in those nations. In the next place, we say that there is a command to baptize infants in the first Christian sermon ever preached, where St. Peter says, " Repent, and be baptized, every one of you . . . for the remission of sins . . . for the promise is to you and to your children." We say, in the third place, that we have the record of the Baptism of three households (Acts xvi. 15, 33 ; 1 Cor. i. 16); and when a household is baptized, the immense probability is, that such a household would consist mainly of children, who would come under Baptism in right, not of their own personal Faith, but of that of the head of the household ; for if we suppose that these households con- BAPTISMAL SEKVICES. 95 sisted of adults, we have the difficulty of accounting for the fact that a number of responsible persons suddenly con- sented to join a despised and persecuted sect because the head of the family did so. Then, in the foui'th place, in two Epistles addi-essed to members of Christ as such, we find children exhorted as if they were as much members of Christ, and as much a part of His Church as their elders, which they could not possibly be, unless they had been baptized, and had by Baptism been grafted into Christ. In Eph. vi. 1, a message is sent to children that they are to "obey their parents in the Lord.' Now, all the precepts of holiness with which this Epistle abounds, are addressed to the Ephesian Christians on the specific ground that they are members of Christ's mystical body. In the latter part of the fifth chapter, for instance, husbands are to love their wives, and wives to reverence and obey their husbands, because Chi'ist is the Head of the Chui'ch, and the Saviour of the body. Immediately following upon this, there is the message to children, assuming that they are as certainly grafted into the Church as those whose faith, because of their more mature age, u ould necessarily have a more distinct intellectual apprehecsion of the truths of Christianity. Children, then, are addi'essed by the Apostle as if they were amongst baptized members of Christ's body. In another passage (Col. iii. 20), children are assumed to have been buried with Christ in Baptism, for, as I have shown above, if we compare Col. ii. 12 with iii. 1 — 4, we find that all the holy precepts addressed to Christians in the third chapter are addressed to them on the assumption that they had been buried with Christ in Baptism, and so grafted into His Church, and so they are addressed as *' called in one body " Teh. iii. 13). Now, if amongyt 96 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. precepts addressed specially to baptized members of Christ there is one addressed to children, it is thereby assumed that children are baptized members of Christ. We have, then, four plain New Testament warrants for baptizing Infants. Now, it lies uj)on those who oppose Infant Baptism, to show distinctly that our Lord did not contemplate the admission of Infants to discipleship in His words, " Go ye and disciple all nations, baptizing them ;" — that St. Peter did not contemplate the baptism of children when he preached to the Jews, " Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins . . . for the promise is to you and to your children — that there were no children in the whole households said to have been baptized ; — and that the children were yet unbaptized whom St. Paul addressed as integral parts of Churches, all the members of whom had been baptized into Christ, or the Apostle could not have addressed them as all members of Christ. Of course this cannot be shown. In order, then, fully to ascertain the certainty of what we hold on this point, we must fall back upon principles. Are there any principles laid down in the word of God which would lead us to believe in the Baptism of Infants, or which remove any supposed difficulties out of its way? We have at least two such principles. First we have the analogy between the two Adams, which bears with startling eflect in favour of Infant Baptism, 2:»rovided that; that Baptism be joined with Regeneration. God has so ordered the course of things in this world, that we all derive our being from one stock, and with our being we derive from our progenitor a principle of evil, BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 97 and so are by nature, " cliildreu of wrath." We inherit from Adam a depraved nature — we each one of us receive this evil nature in the womb. We receive this taint before we can exercise conscious Faith. We receive it passively — in a state of utter helplessness, not knowing what we receive. Such is our generation and our first birth. If God has provided a second bij'th or Eegeneration, to be a remedy, or even the commencement of a remedy, for the evils of our first birth, it would seem peculiarly fitting that we should receive the second bii'th and its attendant benefit in an unconscious and infantile state ; seeing that we have received our fii'st bii'th and its attendant evil in an uncon- scious or infantile state. Again, if the essence of this second birth be a grafting into Christ, and a putting on of Christ as the Second Adam (seeing tliat by our first bii'th we partake of the sin and condemnation of the first Adam) ; and if there be a rite specified by which we are to be made partakers of this second birth, it seems only natural and fitting that we should receive this rite and its remedial blessing under the same condition of infantile helplessness under which we received the curse and taiut transmitted to us from the first Adam. The Second Adam, the Lord fi'om heaven, Who has made a full atonement for all sin, cannot be supposed, in the communication of His good things, to come short of the fii-st Adam in the commimication of his evil things, which Christ, the Second Adam, would do if infants, as such, are debarred from being " born of water and of the Spirit" into Him, though as infants they have all been " born of the flesh " into the stock of the first Adam. The reader cannot but perceive that this argument is in favour of Infant Baptism, solely because it is in favoui of the doctrine of Eegeneration of infants in Baptism. H 98 CHURCH DOCTTIINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. In the next place, we have another princij)le in the theory and practice of the Old Dispensation. Two thousand years before the time of Christ, God entered into a covenant with Abraham and his seed, and decreed at the same time that each infant, on his eighth day, should enter into this covenant. It is, then, according to the will of the unchangeable God that He should enter into covenant with those who, because of their tender age, can neither understand nor fulfil the conditions of the covenant. In so far, then, as Baptism is the sign and seal of a covenant on God's part, there is the greatest antecedent probability that it ought to be administered to infants. There is also the greatest antecedent improbability that God should first introduce a dispensation intended to be preparatory, and should make provision that infants should be entitled to its benefits, so that they might be brought up as members of His Church ; and then, when* He intro- duced the perfect dispensation by the coming of His Only Begotten Son, should repeal this act of grace to infants, and leave them, as far as man can judge, to His uncove- nanted mercies, till in later life they voluntarily make choice of His service. It must, however, be distinctly remembered, that if Baptism be a real admission into the Christian Covenant, it must introduce the recipient to the characteristic blessing of that covenant, viz., Kegeneration, or grafting into Christ. If circumcision effected (which it unquestionably did) that infants should be children of God under the old dispensation, Baptism must do the same good ofQce for children under the new ; otherwise it is a mere empty substitute for circumcision; indeed, not even that, for circumcision was always the effectual door into tlic Jowisli BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 99 Church and its blessings. If Baptism does not now admit all infants into the one Church or body of Christ, it does not effect for the infants of Christians what circumcision did for the infants of Jews ; consequently, so far as in- fants are concerned, Christianity is a restraint upon former mercies, not an enlargement of them. If Infant Baptism be either unlawful, or, as a rule, un- attended with its inward grace, there would be no such covenant sign to assure us that our infants are grafted into Christ's Church, as there was to assure the Jews that their children were grafted into the Jewish Church. We have, it is true, no command to baj^tize our infants on a particular day, as the Jews had to circumcise their children on the eighth day. But what of this ? In this respect Infant Baptism, so far as the New Testament is concerned, is in a better position than the keeping of Sunday. There is no command throughout the New Testament to keep holy the seventh^ much less the first day of the week. Almost every notice of the Sabbath in the Gospels is adverse rather than otherwise to its adoption (except with great modifications) as a Christian institution. In all lists of sins (such as that in Galatians v.). Sabbath brealc- ing is omitted. St. Paul expressly says (Col. ii. 16)^ " Let no man judge you .... in respect of the New Moon, or of the Sabbath days." And yet we do keep holy the first day of the week as a Sabbath of rest, and respect it as God's day ; assuredly believing that by so doing we are preserving to all classes, and especially to the poor, a precious means of grace. We argue that if the labouring man among the Jews nad a Sabbath of spiritual refreshment and bodily rest, much more ought the labouring man among Christians. We cannot believe that the coming of Christ would do- 100 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. priye His people of sucli a privilege. And so as regards Infant Baptism, we say that if the Jewish child were entitled in his infancy to receive a rite by which he was adopted into God's family, much more will the child of the Christian be entitled to a similar but greater privilege. Then, in the third place, we have the manifest teaching of our Lord's words and significant acts respecting those who, through infantile imbecility, or lunacy, or possession, were unable consciously to come to Him. The case of such persons is very distinctly recognised and disposed of by our Lord. In three of the Evangelists it is recorded that young children were brought to Christ that He should *' touch them " or " lay hands on them," and " pray." The dis- ciples endeavoured to prevent this, at which our Lord was " much displeased," and said, " Suffer the little childi-en to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God." (Mark x. 13.) This incident is very decisive, both in favour of In- fant Baptism, and of our accounting infants regenerate therein. In the first place, these children were brought to Christ as children, in order that they might receive some bless- ing from Him through an outward rite — the " laying on of His hands," or His " touch." They were not brought to be instructed. They were rather brought to receive this blessing through the " touch " of Jesus, or through the laying on of His hands ; the significance of which they could no more understand than our children can understand the significance of Baptism. It is plain, also, that the blessing looked for was of a spiritual nature ; fOr if they had been afflicted with any disease the cure would have been recorded, and the dis- BAPTISMAL SEE VICES. 101 ciples, in such a case, would have encouraged, rather than have opposed, theii" being brought to Jesus. They must have been brought to receive an inwarJ spiritual grace through an outward visible sign, for the laying on of the Eedeemer's hands was not the blessing itself, but the outward means of its conveyance. The more this incident is considered the more decisively it w'll be found to meet all objections against cither Infant Baptism, or Infant Eegeneration in that Baptism. It shows us that God recognises (as we should expect that He would) the difference between the infantile and the adult state, and accords to the former what could not be accorded to the latter ; for our Lord could not have laid His hands in- discriminately upon so many adults as He did upon these infants. If the adults were capable of exercising Faith in His power, He must have requii-ed them to exhibit that Faith. An adult must have recognised in the laying on of His hands the outward token of invisible blessing, but Chi-ist expressly permitted these infants, as infants, to receive an outward rite as a token of grace from Him. He has taught us by this that conscious Faith is only required in the case of those v\-ho are able to exercise it. Just as by His natural law written in our hearts He has led us to confer benefits on those who can neither thank us nor realise what they receive from us, so by this incident He has assured us that, in His own kingdom of grace. He acts on the same principle. Again, a large proportion of the miracles of our Lord appear to be recorded expressly to teach us that Christ dispenses with Faith in cases where, from some j)hysical reason, it cannot be exercised. For instance, in the ac- count of the healing of the centurion's servant — the second miracle recorded by St. Matthew — we have our Lord giving life and health to one who comes under His notice 102 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. not in virtue of his own Faith, but of the Faith of his master. (Matt. viii. 5 — 13.) So also in the case of the " sick of the palsy," recorded in the next chapter, " Jesus seeing tJieir Faith " (that is, the Faith of the bearers), "said unto the sick of the palsy," &c. (Matt. ix. 2.) In this ninth chapter we have no less than three in- stances of Jesus healing, on the strength of the Faith of others, persons of whose individual Faith the narrative makes no mention. These cases are the "man sick of the palsy " (verse 2) ; the " daughter of the ruler " (verse 18) ; and the dumb man possessed with a devil " (verse 32). So also in chap. xii. 22, we have the account of one healed who could not have himself exercised Faith, being possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb. The touching narratives of the " woman of Canaan '* (Matt. XV. 21), and of " the man who brought his lunatic son " (xvii. 14), teach the same lesson ; and these, with those I have mentioned, form a very large proportion of the miracles recorded by St. Matthew. The fitness of infants, as compared with adults, to re- ceive spiritual blessings, and the favour with which God looks upon them, is again noticed by our Lord, when, to rebuke the ambition and self-seeking of the Apostles, He set a little child in the midst of them, and placed such an one above the Apostles, who had left all to follow Him (Matt, xviii. 3), and told them that, unless they were converted so as to be like little children, they could not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. If, then, the men who possessed such conscious Faith as that of the Apostles had yet to be conformed to the like- ness of little children, surely the little child can, on his own standing, as a redeemed human being, be regenei*ate and grafted into Christ's Church. BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 103 The argument, then, respecting Infant Baptism stands thus : We have a Sacrament ordained by Chi-ist Himself as the means whereby we are to enter into His Church, or mystical body, i.e., into the Eegenerate State. Christ calls this entrance a " new bii'th," that is, " a birth of water and of the Spirit," into His kingdom. The fact that by our generation, or birth, we receive, in a state of perfect unconsciousness, the germ of a sinful nature, would lead us to give this rite to infants, that the evil which they have unconsciously received by union witli the first Adam at their first bii'th, may be remedied by .grace received in a like unconscious state thi'ough union with the Second Adam at a Second Bii-th. The great principle of Infant Chm'ch Membership which pervaded the preparatory and less gracious dispen- sation, would lead us to suppose that Baptism, the en- trance into the one visible Chm-ch of Chi-ist, should be accorded to the children of Christians, just as circum- cision, the outward sign and seal of J ewish Church mem- bership, was accorded to the children of J ews. Our Lord, by the example of His own gracious dealings with children, has removed all objection on the score of want of conscious Faith or repentance. In accordance with all this, we have our Lord giving a commission to baptize, in terms which those who heard Him would naturally suppose included infants. We have St. Peter, in the fii-st Christian sermon ever preached, ex- pressly mentioning children among those to whom be- longed remission of sins; and this after he had just mentioned Baptism as the means thi-ough which remission was to reach men. We have the record of the Baptism oi at least three whole households; and we have children addressed by St. Paul as members of the C-hiu'ch, in tYfO 104 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Epistles written expressly to baptized members of Christ's mystical body. Infant Baptism, then, is Scriptural, because Infant Eegeneration, or grafting into Christ's body, is unques- tionably in accordance with the intention of the Saviour, and the mind of the Spirit. Baptism especially belongs to infants, because the blessings which it was ordained to convey belong to them. The especial fitness of infants, as such, to receive Ee- generation, or Incorporation into Christ's Church, is ex- pressly laid down in the article of the Church of England on Ba23tism, in which it is declared that " The Baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ " (ut qui cum Christi institutione optime congruat). Any Chm-ch, then, which professes to be guided by Scripture, must connect Eegeneration with the Baptism of Infants, and must pronounce infants there and then grafted into Christ, as distinctly as that Church pro- nounces this of adults who come with a credible profes- sion of Faith. Such accordance with Scripture principles and prece- dents we have in the Prayer-book. We have there a Baptismal Service for Infants, in which the same asser- tions are made respecting the effect of Baptism on infants as are made respecting its effect on adults. After its Baptism, each infant is pronounced " regenerate and grafted into the body of Chi-ist's Church." Another point of agreement between the word of God and our formularies now demands attention. The Church baptizes infants, because she holds that Infant Baptism best agrees with the intention of Christ in the institution of Holy Baptism. The Chui'ch of BAFriS:iIAL SERVICES. 105 England, also, as a true mother, takes every precaution to insui'O that, after Baptism, cliildren may be brought up in the Faith of Chi-ist. To this end, she has retained the primitive institution of sponsors. She has, by so doing, endeavoui'ed to interest five persons, rather than l\YO only, in the spiritual welfare of the child. She has also, by this, borne witness to the fact that children are presented at the font rather in the Faith of the Church than on the ground of the parents' Faith ; a door being thus opened for the children of heathens and imbelievers, provided that seciu-ity can be obtained for their Christian education. On these accounts, it has been said that the Eegenera- tion of the child depends on the Faith or sincerity of the sponsors. It has also been said that, as we must judge of the truth and sincerity with which the sponsors have returned answers to the solemn questions put to them, not absolutely, but charitably, so we can only put the same charitable construction on the assertion of the Eegenera- tion of the child. But we are, surely, not at liberty to make the benefit of a Scripture ordinance dependent on a condition not hinted at in Scripture — namely, the sincerity of sponsors ; sponsors themselves not being mentioned in Scripture. Now, we have the strongest possible practical protest against the notion that the Eegeneration of the child de- pends upon the sincerity of the sponsors, in the fact that we have a third Baptismal Service — that for the " Private Baptism of Children in Houses " — in which the child is baptized without sponsors ; and, immediately after he is baptized, thanks are offered up to God, that " it hath pleased Him to regenerate the infant with His Holy Spirit, to receive him for His own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into His Holy Church." 106 (HURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. In the supi)lemental part of this Service there is a rubric explaining its intention, which is that " it is ex- pedient that [the child] be brought into the church" (i.e., the place where the congregation are assembled), " to the intent that if the Minister of the same parish did himself baptize that child, the congregation may be certified of the true form of Baptism by him privately before used." All through this Service, the reception of Regeneration on the child's part is assumed to have taken place when the form of Baptism was administered in the house. The Minister is directed to say to the congrega- tion, " Doubt ye not, therefore, but earnestly believe, that He hath (not, will) likewise favourably received this pre- sent infant, that He hath embraced him (not, will embrace him, as in the other Services) in the arms of His mercy, and, as He has promised in His Holy "Word, will give unto him " {i.e., if he continues in God's service) " the blessing of eternal life." And in the prayer after the Lord's prayer, a petition is put up that the child may abide in Christ : " Give Thy Holy Spirit to this infant, that he, being [now] born again, and being made an heir of everlasting salvation, may continue Thy servant." This is as clear an indication as possible that oui' Services do not predicate final perseverance of all those who are once regenerate, and admitted into Christ's Holy Church. SECTION V. CEKTAIN DIFFICULTIES CONSIDERED. £ have now, I trust, fully and clearly set forth the doc- trine of Holy Baptism as contained in Scripture, and the agreement of our Services with that doctrine. BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 107 The limits which I have prescribed to myself forbid my noticing a number of objections which the reader may find in the publications of the day. For specific answers to all of these which are worthy of any notice, I must refer him to two of my treatises, "The Sacrament of Ecsponsibility," and " The Second Adam and the New Bii'th." In the fii'st of these he will find the Church doctrine proved from Scripture, and the usual common- place objections fully met and answered. In the second of these publications, I have examined the whole word of God, with reference to its bearing on the state of grace in which the people of God, whether J ews or Christians, are supposed to be. I have gone thi-ough each of the Apostolic Epistles seriatim, with reference to the fact that all the Christians to whom they are addressed (no matter what their religious characters) are assumed either to be in grace, or to have fallen from it. I have also drawn out fully the analogy between the two Adams, and its bearing on the transmis- sion to us of their respective natures ; and have devoted a considerable part of the volume to the relations between the doctrine of Predestination and that of Baptismal Grace. I am not so presumptuous as to suppose that I have made every difficulty clear, and obviated every ob- jection; but one thing I am sure I have done — I have shown that whatsoever difficulties attach to this matter are Bible difficulties, not Prayer-book difficulties. The Prayer-book statements upon this matter are a mere echo of Bible statements. The difficulties attaching to the reception of certain Prayer-book statements, and their reconciliation with certain other statements in the same book and with facts in daily life, attach equally to certain Bible state- ments respecting Baptism and the state of the baptized, 108 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. and their reconciliation witli certain other Bible statements and with facts in daily life. Take two instances. St. John, in his First General Epistle, lays down the ideal of the regenerate state as perfect freedom from sin — " Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin." Now, taking this as it stands, it is not merely at variance with certain parts of our Service, but, first of all, with the fact that no sect or party has ever asserted, and no sane man has ever believed, that a man, from the time of his con- version, is absolutely free from sin ; and, in the second place, St. John here is apparently at issue with his brother Apostle, St. Paul ; for the highest state of grace which St. Paul recognises is that of a " member of Christ :" and we have seen how St. Paul considers the sin of some among his converts the more sinful because they had once been made members of Christ. The Church of England, in the matter of Baptism and Baptismal Grace, adheres to the language of St. Paul, and, I may say also, to that of St. Peter and St. James; for all these three Apostles contemplate the possibility of the regenerate man sinning. (See above pages 68—70.) ]f she did not, she would commit the absurdity of making one or two difficult statements of one short Epistle to supersede the plain teaching of all the rest of the New Testament. 1 have gone fully into the interpretation of the expres- sions in St. John's General Ej)istle, in the 14th chapter of my " Second Adam and New Birth," and I have there shown that St. Augustine's interpretation is the true one, being the only one by which they can be reconciled with the statements of the other Apostles, and with those of St. John himself. I only mention them now to show BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 109 tliat the use wliich some have made of these expressions does not affect the statements of the Prayer-book, but those of the Bible.* St. Augustine's words are, " He that is born of God sinneth not ; for were this nativity by itself alone in us, no man would sin ; and, when it shall be alone, no man will sin. But now we, as yet, drag on that corrupt nature in which we were born ; although, according to that into which we are new-born, if we walk aright from day to day, we are renewed inwardly." (Contra Mendacium.) In these words St. Augustine recognises that there are two births, or rather two " men," in the Christian. To the one — the old — sin is natural : to the other — the new — sin is impossible. So far as we abide in the new we sin not. If we could perfectly abide in Him, we should never sin. Whensoever we sin, we fall from Him. Sin and the new nature are so opposite the one to the other that they cannot co-exist. If a man is in sin " he is " out of Christ " till restored. So far as he is in Christ, he is out of sin. It is not to be supposed for a moment that St. John's view of the regenerate state as a seed which, if it abides, casts out all sin, is less important than St. Paul's view of the same state as inherence in the mystical body of Christ. I do not enter upon its consideration here, because our Baptismal ofiSces have to do with the commencement, rather than with the perfection, or continuance, of the Christian state, or new life. It must be remembered that a sinful man, though baptized, is not regenerate, if, that is, you look at his present state. But why ? Because that which he once had does not remain in him, or he does not abide in that into which he has once been engrafted. Q John ii. 28.) Be it remembered that men who hold the doctrine of Baptismal Hegeneration most strongly, speak of the true Christian only as the regenerate man. But the question between the man who holds Church doctrine and his opponent really is, " To wLat are we to attribute the fact that a man, duly baptized, does not ;so often) lead a regenerate life ? The Calvinist attributes it to the fact that God has withheld His grace from the man. The Churchman, on the contrary, will assign any reason rather than this. NVith respect to every such case presented to his notice, the 110 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Take a second instance. There are certain statements in the 17th Ai'ticle assert- ing Predestination, Election, and the Final Perseverance of those who, by a decree "secret to us," have been designed by God to receive everlasting life. There are also certain statements which the Church directs to be made respecting each person who has been admitted into her fellowship, that he is ''grafted into the body of Christ's Church," i.e., regenerate, and certainly, for the time being, in the favour of God. These two statements, which are assumed to be contra- dictory, are the counterpart of certain statements in the New Testament. There are statements in the Scriptures which imply an election to eternal life. There are other statements, far more numerous, which assert that all in the visible Church Churc-hman would rather assume that the man has " fallen from grace " (Gal. v. 4), or has through his own fault not retained a seed, or not continued in the goodness of God (Kom. xi. 22 ; 1 John ii. 27, iii. 15), and he has the most solid Scripture grounds for such an assumption, as we have shown in pages 72—75. Let it be also remembered that it is most needful that we should Bet forth at a time like the present, when fanatical views of sonver- eion are so rife, the marks of Eegeneration as laid down by St. John ; for the marks of the New Birth given us by this Apostle in no way correspond with the popular view of conversion." The term " conversion " is now restricted to a change of views and feelings respecting the work of Christ : whereas the New Birth, as described by St. John, is absolute freedom from sin, and the love of our brethren. We cannot imagine a greater contrast than that between St. John's view of spiritual illumination and that which is current amongst us now ; for St. John says, " He that loveth his brother abideth in the liglit. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes," (1 John ii. 10, 11.) BAPTISMAL SERVICES. Ill are, or have been, in tlie actiial grace of God, and which imply that there is no degree of gi'ace from which man cannot fall away.* The difficulty is not in reconciling the statements in the Prayer-book respecting Election with those respecting Grace bestowed upon all the baptized, but in reconciling with one another the con-e- sponding statements in the Scriptures upon both these topics. The difficulty lies wholly in the Scriptures. The statements in the Prayer-book, either on the one side or on ihe other, are the mere echo of the statements of Holy Scripture. SECTION VL THE HYPOTHETICAL VIEW. Before concluding this subject, I must consider briefly a construction put upon these Services by a large number of clergymen. I mean the hypothetical interpretation : sometimes designated as the view of hope and charity." On this principle we are supposed to pronounce the child regenerate, not absolutely, but hypothetically, i.e., if certain conditions are fulfilled, of which fulfilment we are ignorant; as, for instance, if he belong to God's Secret Election, or if his parents, or god-parents, are true Chi-istians, or have exercised faith. We are supposed to assume charitably that these conditions have been fulfilled, and, not knowing anything to the contrary, we give the ' The reader will find these two sets of passages placed side by side in parallel columns in the " Second Adam and New Birth,* page 24 G. 112 CHUnCH DOCTRINE,— BIBLE TRUTH. child tlie benefit of the doubt, and pronounce him re- generate. Of late a very high place in the exposition of Scripture has been demanded for this " hypothetical view." It has been said to pervade the whole word of God. By it we are called upon to qualify all God's addresses to His people. In particular the mode of address adopted by the Jewish prophets in addressing all the Children of Israel as " childi-en of God," and a " holy people," and the same language taken up by the Apostles in addressing all their converts as " members of Christ," and " children of God," is asserted to be capable of rational (!) explana- tion only on this hypothetical principle. The Israelites are on this view assumed to be " children of God," because some of them were so. The Corinthian Christians are assumed to be "members of Christ," because some among them had been so made, and the glory of the few is supposed to be transferred to the many. The terms of grace applied by the Apostles to the whole Chui'ch are not to be got rid of on this principle. It creates far more difficulties than it solves ; indeed, I do not know that it solves one difficulty, whilst it creates the enormous one of obliging us to maintain that the language of the inspired writers in addressing the Church is deceptive, and has to be qualified before it can be received. Assuming, however, for argument's sake, the truth of this theory, let it be carefully remembered that the Bible and the Prayer-book are in precisely the same position with reference to it. If the hypothetical princii^le is required to reconcile certain statements in the Prayer- book with certain facts or theories, it is equally requii'cd to reconcile corresponding statements in the Bible with the same facts or tbcories. BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 113 Assuming, then, for a moment, the truth or feasibleness of this theory, a very little consideration will serve to show, that practically it makes no difference (so far as regards our treatment of the baptized as regenerate) if we adopt it; provided only we carry it out honestly and con- sistently : for the Bible and the Prayer-book alike pro- nounce all the baptized to have been " grafted into Christ's Chm'ch :" and when the baptized man falls after- wards into sin, the inspired writers most distinctly, and the Prayer-book by imj)lication, treat him as having fallen from grace, or as having sinned against grace. Now this assumption is never lost sight of or dropped, either in the Bible or in the Prayer-book ; — never, I mean, di'opped so that the baptized man should be addressed as a heathen, and bid to become, as for the fii'st time, " a member of Christ." So that, on Church principles, we are required to believe that a child is really made a member of Christ in Baptism; and ever afterwards he is to be addressed as having been received into Christ's Church : and, on the hypothetical j)rinciple, we are required to assume that the child has been made a member of Chiist; and if we adhere to the precedents fm-nished to us by both BibU and Prayer-book, this assumption is never to be cast aside ; for when the person baptized afterwards falls into sin, we are still to assume that he has fallen from grace — in fact, to adhere to oiu* original hypothesis respecting him. No difficulty is removed by this theory. On Chui'ch principles, you have the difficulty of believ- ing that God has, in such a simple rite as Baptism, made the person a " member of Chi'ist." On the hypothetical theory, you have the difficulty of accounting for the fact that God requii-es you to assume that He has regenerated I 114 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. the person baptized, when in all probability (according to your view of Eegeneration) He has not ; and the further fact, that if the man, after baptism, falls into sin, you are to adhere to the assumption. But this theory has not been honestly and consistently carried out. It has been applied to explain certain state- ments in the Baptismal Services, and then abandoned. The child has been pronounced regenerate at the time of Baptism ; but if, afterwards, he turns out unspiritual or sinful, then he is at once assumed not to have received grace in Baptism. His after-course of sin is taken to prove that God has withheld grace, not that he has fallen from it. This is not Scriptural. If we affect to derive our hypothetical theory from Scripture, and explain the Scripture statements respecting the members of the visible Church hypothetically, then we must address the baptized if we see them sin after Baptism, as sinning against grace, for this is what the Apostolic writers do. With the decrees of God respecting individual souls we have nothing to do, so far as this matter is concerned. They are, as our Ai'ticle declares, " secret to us but we have to follow that '* will of God which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God :" and this expressly- declared will, in a thousand places of Scripture, is, that He has one Church — that all the members of this Church partake of the grace of His Covenant, and that, if they sin, they are to be treated as those who have fallen from grace, not as those who have never received it. BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 115 SECTION VII. PEAYER-BOOK AND ARTICLES. It will bo necessary to advert very briefly to another point before I conclude this part of the subject. If I have cited Scripture faithfully in the preceding pages, then we unquestionably derive from Scripture the doctrine that a certain grace is annexed to Baptism, and that all the baptized are assumed to have received this grace therein ; in other words, we derive from Scripture the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. Doubts, however, have been expressed, by many clergy- men, as to whether the Church of England really teaches this doctrine. Notwithstanding the fact that the Church requires her ministers to assert over each baptized person that he is regenerate, it is said that the Articles express the doctrine more feebly than the Prayer-book does — that the Articles of the Church are her true standard — and that, therefore, her doctrine on this subject is uncertain. I believe that the history of the Baptismal Service and Articles shovrs, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that there can be no discrepancy between the Articles and the Liturgy on this point. It is very commonly asserted, that the Baptismal Service represents the Roman Catholic doctrine previously held, which is supposed to be that Regeneration is con- veyed absolutely; and that the Articles represent the Protestant doctrine, which is assumed to make the con- nexion between Baptism and Regeneration more un- certain, if indeed there be any connexion at all. Now, ther3 might be some colour for this assertion, if our 116 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Baptismal Services were derived from, or translations of, the old unreformed Services ; wliich Services (it is assumed) were full of assertions of Baptismal Eegene- ration. But what is the fact? Why, that our Baptismal Service (I mean, of course, that of 1552) is the most purely Protestant, so far as its origin is concerned, of all our Services. It contains far less matter derived from the old Service books than any other part of the Prayer-book. It is altogether a new Service derived from purely Protestant sources; only one of its numerous prayers (that beginning "Almighty and Immortal God") being found in the old Baptismal offices. Now, if our Eeformers did not believe in the doctrine of Baptismal Eegeneration, they had the fullest oppor- tunity for expressing that unbelief by omitting out of the New Services all assertions respecting the Eegeneration of the person baptized. But they do the very opposite of this. They compose an almost entirely new Service, into which Service they insert a categorical assertion of the Eegeneration of the person baptized — there being no such assertion in the old Eomish Service. In the old Service the only recognition of any benefit which the child has actually received is an indirect assertion in a prayer which the priest was directed to say v/hen he anointed the infant. " Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus, who hath rcgene- rntccl thee of water and the Holy Ghost, and hath given unto thee remission of all thy sins : He vouchsafe to anoint thee with the Unction of His Holy Spirit, and bring thee to the inheritance of everlasting life." This prayer, which had been retained in the Service of BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 117 1549, was omitted in that of 1552, and in its place waa substituted the present direct assertion that the infant is *' regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ's Church," and the thanksgiving, in which we render to God thanks that " it hath pleased Him to regenerate this infant with His Holy Spirit, to receive him for His o-^ti child by adoption, and to incorporate him into His Holy Church." And we proceed to predicate of the child baptized that he is "dead to sin" and "buried with Christ in His death." ' Now, if our Eeformers did not hold so high a view of the benefits of Baptism as was held by the Church before the Eeformation, how can we possibly account for the fact that they should require us to give thanks for benefits (in word at least) so much greater and more numerous than those recognised in the old Services ? And if they were ' Judged by their respective Services, Baptism has a far higher position in the English than in the Eomish Church, for the wIioIg Df tlie EngUsh Baptismal office has to do with Baptism itself, its institution by Christ, the grace and promises connected with it, and its teaching ; whereas in the Eomish office the administration of the Sacrament itself is thrust into a corner, and four-fifths of the Service have to do with other ceremonies as outward signs of some inward spiritual graces conferred by them, such as the priest breathing on the infant — the priest placing his hands on its head — the exorcising and benediction of the salt — the making the infant taste this salt — three separate exorcisms of the infant itself before its Baptism— the application of saliva before Baptism, an anointing with oil before Baptism, and another anointing with oil after Baptism : so that ii the copy of the Rituale Eomanum which I have now before me, out of ten pages occupied by the Baptismal Service, not two have to do with the Sacrament itself. All these adventitious ceremonies (especially as some of them, e.gr., the exorcisms, are supposed to be means of grace in themselves) must detract from the witness of the Church to the grace of Baj^tisra itaclf as a Sacrament of Christ's institution. 118 CHUECH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. more doubtful as to tlie connexion of these benefits with the rite of Baptism, why should they have gratuitously inserted into their new Service such a downright assertion that the child is regenerate, there being no such assertion in the unreformed Service ? But the Articles are supposed to modify this. How is this possible, if the Articles came from the same hands, and were published at the same time ? Our present Bap- tismal Service first saw the light in 1552. The Articles were agreed upon in the same year, though not published till May, 1553. It would have been most imaccountable for men to have published a new Baptismal Service connecting, by the strongest categorical assertion, the inward grace with the outward sign, and there and then prepared Articles to nullify their own work. It is impossible to suppose that men who knew their own minds would thus wantonly pull down with one hand what they built up with another. Let us now examine the doctrine of the original Articles. We shall find that it exactly accords with the doctrine of the Service published at the same time. Of course I quote, in this investigation, the Articles of 1553, which, on this matter, say precisely the same thing as our present Thirty-nine Articles. The Article on Sacraments contains the following : — Sacraments ordained by the Word of God be not only badges and tokens of Christian men's profession ; but rather they be certain Bure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's good will towards us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us ; and doth not only quijken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in Him." ' Here wc are taught that the Sacraments are sure wit- BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 119 nesscs, and effectual signs of grace. In tlic Baptismal Service we practically acknowledge that the Sacrament which has just been administered has been a " sure icit- ness " of God's good will to that particular child, and an effectual sign " by which God has invisibly worked Ee- gcneration in him ; for when the child has been baptized the minister is directed to assert that he is " regenerate, and grafted into the body of Chi-ist's Congregation," and thanks are returned to God that "it hath pleased Him to regenerate this infant with His Holy Spirit, to receive him for His own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into His Holy Congregation." (Service of 1552.) And all this accords with what the congregation had been called upon to believe would take place when they were addi-essed in the words, " Doubt ye not, therefore, but earnestly believe, that He will likewise favourably receive this present infant, that He will embrace Him with the arms of His mercy," &c. If our Reformers held such a meaning of the term Regeneration as must practically dissever it fi'om Bap- tism, or if they held the connection of Baptism with Regeneration under a multitude of restrictions and rc' servations, how could they have possibly framed an Ai'ticle which defined a Sacrament to be a sure witness of God's good will, and effectual sign of grace ; knowing all the time that the connection of the inward grace with the outward sign was anything but certain; and how could they at the same time bring out a Service in which the apparent doctrine of the Article is practically re- cognised by our thanking God for the Regeneration of every child baptized? But in addition to this Ai'ticle on the Sacraments, there is an Article on Baptism itself, which is little more than a repetition, with special application to Baptism, of the matter 120 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. contained in the Article on the Sacraments. Baptism ia there called a " Sign or Seal of our New Birth ; whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church ; the promises of forgiveness of sins, and our adoption to be the sons of God, are visibly signed and sealed : faith is confirmed : and grace increased, by virtue of prayer unto God. The custom of the Church to christen young children is to be commended, and in any wise to be retained in the Church." Comparing this Article with the previous one on the Sacraments, we must evidently understand the term sign here as meaning an effectual sign of grace ; and in the case of Baptism, of course this grace is Eegeneration. If, then, Baptism is a sure witness and effectual sign of the grace which God instituted it to convey, then God works the grace invisibly in us when we receive the sign.^ ' There are no doctrinal discrepancies between the Thirty-nine Articles and Baptismal Services greater than the discrepancies between certain statements in the Articles themselves. If we understand the seventeenth Article in the Calvinistic sense, there is an irreconcilable ditference between its language and that of the twenty-fifth Article ; for in the latter Article Sacraments are said to be certain " sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace and God's good will towards us." Now on the Calvinistic hypothesis we are obliged to hold that a very few out of all those who are baptized as infants receive the inward grace along with the outward sign, inasmuch as in after life they sliow evident signs of not persevering in the Divine life. So that this Sacrament is anything but a "siire witness and effectual sign of grace " to infants, i.e., to those whose Baptism our present twenty-seventh Article declares to be most agreeable loiih tlie Institu- tion of Christ. With still less truth can the Sacraments be called " effectual signs of God's good will," wlien, on the Calvinistic theory, God is sup- posed to have elected to eternal life only a small number out of the visible Church. Sacraments are, on the Calvinistic theory, only a sign of God's good will to the elect, and the election of these persons, BAPTISMAL SERVICES. 121 In accordance with tliis Article, we assei't in the Service that the infant when baptized has actually received the inward grace of which the outward sign is the sign. A sign of Regeneration is a sign that the man who has received the sign is Eegenerate, just as a sign of wealth is a sign that the person in question possesses wealth. But. in addition to this, Baptism is called a " seal " of om* New Birth. Now, a seal is appended to a deed of gift, or to any other grant, when the donor, who has promised it, actually makes the thing promised over to to whom God accords this " good wiU," is, in the language of the seventeenth Article, secret to us." So that in accordance with one Article (the twenty-seventh) we baptize all infants : in accordance with another (the twenty-fifth) we assert that this Baptism is a " sure witness and effectual sign of grace and God's good will " towards them ; and (if we hold the strict Calvinistic meaning of a third Article — the seventeenth) wc do this with the mental reservation that we cannot possihly tell whether Baptism is a sign of God's good will " in any case, as such " good will " depends on a decree secret to us." Add to this the fact that to all appearance very few of the multitudes wlio are baptized (i.e., who have received a sure witness and effectual sign of grace and God's good will) manifest their secret election by " walking religiously in good works," and the discrepancy seems complete and ii-reconcilable. In point of fact, upon the strict predestinarian hypothesis, we are not called upon so much to modify the language of the Prayer-book by the Articles, as the language of the rest of the Articles by that of one of their number — the seventeenth. And we are called upon to do this in spite of a very strong cautioi? inserted at the end of this same Article (the seventeenth) that its predestinarian statements are not to modify our reception of the " promises of God as generally set forth in Holy Scripture." Now the promises of Holy Scripture are generally set forth as belonging to all the visible Church, nay, to all who hear the sound of the Gospel, and the wljole idea of Calvinistic predestination is to confine to a few what is addressed to all. 122 CHURCH DOCTRINE,— BIBLE TRUTH. the receiver, and thereby assures the possession of it to him. In accordance, then, with this Article we acknowledge in the Service that the Baptism of the particular child baptized is a seal of his New Birth, whereby, as by an instrument (or deed), he having, as far as we can possibly tell, received Baptism rightly, is grafted into the Church. We acknowledge that the "promises of forgiveness of sins, and his adoption to be the son of God, are visibly signed and sealed " to him, for we thank God that He has made the child " His own child by adoption." And we proceed to say, that the child being " buried with Christ in His death may crucify the old man, and utterly aholish the loliole body of sin," thereby acknow- ledging that " grace is increased by virtue of prayer to God." HOLY COMMUNION. 123 CHAPTEB IV. HOLT COMMUNION. SECTION I. THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. And as they were eaiing, Jesus toolc bread, and blessed it, and hraJce it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat ; this is My body. And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood of the New Testa- ment, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt xxvi. 26-28.) " And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed if, and brake it, and gave it to them, and said, Take, eat ; this is My body. And He took the cup, and ichen He had given thanks, He gave it to them , and they all drank of it. And He said unto them. This is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many " ("Mark xiv. 22—24.) " And He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unta them, saying. This is My body which is given for you : this do in remembrance of Me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying.^ TJiis cup is the New Testament in My blood, which is shed for you.'^ (Luke xxii. 19, 20.) " For I have received of the Lord that which also J. delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed took bread : and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said Take, eat ; this is My body, which is broken for you : this do in remembrance of Me. After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying. This cup is the New Testament in My blood: this do ije, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me. For 12-lr CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. as often as ye eat this bread, and drinh this cup, ye do shew the Lord^s death till He come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drinh this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so Jet him eat of that bread, and drinh of that cup. For he that eateth and drinheth unworthily, eateth and drinheth damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.'* (1 Cor. xi. 23 — 29.) " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread wliich we breah, is it not the com- munion of the body of Christ ? For we being many are one bread and one body : for we are allpartahers of that one bread." (1 Cor. x. 16, 17.) Then they that gladly received His Word were baptized : and the tame day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued siedfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship^ and in breahing of bread, and in prayers." CActs ii. 41, 42.^ " And upon the first day of the weeh, when the disciples came together to breah bread, Paul preached unto them.*' (Acts xx. 7.) " I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever ; and the bread that I icill give is My flesh, idhich I will give for the life of the world. The Jeics, therefore, strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat ? Tlien Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily^ 1 say unto you. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drinh His blood, ye have no life in you. WIioso eateth My flesh, and drinheth My blood, hath eternal life ; and I loill raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drinh indeed. He that eateth My flesh, and drinheth My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him." (John vi. 51 — 5G.) I NOW come to the subject of Holy Commuiiion. We have to see what truths respecting this Sacrament we gather from Holy Scripture, and how far these truths are embodied in our Service. There are four or five passages of Scripture besides HOLY COMMUNION. 125 those whicli I have placed at the bead of this chapter/ in which they who recognise the rightful position of Holy Communion in the Christian system will discern allusions to it ; but they cannot be safely appealed to in support of any doctrine which cannot be collected out of the passages which I have given in full. Doubts have also been expressed as to whether our Blessed Lord refers to Holy Communion in His words recorded in John vi. I shall presently show that the whole structure of His discoui'se demands such an allusion. If the above-cited passages comprise all the Scripture places in which the Holy Spii'it has taught us any truths respecting this Sacrament, then any doctrinal or devo- tional formula, if it is to be accounted Scriptural, must be founded upon, and be in strict accordance with, these places. Before, however, we proceed to examine them, it will be needful to call attention to the Person of the Divine Being who instituted the Eucharist. Before men practically divest this Sacrament of all mystery, let them, as they value their souls, ponder tho unspeakable mystery which belongs to the Person of Him Who ordained it, and the awful greatness of the occasion on which He ordained it. For He who then blessed and brake bread was " He whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." If a mere man institutes a memorial of himself in certain terms, we must measure what he says by a merely human standard ; but if the Son of the Most High, the Eternal Word, is made flesh, in order that He may redeem us by ' (1 Cor. V. 7, 8 ; xiv. 16 : Ueb. x. 19—22 : Luke xxiv. 30 Acts xxyii. 35.) 126 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. His Death, and give His Flesh and Blood to he our meat and drink ; and if, just before His Death, He ordains a rite in certain very wonderful words, then it is another matter altogether. He Who ordained the Eucharist was infinitely mys- terious in regard of His Person, for He had two whole and perfect natures, the Godhead and manhood, in ont Person. The fulness of the Godhead dwelt in His very Body (Col. ii. 9). and yet it was in all respects the body of a sinless man. When men saw Him, they saw the EternaJ Word (1 John i. 1 — 3). When men heard Him speak, they heard God speaking to them. When one, a few days after this last Supper, handled His flesh, and exclaimed, in adoring wonder, " My Lord and my God," he was not blamed. Now, this unspeakable mystery attaching to the Person of the Eedeemer must lead the thoughtful mind to expect very deep things indeed in such words and acts as those in which He instituted the Eucharist, and should make us fear exceedingly, lest in stripping them of all mystery we make them void. An impugner of Eucharistic doctrine in the last century complacently asserts that "no other meaning or inter- pretation is to be put upon these words [i.e., the words in which Christ ordained Holy Communion] but what is agreeable to the common rules of speaking on the like occasions." fn answer to this, he was asked, — "Pray, sir, where must a man look for a like case? Does the world afford us any case like this ? Have the Speaker, or the thing gpoken, anything in common life like to either of them ? How vain is it therefore to refer us to the common rules of speaking in the like cases wheu the whole world affords us neither any person like HOLT COMMUNION. 127 Him that spoke, uor any thing or case like the thing or ease here spoken of." ^ So that the infinite mystery of the Person of Him Who ordained the Eucharist, is to be borne in mind at every step of our inquiry into its nature and intent. Ever remembering this, let us first consider the fom* accounts preserved to us in Scripture of the Institution of the Eucharist. (Matt. xxvi. 26—30 ; Mark xiv. 22—25 ; Luke xxii. 19, 20 ; 1 Cor. xi. 23—34.) Let the reader first notice that in all these accounts the words of the Lord respecting the bread are the same^ St. Matthew records that He said, " Take, eat ; this is My body." St. Mark that He said, " Take, eat ; this is My body." St. Luke omits the words, " Take, eat ;" but tells us that He said, " Tliis is My body," and that He added, " which is given for you ;" thereby seeming more emphatically to identify that which He " brake " and " gave " with His Body, \vhich was about to be crucified. St. Luke also records, what St. Matthew and St. Mark had omitted, that our Lord added, " Do this in remem- brance of Me." According to St. Paul, our Lord said, " Take, eat ; this is My body, which is broken for you : this do in remembrance of Me." ^ Let the reader note here that it pleased oui* Lord to give to St. Paul a separate and direct revelation of the Institution of the Eucharist : for the account as contained in 1 Cor. xi. is prefaced by the words, " I received of tho ^ William Law, in " A Demonstration of the Gross and Fimda- montal Errors of a late book called ' A Plain Account cf the Natiiif and End of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper/ " 2 But the best editions omit " Take, eat," and also " broken," and read, " This is my body which is for you." 128 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Lord that wliicli also I delivered unto you." St. Paul must liave had many revelations respecting our Lord's life and teaching; -and yet the one only circumstantial account which he gives of any act of Christ is this account of the Institution of the Holy Communion. Such a fact cannot but impress upon believers the exceeding importance of the matter so revealed. If, then, we are to be guided by the Scripture accounts, the first object of the Saviour in ordaining this Sacra- ment was to give to men that which He called His Body, and which He called by no other name ; for all unite in testifying that He said, " This is My body," and two of the witnesses, St. Matthew and St. Mark, make no men- tion of any other words which He spake respecting the bread. But in addition to this, all accounts testify that our Lord gave a cup of wine as well, and called it His Blood. According to St. Matthew, our Lord " took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it ; for this is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins ;" or, as St. Mark more briefly renders His words, "This is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many." According to St. Luke, He more directly connected the cup with the New Covenant, which He was then inaugu- rating : " This cup is the New Testament [or Covenant] in My blood, which is shed for many." According to St. Paul's account. He said over the cup the same words which St. Luke records, adding afterwards, " This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me." According, then, to the accounts of the first two Evan- gelists, our Lord intended in Holy Communion to give men that which He called His " Blood shed for them." HOLY COSIMUNIOK. 129 According to St. Luke and St. Paul, He intended in Holy Communion to make them partakers of tlie New Covenant in His Blood. That is, by partaking of that which He designated as His Blood, they partook of the New Covenant i3ui'chased and sealed by His Blood. In the whole transaction, we have before us Jesiis Christ as a Divine Giver. First blessing, breaking, giving, and saying, " Take, eat then, taking the cup, and saying, " Drink ye all.^' The first impression which we have is that of an ordinance in which Christ gives and we receive something • — not an ordinance in which we do something. So our first impression of Holy Communion must be that it is a means of grace, not a icorJc. It is a means in the right use of which we look to receive from Christ ; and all that we receive at the hands of Christ we receive of grace. The first idea of the Lord's Supper, then, is in accord- ance with the spirit of that dispensation in which we are now living, which is a dispensation of grace; Christ giving to us that whereby we are to glorify Him. In the right use of this ordinance, our Blessed Redeemer must have intended to make us partakers of some amazing benefit. Everything concm-s to assure us of this. The Infinite Greatness of Him who thus offered to men His Body and His Blood. The unspeakable greatness of the occasion, for it was on the eve of the world's Redemption. The spii'it of the whole dispensation, which the Son of God was then setting up — a dispensation in which God gives *' unspeaTcahle gifts." The extraordinary nature of the terms He applied to what He gave : " This is My body," " This is My blood taken in connexion with the still more extraordi.nary terms in which He had some time before spoken of His Flesh, that it should be the " life of the world." K 130 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BI6LE TRU'IH, To all these considerations we must add that of the great danger of unworthily receiving : for they that receive the bread and cup unworthily are " guilty of the body and blood of the Lord," and " eat and drink damnation to themselves, not discerning the Lord's body." (1 Cor. xi. 27, 29.) When such a Saviour as the Scriptures reveal to us offers to us His Body and His Blood, we may be quite sure that the benefits of right reception will be commen- surate with the danger and curse of unworthy reception — so that if they who receive unworthily are " guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord " and receive " condemnation," they who receive worthily will partake to their infinite spiritual and eternal gain of the Body and Blood of the Lord, and receive to themselves the opposite of " condemnation." What, then, does the Lord here offer to His people ? Our Lord first gives One Thing, which He calls His Body, for having blessed and broken certain bread He, in some sense, identifies it with His Body, for He says, " This is My Body." And after this He gives to them that which He calls His Blood, only with this difference, that, according to St. Matthew and St. Mark, the Saviour says, " This is My Blood of the New Covenant." Accord- ing to St. Luke and St. Paul, " This is the New Cove- nant in My Blood ;" that is, it is His Blood so as to convey the New Covenant, which that Blood sealed. We have now set before ourselves that secret thing, which to see, as it is, belongs in very deed only to the Lord our God. We have to set it before us, not in order that eyes of flesh and blood may pry into that which God has shrouded in mystery, but that humble faith may hope for, and look to receive, and expect nothing short of what God offers. HOLY COMMUNION. 131 This secret thing is the way in which the Savioui identifies the bread and wine with His Body broken and Blood shed for us. How we are to explain the words, " This is My body," " This is My blood." In what re- spect is the bread our Lord's Body, and the wine His Blood ? After our Lord had blessed them, were these elements in any real and true sense bread and wine, or were they in any real and true sense the Body and Blood of Christ ? Nothing in God's Word requires us either to explain or to understand these words of Christ. But, inasmuch as two explanations have been given, both easy to under- stand, but both overthrowing the nature of the Sacrament, we ai-e forced to show that the words of Christ cannot admit of either. SECTION II. TRANSrnSTAXTIATIOX rNSCRTPTUKAL. The first of these so-called explanations obliges those who hold it to deny that what we receive in Holy Com- munion is in any real sense bread and wine. The other obliges those who hold it to deny that what we receive in Holy Communion is in any real sense the Body and Blood of Christ. The first of these explanations is that of the Church of Eome, which, in her authorised formularies, asserts in plain terms, that, after consecration, the bread is no longer bread in any sense, but the natural Body of the Saviour* ^ !ynly, in mercy to our weakness, and in order that we may not recoil from such food, God graciously permits it fo 182 CHITRCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. retain all t'iio appcarauccs of bread, such as colour, shape, tactCj &G. And so with the cup. The Chui'ch of Rome asserts that the cup contains the actual Blood of Christ, and no longer any wine at all ; but that God, in compas- sion to man's weakness, suffers it to retain the appearance, and smell, and taste of wine. Kow, the Holy Spirit forbids us to hold any such view, for in the Scriptures inspired by Him, the bread is from first to last called " bread." " The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ?" Again, ihe Apostle three times calls the bread after consecration oread : " As oft as ye eat this bread," i.e., the particular bread which has been consecrated, "ye do show the Lord's death till He come." Again, " Whosoever shall oat this bread . . . unworthily, shall be guilty of the body ... of the Lord." Again, " Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread." (1 Cor. xi. 26—28.) In all these cases, the thing spoken of as bread, and as therefore remaining bread, is that bread which has been consecrated. And still more plainly are we taught that, after conse- cration, the wine in the cup remains in substance the same as before, for our Lord called it, after blessing or conse- crating it, " This fruit of the vine." So that respecting each kind in this Sacrament, words are said or written from which we are bound to infer that both bread and wine remain, as to their natural substances, what they were before consecration. But upon this view of the presence of Christ's Body and Blood I shall dwell no longer at present, as my concern in this book is not with those who hold a gross and carnal view, but with those who virtually deny any presence of Christ's Flesh and Blood hi Holy romniunioii. HOLY COMMUNIOli. 133 Let me, however, remind the reader that the Eomish view of the presence of Christ's Body and Blood is devoid of all mystery. Its principle is strictly rationalistic, for it is an attempt to render the whole matter intelligible, and to bring it down to the level of human thought and reason. Transubstantiation, or the doctrine of the sub- stance of the elements no longer remaining, but giving place to the actual Flesh and Blood of the Eedeemer, turns the Sacrament into a miracle, in which the Almighty power of God suddenly substitutes one thing in its natural substance in the place of the natural substance of anothei" thing. According to this view the Holy Sacrament is not a mystery, but a miracle. The miracle may be surpassingly great, but it is perfectly intelligible. When once you apprehend the terms which describe it, you have not to ask another question about it. If there is any difficulty about it, that difficulty does not attach to the apprehension of it, but to this — that God should require us, after such a carnal and earthly manner, to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man. If He requires such a carnal and earthly feeding, then Transubstantiation is a perfectly rational and intelligible explanation of the mode of Christ's presence to enable us to do so.^ ' It has been suggested to me that the remarks upon Transubstan- tiation in this section are insufficient ; particularly as some are endeavouring to prove that theie is no real difference between the Churches of England and Rome on the mode in which the Body and Blood of Christ are present in the Eucharist. As the persons who believe in the dogma of Transubstantiation profess to hold it as being what the Church has ruled respecting tl;e mode of Christ's presence, it will be needful to depart from the general plan of this publication (which is that of a continuous appeal to Scripture), and to show that the passages of Scripture which secyj 134 CHURCH DOCTRINE, —BIBLE TRUTH. to imply that the bread and wine remain unchanged as to their sub- Btance have been so interpreted from the fii'st by the Fathers of the Church ; and also that many expressions in the most ancient Liturgies are inconsistent with any Theory of the Presence which implies the annihilation of the elements. But, firist of all, what is Transubstantiation ? It is laid down by the Council of Trent to be this, that, by the words of consecmtion, the whole substance of the bread is converted into the substance of the Body of Christ, and the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood : so that the bread and wine no longer remain in existence, but the Body and Blood of Christ take their place. Now this is a pliysical explanation of what the Church of England receives as a mystery, and so as inexplicable ; and being a rude and impertinent unveiling, as it were, of a deep mystery, itself requires explanations and suggests questions wliich tend inconceivably to lower the Christian's conception of the Eucharist. It introduces physical conceptions into a matter which is pre- eminently supra-physical, and local consideixitions respecting what is 6upra-local. It suggests the hardest metaphysical questions into what is pre- eminently the domain of simple loving faith: such, for instance, as the very nature of substance itself. It introduces unreality into the domain of truth, for the elements are held to be no longer wliat they seem to be. It suggests degrading questions, w^hich the enemies of all mystery and indeed of all Divine working in the Eucharist are not slow to ask, and which those who give occasion to them by adopting this gratuitously impertinent theory are bound to answer. To take one : "What becomes of the Eucharist if an animal eats it, which is very possible when the Eucliarist is reserved ? To take a second (which is actually one of the questions in tlic Catechism of the Council of Trent) : " Are bones, nerves, and whatso« ever things pei-tain to the perfection of man really present here together with the Godhead?" And the answer is in the affirmative. Again, Transubstantiation requires at least three physical miracles. Tlie miracle by which the bread is transformed into flesh. The miracle by which the " accidents," such as colour, taste, and smell, of bread and wine are preserved, whilst the substance vanishes ; so that there is to our eyes no change of appearance. And a third miracle, sometimes at least, is necessitated, which is HOLY COMMUNION. 135 the recreation of the substance of bread, and the withdrawal of the Body of Christ. Now if there be any necessity laid upon those who desire to accept the words of Christ in their integrity to hold a dogma sug- gesting STich questions and involving such consequences, then be it .-o — the words of Jesus are to be believed and realised at all Lazard-:. But so far from there being any such necessity, the liter-al mean- ing of the words of Chiist were held for above a thousand years in the Church before this mode of defining His presence was attempted to be imposed upon the consciences of believers. The reader may see in any work of any comi>etent Anglican divine treating on this subject, a long list of passages from the Fathers (some of them reach- ing far into mediaeval times), not one passage of which would have been written if the Father in question had supposed that Tran- substantiation was even an allowable opinion in the Church. I shall now give some of these, all which the reader will find (cited fur the very purpose for which I cite them) in the " Notes to a Sermon on ' The Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist,' " by Dr. Pusey, preached on the Second Sunday after Epiphany, 1853. I shall preface the extracts with the fullowiug passage from the Sermon itself :— To receive literally, then, those words of oui- Lord, ' This is My b-xly,' does not necessarily imply any absence, or cessation, or anni hilatiou of the substance of the outward elements. In taking them literally, we are bound to take equally in their plain sense His other words, in which He calls what He had just consecrated to be sacra- mentully His blocd, ' this fruit of tl.e vine ;' or again, those other words of Holy Scripture, ' the bread which we break ;' * as often as ye eat this bread ;' ' whosoever shall eat this bread ;' ' so let him eat that bread ' we are all partid^ers of that one bread Our blessed Lord, through those words, ' This is My body,' teaches Us that which it concerns us to know, — His own precious gift, tlie means of union and incorporation with Himself, whereby He hallows us, nourishes our souls to life everlasting, reforms our nature, and conforms it to His own ; recreates us to newness of life ; binds and cements us to Himself as man; washes, beautifies, kindles our minds ; stiengthens our hearts ; is a source of life witLiu us, joining us to Himself our Life, and giving us the victory over sin and death. Yet He did not deny what Himself and Holy Scripture elsewhere seem in equally plain language to affirm."' The first eaily writer cued by Dr. Pusey in snppcrt of this is 136 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Irenfeus. The extract, from the clearness of its teaching, and from the character of him who wrote it, and from the age in which it was written, seems almost to make the citing of any other witness snperfluous. It runs thus : — " Our meaning is in harmony with the Eucharist — and the Eu- charist again affirms our meaning. And we offer to Him His own, carefully teaching the communication and union, and confessing the resurrection of the flesh and spirit. For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Euchariat, consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly, so also our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer perishable, having the hope of the resurrection to life everlasting." (Adv. H«r. iv. 18, 5.) The reader will notice that this assertion respecting the Eucharist — that it consists of an earthly as well as a heavenly " reality might have been written to refute, in anticipation, mcdiicval theories. Again, St. Chrysostom is equally explicit : " For as we call the bread, before it is sanctified, bread ; but, when Divine grace has, through the intervention of the priest, sanctified it, it is set free from the name bread, and thought worthy to be called the Lord's Body, although the nature of bread remains, and we proclaim, not two bodies, but the One Body of the Son ; so here, too, the Divine Nature having come to indwell in the body, they have together formed one Son, one Person." (From " Letter to Cfesarius," 0pp. T. iii. p. 744, Ed. Ben.) Again, St. Augustine, in several well-known and oft-quoted places, distinguishes between the "Sacrament" and the thing signi- fied or conveyed by it. Tims : " For if sacraments had not a certain resemblance to those things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. But from this resemblance they receive, for the most part, the names even of the things themselves. As, tiierefore, after a certain manner, the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is the Body of Christ ; the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ is the Blood of Christ; so tlie Sacrament of Faitli is Faith." (Ep. 98. Ad. Bouifac.) ** That bread which ye see on the altar, sanctified by the Word of God, is the Body of Christ. That cup— rather what the cup holds —sanctified by the Word of God, is the Blood of Christ. By these things the Lord Christ ivilled to commend Eis Body and Blood vfhich He shed for us for the remission of sins. If ye have well received, ye are what ye have received." CSerm. 227. In die Pasch.) HOLY COMMUNION. 137 '*They [the wicked] are not to be said to eat the Body of Christ, because neither are they to be accounted among the members of Christ. For, not to mention other things, they cannot at the same time be both the members of Christ and the members of an harlot. Lastly, Ho Himself, when He saith, ' Whoso eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, abideth in Me, and I in him,' showeth ^vhat it is to eat the Body of Christ, and drink His Blood, not as to the sacrament only, but in truth : that is, to abide in Christ, so that Christ also should abide in him." (De Civ Dei, xxi. 25.) Theodoret speaks very plainly : " The object is plain to those ad- mitted to the Divine mysteries. For He willed that those who partake of the Divine mj'steries should not attend to the nature of the things seen, but through the change of name should believe ia the change which takes place in them through grace. For He who called the natural {(pva-ei) body, corn, and bread, and Himself also a Vine, honouretl the symbols which are seen with the title of bread and wine, not changing the nature, hut addmg grace to the nature." (T. iv. 25, Ed. Sch.) The last we shall give is from the writings of a Bishop of Rome — Gelasius. He writes : " Certainly the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Chi-ist which we receive is a Divine thing, wherefore also we are by the same made partakers of the Divine nature, and yet the substance and nature of bread and icine ceaseth not to he." Another quotation exactly similar in its teaching is given by Dr. Pusey in the same page — page 88 of " Notes to a Sermon," &c. We now turn to the Ancient Liturgies. In the Clementine there are, long after consecration, at least two prayers which could not have been composed by any one holding anything like the modern Roman view. The first is : " Let us farther pray to Gcd through His Christ, in behalf of the gift that is offered to the Lord God [i.e., tiie consecrated elements), that the good God will receive it, through tire mediation of His Christ, at His heavenly altar for a sweet- smelling savour." A very insufficient way indeed, the reader will allows of pleading the real presence of the Eternal Son. Again : " Sanctify us in body and soul, and grant that we, neiug purified from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, may partake of the mystic blessings now lying before Thee.'" Again, in the Liturgy of St. James, also long after consecration : " Thou hast received the gifts, oblations, and sacrifices ofiered to riiee for a sweet-smelling savour, and out of Thy goodness hast 138 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. vouchsafed to eauctify and consecrate them by the grace of Thj Christ, and the descent of Thy Most Holy Spirit." Above all, in the Roman Liturgy itself, as it appears before com paratively modern rubrics involving mediaeval doctrine were added to it, there are many expressions absolutely incompatible -with Transubstantiation. For instance, just before consecration, tlie celebrant is directed to pray that God would make the "host" "blessed, approved, ratified, reasonable, and acceptable, that it may become to us the body and blood of His most beloved Son." This is just before the host will become, and be adored, as Chrijet Himself personally present, and yet when He has become so present im.mediately after consecration, God is asked to " vouchsafe to look down upon the host and chalice (i.e., very Christ under the veils) with a PROPITIOUS and serene countenance, and to accept them as He was pleased to accept the gifts of His just servant Abel," &c. Conceive God tbe Father being asked in such terras to look upon His ovm Son — Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity — on the altar ! The very Mass itself witnesses to the fact that when it was fiist composed such a conception as Transubstantiation was unknown in the Oburch. SECTION in. THE JJERELY FIGURATIVE VIEW. "W e have now to consider an error diametrically opposite to that of Transubstantiation. After the Eeformation, persons calling themselves Evan- gelical believers broached the doctrine that the consecrated elements are to be accounted nothing more than figures, types, or emblems of flesh and blood not present, but absent ; and that we feed on the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion only in the same way as we may by a strong figure be said to feed on His Body and Blood when we are moved by a sermon on His Atoning Sacrifice, or wlieu we mentally contemplate His love in dying fur us. HOLY COM^rUNION. 139 According to this view, the bread and 'wine are merely intended to refresh our memories as to the great fact of Redemption, and whilst partaking of them we are, by an act of the memory, to realise that Christ's Body wfis broken, and that His Blood was shed for us upon the cross. So that when oui* Saviour said, " Take, eat ; this is My body," according to this view He really said nothing more than "Devoutly contemplate My Atonement." "In- wardly digest the truth that I suffer as your propitiatory Sacrifice." " Feed in your hearts upon the doctrine of My Mediation." But to interpret, " Take, eat ; this is My body," as if oui Lord meant, " Inwardly realise your part in My Atone- ment," is secretly felt to be so unwarrantable — to explain a command which enjoins the receiving and eating of material food as meaning really nothing more than a dii'cction to go thi'ough a certain mental process, is felt to be, on the face of it, so incongruous and unnatural, that those sects or parties who once adopted it have gradually di'opped this interpretation, and with it every aim at realising the meaning of the words, " This is My body." They have not stopped even here, but have of set purpos< thrust aside every view of Holy Commimion, except the one under which it is regarded as a simple memorial feast, and to be partaken of, not in order that we may receive anything which Chi'ist offers, but as a means whereby we are to -work a certain work, viz., that of professing our individual faith in His Atonement. I shall now show that this view of Holy Communiou as a mere commemorative rite must be false — destructive of all Faith in the Sacrament as o, means of grace, and so subversive of the intention of Christ in hashing instituted it. 140 CHURCH DOCTRINE, BIBLE TRUTH. First, then, tlie idea that our Lord blessed aud brake the bread, and gave it to His disciples as a mere figure, is contrary to the whole tenor and spirit of the New Dispen- sation, which is a system of realities, and not of figures* of antitypes, and not of types. The leading difference between this dispensation and the Jewish, which it superseded, consists in this, that in the Jewish the great truths of the Gospel were veiled under types, and their mere outlines were dimly dis- cernible in shadows ; whereas, under the Gospel, we have the realities of which the Jews had but the pre- figurements, and the substances of which they had but the shadows. The merely symbolical view of Holy Communion would make it appear that our Lord instituted a legal typical rite in the centre of an Evangelical system — a rite, too, by no means, of itself, so well calculated as the slaying of the Paschal Lamb to bring to mind the Sacrifice of Himself. The slaughter of a lamb, and the sprinkling of its blood, would far more efi'ectually tyjjify the atoning Death of Christ, than the blessing and breaking of a morsel of bread, or the drinking of a few drops of wine in a chalice. So that on the mere memorial, or typical view, no reason whatsoever can be given why our Lord should have super- seded one rite, which, by actual blood-shedding and death, would vividly remind men of His Death, by another rite, in which the sensible reference to His Death is so much weaker — there being in it no blood-shedding and no death. If our Lord, by " This is My body," had meant, " This is merely a figure, or type, or emblem," it would assuredly have once at least been so written in the Scriptm-es. At such a solemn time IJe would not have used words which HOLY COMMUNION. 141 must, of necessity, prove a snare to believing hearts. By the Church from the very first — in times when to be a Christian was to be a persecuted outcast — these words have been taken as if by them the Eternal "Word ordained something infinitely more than a mere type or figm-e. Even the great leaders of the Eeformation, though they may have difi'ered among themselves about the mode in which the bread was identified with His Body, have ac- cepted EQs words as implying, and indeed bringing about, a real though spii-itual presence. It cannot be supposed, then, that He who knew all the future of His Chui-ch would, without one qualifying or warning expression, have used language so misleading. There are four accoimts of the words -which Christ spake on this occasion, and in not one is the bread called a t}^e, or figm-e, or sign. The wi-it^rs, too, of these accounts do not strictly adhere to the words of Christ. Two of them, St. Paul and St. Luke, add the words — " Do this in remembrance of Me " — which the others have omitted, and two of them give the sense rather than the exact words of Chi'ist respecting the cup, when they record that He said, " This is the Xew Covenant in My Blood." But this sense which they give of Christ's words wholly forbids us to look upon the cup as a mere figui-e or type. It is the Xew Covenant in His Blood. Covenants in old times were not ratified with the figure of blood, but vdih blood itseK. So far from being a mere figm-e of blood, then, it must be blood in its most intense spiritual reality, as ratifying the New Covenant betwixt God and the commimicant. Besides this, wo have in St. Paul's Epistles certain Eucharistic teaching which without doubt implies some mysterious commimication through the elements. " The Gup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the comraimiou 142 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. — e., the communication to us, or the partaking, as our Article renders it, (not the figure,) — " of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the commu- nication " (not the type) " of the body of Christ ?" And then the Apostle proceeds to assert a most remarkable result of partaking — " We being many are one bread, an(? one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread (1 Cor. X. 17) — i. e., because we partake of that one bread, which is the Communion of Christ's Body, we are all in- corporated together in one Body. So far, then, from tho bread being a figure only, the right and worthy partaking of it is followed by the highest conceivable result, viz., Union with Christ as the Head of His mystical Body. Besides this, St. Paul writes words of dreadful import respecting those who profane the Lord's Table, which imply that the relations of the elements to the things which they represent are, to the wicked, a most terrible reality — " Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." " He that eateth and drinketh,' eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discern- ing the Lord's body." (1 Cor. xi. 27, 29.) With such words in Holy Scripture, it is very perilous to argue that the bread and wine are mere figures or images. If figures, they are accounted of by God, and to be accounted of by man (so far as their profanation is con- cerned), as identified with the things which they figure. All, then, which the Scripture reveals concerning this Sacrament is on one side — all leans in one direction — all points one way : for all leads the submissive heart to look for what is high and mysterious, rather than what is low and rationalistic. And no view can be lower and more ' Tho bost MSS. omit " nnworthilv " in verse 20^ retaining it in vorse 27. HOLY COMMUNION. 143 rationalistic than tliat the Holy Eucharist was instituted to remind us of the Atonement, or to enable us publicly to profess our faith in it. But we are reminded that figures are continually em- ployed by New Testament writers. And it is suggested that as our Lord undoubtedly uses figurative language at other times, so He may on this occasion. We shall have little trouble in showing that the sup- porters of the merely figui'ative view not only gain no advantage by any appeal to the acknowledged figurative language of Scripture, but are convicted, by this very figurative language, of miserably xmdervaluing this Sacra- ment as an " effectual sign of grace, and God's good will towards us, by which He doth work invisibly in us." First, let us take the figurative expressions, — " I am the door," "I am the true vine." The essential difference between these modes of speaking, and that employed at the institution of the Eucharist, will be perfectly clear, if we consider that to make the cases parallel our Lord when He instituted the Eucharist should have said, in taking and breaking the bread, " I am the true bread," or in the case of the cup, "I am the true sacrifice." In which case the eyes of His Church would have been directed from the bread, which would then have been clearly a mere figure, to Himself ; but instead of this. He, for the moment, directs attention from Himself to the bread as being His Body ; and similarly with the cup. If, then, the words " This is My body," « This is My blood," are to be explained by the expressions " I am the door," " I am the true vine," we must render them as if Christ said, " This is verily and indeed My body," " This is My blood in all its reality and power ;" for "I am the door " means " I am the true door, I am the entrance into the innermost sanctuary of God." " T am the vino " 144 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. means " I am the vine, not in figure, but in truth and reality, because I am that in a true and living manner to you which the vine is in a poor earthly, perishable manner to its branches." ^ So that the strict teaching of these two Scripture types is all in favour of some high com- munication in the Eucharist. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews throws a very striking light upon the figure of Christ being the door or entrance into God's presence-chamber, when he teaches us that the " new and living waj^ for us is through the veil, that is to say, Christ's flesh." If, according to him, we would use Christ as the door, we must come through His flesh into God's presence. (Heb. x. 19, 20.) Another figurative expression in Exodus xii. 11 — " It is the Lord's passover," has been ignorantly appealed to, which also recoils on those who cite it in favour of the merely figurative or typical view. A moment's consideration will serve to show that the Paschal Lamb there alluded to was in no sense a type or figure, i.e., of the Lord's Passover — of the Lord's jpassing over the houses of the Israelites, for in such a case the type would in no single feature correspond with the reality. The destroying angel passing over certain houses and smiting the firstborn in certain other houses is in no respect imaged forth by the slaying of a lamb. The slaughter of the lamb, and the sprinkling of its blood, was to the Israelites the reality of the Lord's passing over ; for when the Israelites slew the lamb and sprinkled its blood, then the Lord actually passed over their houses; so that it was to them " verily and indeed" the Lord's Passover. » Wiilmm Law. HOLY COMMUNION. 145 SECTION IV. EXAMINATION OF JOHN VI. It will be needful now to inquire into the meaning and application of the wonderful words spoken by Chi'ist in the synagogue of Capernaum. (John vi. 47 — 64.) If, in this discourse, Christ refers either to the Holy Communion, or to some blessing which He would lead us to seek in the right use of Holy Communion (which, as far as our argument is concerned, amounts to the same thing), then we must take these words of Christ into full account in any endeavour which we make to realise what Christ offers to us in this Sacrament. First, then, this discourse of Christ is the only one in which He uses language at all similar to that which Ho used when he ordained the Eucharist. He here speaks of men having to " eat His flesh " and "drink His blood,'' and at no time does He use expressions which have any resemblance to these, except on the night on which He instituted the Lord's Supper. He speaks elsewhere of Himself being the Vine, the Shepherd, the Door, but never of His Flesh being food, and His Blood being drink, except when He offered His Flesh for food and His Blood for drink at the institution of the Eucharist. So that we cannot but infer that by His discourse in Capernaum the Saviour would lead His disciples to desire what He afterwards offered to their faithful reception when He said, " Take, eat ; this is My body." We cannot suppose it otherwise, for He Who in Caper- naum told His disciples that men must " eat His flesh " 146 CHURCH DOCTIUXE, — BIBLE TRUTH. and " di-ink His blood " is tlie very same Person Who, in the upper cliamber at Jerusalem, offered to tlic same disciples what He called His Body and His Blood. There could not have been an interval of more than a year be- tween the delivery of the discourse and the institution of the Eucharist, and He Who spake the words in the syna- gogue was the One Human Being of Whom alone it could be said with absolute certainty, that " He knew what He would do." Is it possible, then, that He should say such words as — " My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed," and not have before His eyes that Last Supper, when, on the eve of the world's Redemption, He offered to these same men what He called His Body and His Blood ? And yet one reads in expositions written by Christian men such words as — " The Lord's Supper was not yet instituted, and therefore it (i.e., this discourse) could have no reference to that," &c. When we read this we are constrained to ask, " Was Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God '? Did He know what He would do ? Did He never speak of things before they came to pass, that when the things did come to pass men might believe ? Does not om* Lord, in the very next chapter, refer to the gift of the Holy Spirit as if it were already bestowed, though it was not bestowed till after His Ascension ? " If any man thirst, let him come unto Me, and di'ink. He that believeth on Me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But," the Evangelist remarks, this s-pake He of the Spii'it, which they that believe on Him should receive : for the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified." (John vii. 37 — 40.) If He thus invites men to come to Him for His Spirit, HOLY C03IMUN10N. 147 tliougli it was expressly stated tliat the " Holy Gliost was not yet given," wliy should He not prepare men for what He would offer to them in His Supper, though that Supper was not yet instituted ? It i^leased God to raise up another Apostle — St. Paul — not of the nimiber of those who heard this discourse at Capernaum, or of those who were present at the original institution of the Eucharist. In his Epistles a saving apprehension of Christ is dwelt upon far more freely than in the rest of Scripture. But when this Apostle has occasion to use terms in any the least degree resembling, or even reminding us of the words used by Christ in the Synagogue or at the Last Supper, he uses them solely in relation to the Eucharist (1 Cor. x. 14, xi. 23), and nowhere does he speak of any spiritual manducation apart from that rite. So that, throughout the whole New Testament, the characteristic words of this discom-se are used in connexion with the Eucharist, and with nothing else. The fact of the Holy Communion having been instituted after the delivery of the discourse in Capernaum, is de- cisively in favour of the view that our Lord therein refers to some great Sacramental mystery ; for we cannot but suppose that om* Lord would have prepared His disciples for the reception of the Eucharist before He gave it to them. It has been well said, " If Christ had appointed an institution, or positive rite, which related to nothing that He had before taught, it must have been very unaccountable. Thus, to command us to eat His Body and drink His Blood in the Sacrament, if Ho had not beforehand taught that we had our life from Him, and that His Flesh was our meat indeed, and His Blood our drink indeed, had been very uuaccoimtablc." Let us now see what we can gather from this discoiu'se. 148 CHURCH DOCTRINE. — BIBLE TRUTH. Christ had miraculously multiplied five loaves and a few small fishes, so that they sufliced for five thousand persons ; the multitude thereupon pui-sued Him, in order to take Him by force, and make Him a King. He reproved and exposed their motive in so earnestly pursuing Him. " Ye seek Me," He says, "not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled. Labour (or work) not for the meat which perisheth." The people catch at the word labour (or work), and ask, in the same low spirit, " What shall we do that we may work the works of God ?" (verse 28). To this oiu* Lord replies, " This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent." After this our Lord assures them that God can give them more precious bread than that which their great law- giver Moses gave them, and from heaven also : " Moses gave you not that bread from heaven, but My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven." " I'or the bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." Siill apparently unable to apprehend any higher mean- ing, they ask, "Lord, evermore give us this bread." Jesus then directs them plainly to Himself : " I am the bread of life. He that cometh to Me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on Mo shall never thirst." And then He proceeds to say some hard things respect- ing the cause of their unbelief. " Ye have seen Me and believe not. All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me." And again, " This is the Father's will which sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing." Again, we are told, the Jews murmur ; and I ^TOuld ask the reader to mark well at what sayings of Christ they stumble and fall ; for this reveals to us what was at the HOLY COMMUNION. 149 root of their unbelief resiDecting the life-giving nature of Christ's Flesh ; and their unbelief is the type of similar unbelief among ourselves. The Jews are offended, not because Christ asserts God's sovereignty in such words as — "All that the Father giveth to Me shall come to Me ;" not because He asserts Salva- tion through faith in Himself, saying that men must believe in Him and come to Him ; but because he says, " I am the bread which came down from heaven." They stumbled at His Incarnation, for they ask — " Is not this Jesus, whose father and mother we know ? How is it, then, that He saith, I came down from heaven ?"' ^ They saw in Jesus a man of flesh and blood like their own. It was not as yet given to them to know that this flesh of His was LIFE, because the "Word, who "was with God" and " was God," and " in whom was life,'' was " made ' Let the reader here particularly note that the objection taken to the Sacramental interpretation of this disconrse, on the ground that our Lord would not have alluded to any benefit to be received in an ordinance not yet instituted (and which, consequently, Hia hearers could not then receive or understand), lies equally against any allusion to His Atonement by a sacrifice of Himself which He had not yet offered — for how could the men to whom He spake in any sense apprehend His Atonement when they would not believe that He had come down from heaven ? His Atonement entirely depends on His having come down from heaven, i.e., upon His Incarnation. Even His Apostles, who recognised Him as the Christ, could hardly have realised His Atonement when they refused to entertain the thought of His death on the Cross, which constituted that Atonement. (Matt. xvi. 21, 22; xvii. 23 : Mark ix. 31.) So that, if in this discourse our Lord alluded to any realising by faith of the atoning sacrifice not yet offered by Him, He uttered words which were, at that time, as much above the apprehension of all His hearers as if He had alluded to benefits to be received in an Eucljarist not yet ordained by Him, but to be ordained on the very night before He was sacrificed. 150 CHURCH DOCTHINK, — BIBLE TRUTH. flesh." That flesh they saw, and tJiey judged of it as they did of any other flesh. After assiu'ing them that none can come to Him except they are drawn of God (at which deep truth, again re- iterated, they do not stumble), our Lord repeats what He had said (in verses 29, 33, and 35) — " He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life " (v. 47). Why ? Because (the Saviour proceeds to say), " I am that bread of life ;' implying, of course, by this, that he who believes on Him hath everlasting life, because his belief will lead him to feed on the food whereby he can live for ever. As a man cannot have temporal life without eating bread suitable to the support of that life, so a man cannot have eternal life without eating bread suitable to the support of that eternal life. And he that truly believes in Christ as the " Bread of Life" will, as the consequence of such belief, feed on Him in every way in which He offers Himself to be fed upon, just as He who believes that the bread which perishes is needful to sustain animal life will, as a natural consequence of such belief, feed upon it. But how, and in what way, are we to feed upon Christ ? In a way far above that in which the fathers of these Jews ate manna, for our Lord immediately proceeds to say, " Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die." They who would eat, and not die, must prepare their hearts. They must hunger in their souls. They must cat icorihily. (1 Cor. xi. 27.) They must eat discerning what they eat. (1 Cor. xi. 29.) They must examine themselves as to their belief in all that Christ says about Himself— His Body — His Blood — His Church— His Sacraments. HOLY COMMUXIOX. 151 Upon tliis the Saviour comes more particularly to specify how He is to be eaten. And here we arrive at the great turning-point in this wonderful discourse — for we come to a remarkable change of language and the introduction of a new element of thought altogether ; for the Saviour at this point fixes atten- tion on a jpart of Himself rather than on Himself He begins the verse with asserting that He is the living bread which came down from heaven, and that if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever ; and He ends the verse with defining the bread which He gives to be His flesh — " The bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." This change of expression was, of course, instantly caught up by His adversaries. The Jews strove among themselves, saying, " How can this man give us His flesh to eat r ^ As long as He spoke about Himself being the " Bread of Life," they stumbled not at the idea of eating Him. What they previously stumbled at was His saying that He came down from heaven ; but as soon as He proceeded to narrow this eating to the eating of His flesh, then they ask, " How can this man give us His flesh to eat ?" ^ " As this secret power to bestow life, of which He has spoken, miglit be referred to His Divine essence, He now comes down to the second step, and shows that this life is placed in His flesh, that it may be drawn out of it. . . . But an objection is brought, that the flesh of Christ cannot give life, because it was liable to death, and because even now it is not immortal in itself; and next, that it does not at all belong to the nature of flesh to quicken souls. I reply, that though this power comes from another source than from the flesh, still this is no reason why the designation may not accurately apply to it; for as the Eternal Word of God is the fountain of life (John i. 4), so His flesh as a channel conveys to ua that life which dwells intrinsically, as we say, in His Divinity."— Calvix on John vi- -'^1. 152 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Let US now humbly and prayerfully consider the meaning of this remarkable change of language. The modern popular, or Zuinglian, explanation of these words of Christ is, that eating Christ's Body, or Flesh, means inwardly realising the doctrine of His Atonement. If this be the ti'ue meaning of Christ's language here, then this change of expression was made apparently for no purpose. It cannot be accounted for. The low rationalising view which prevails among us discards all idea of mystery ; but on such an hypothesis it would be perfectly inconceivable that our Lord, at this stage of His discourse, should have added to the difficulty of all that He had been saying, by defining the bread to be His Flesh. Other plain and simple words would have at once made His meaning clear ; dissipated all mystery ; given occa- sion to no carnal views of any sort ; and made supersti- tion, so far as the Lord's Supper is concerned, impossible. All would have been clear if our Lord had said — " The bread that I will give is my doctrine," or " The bread that I will give is the Bible," or " The bread that I will give is My enlightening Spirit," or " The bread that I will give is a sense of My love, or of pardon, or of acceptance." ^ If the eating of His flesh be, after all, the mentally feeding upon His Atonement, or upon any truth re- specting Himself, no reason can be assigned why He * The participation of His flesh and blood must designate more than merely spiritual operations of Christ upon believers. The entire discourse relates to His glorified corporeality, the reality of which, St. John, according to his main design, was compelled to defend against gnosticising Doceticism, just as now it has become needful to maintain it in opposition to idealistic gnosis.*' — Olshaijsen m loco. HOLY COMMUNION. 153 Blioiild have veiled so plain a thing imder a figure so mysterious and obscure. As one has well said. " These words evidently declare, on the face of them, some very great mystery. How can they be otherwise taken ? If they do not, they must be a figurative way of declaring something which is not mys- terious, but plain and intelligible. But is it conceivable that He, Who is the Truth and Love itself, should have used dif&cult words when plain words would do ? Why should He have used words, the sole effect of which, in that case, would be to perj)lex, to startle us needlessly ?" There is no mystery whatever in the idea of feeding on a doctrine or truth of God, and inwardly digesting it, and so having the soul strengthened by it. Nor is there any mystery in the idea of feeding upon a person; we naturally mean by it, feeding upon the thought of one who is absent — dwelling upon the past tokens of his love. Now, if our Lord had intended, in the salient words of this discom'se, simply to describe this state of heart towards Himself, and its blessedness. He would most certainly never have supplemented the words, " I am the living bread which came dowTi from heaven," with the words, " The bread which I will give is My flesh." For all ideas of loving faith feeding on the person beloved belong to the icliole person of Christ, not specifically to His flesh. Again, the Atonement He wrought was not merely the fruit of the sufferings of His Flesh or Body, but of the sufferings of His Soul also. If by " eating His Flesh " Christ meant adoringly contemplating or inwardly real- ising His sufferings, then we surely must adoringly con- template, not His Flesh merely, which is the lower part of His lower nature, but rather the higher and deeper 154 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. sufferings of that Soul of which His Flesh was but the clothing. So that on any merely rationalistic or Zuinglian view our Lord never would have first said, " I am the bread of life." thereby directing our faith to His whole Person, and then have proceeded to narrow the eating of Himself as the bread of life to the eating of His Flesh. From all this we cannot but gather that this eating of His Flesh must be something beyond, and to be distin- guished from, the mental or inward realisation of His Atonement, or our part in it. It must consist in the reception of some great grace or benefit attached to His Flesh as such, and to be received by us through the eating of His Flesh — in some heavenly and spiritual way, of course, but still through the eating of His Flesh. We now return to the narrative. The Jews strove among themselves, and asked, " How can this man give us His Flesh to eat ?" Our Lord vouchsafes no answer to this question ; but He sm-ely would have rej^lied to it if, by " eating His Flesh," He had meant so simple a matter as realising any doctrine which He was about to teach. ^ On the contrary. He adds to the difficulty of all that He had previously said by introducing another material expression, viz., the drinlcing of His blood — " Except ye eat ^ He [Jesus] lots them go without saying, I mean a merely spiritual communication,' which would have presented no difficulty to the mind of any one present. Hence a true exposition — one that gives tlie sentiments of the writing under consideration — must, even if the views of the expositor are entirely different, confess that the discourse undoubtedly here relates to a participation of the corporeality of Christ." — Olsiiausen on verses 54 — 59. Translated in Chuk's "Foreign Theologir-al Library."' HOLY COMMUNION. 155 the flesli of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." This joining of " drinking His Blood " with " eating His Flesh," more than doubles the probability that our Lord refers to some wondrous gift which the Eucharist was to be the authorised means of communicating to the believer; for, as we have already stated, a little more than a year after saying this, He instituted the Eucharist in tico kinds, in His Blood as well as in His Body ; for He said, " Drink ye all of this ; for this is My blood." In the next four verses our Lord describes the eftects of this " eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood." First, that through it He confers eternal life on tho whole man, on the body as well as on the soul ; for Ho says, " Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life ; and I icill raise him up at the last drry." Then, that through it Christ dwells in the Christian, and the Christian in Christ — " He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him." By this the Saviour connects the truth of eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood with that mass of remark- able doctrine in this Gospel, and in the Epistles, which teaches that Christians are in some mystical sense in Christ. It is worthy of remark, that the similitude of the " Vine and the branches" presents the first instance of this mode of speaking. In it Christ, for the fii'st time, speaks to the Apostles as in Him, and bids them abide in Him. (John XV. 1 — 10.) Now, this similitude or parable was uttered by Christ immediately after He had given His Body and Blood to the disciples. Their union with Him having been sealed therein. He naturally speaks to them (and for the fii'st time) as " in Him." The mystical indwelling which is here as<3ribed to the 156 CmTRCH DOCTRINE,— BIBLE TRUTH. eating of Christ's Flesh stamps the whole matter as de- pending for its saving efficacy upon the spiritual state of him who eats. No intelligent Christian has ever maintained that by any eating or di'inking in impenitency or unbelief Christ will dwell in a man, and cause that man to dwell in Him. The discourse closes with a reiteration that the Bread came down from heaven, and that these Jews must not eat after the manner of their fathers, if they would live for ever. The narrative proceeds — " Many of His disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying, who can hear it ?" ^ Jesus, instead of making this hard saying plain, proceeds to add to it something still harder for un- belief to apprehend — " Doth this offend you ? What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before ?" " If you rise no higher in your conceptions, ' The offence taken by these disciples at these salient words of the discourse, coupled with the fact that our Lord did not attempt to remove the ground of offence by any explanation of His meaning, shows clearly that it is not possible to understand these startling words of Christ as if they were Orientalisms, i.e., exaggerated metaphor or allegory. For, as has been well said, " the Jews, like all Orientals, were well able to judge of metaphor and allegory. On this occasion they were clearly possessed with the conviction that no mere metaphor, but some great momentous fact, was spoken of They evidently concluded from the expressions, and from our Lord's manner of uttering them, that they could not be otherwise explained. For, if not, why were they oflfended ? If, as some liave interpreted the words, they meant merely feeding on His doctrine and His atoning death, it would have been easy for our I^rd to remove tlie difficulty, and win back His disaflfected followers. And it was His custom to set men right when they mistook His words, and guard His teaching against possible misconception. But there was no explanation given." — Carteb's " Doctrine of the Holj Eucharist.'* HOLY COMMUNION. 157 how will you be offended wlien you see Me, tiic Bread of Life, ascend up out of your reach into heaven ?" " It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing ; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." These words are sometimes interpreted as if our Lord meant by them to retract or explain away all that He had said respecting the life-giving nature of His Flesh. Those who explain this discourse as if there were no reference throughout it to any Eucharistic blessing, in- sinuate that our Lord means by these words to say — " I have spoken to you about fldih ; but by flesh I do not mean ' flesh ' at all. I mean its very opposite. I mean Bpirit, and by ' spirit ' I do not mean My Spirit, but I mean My words — I mean, in fact, the Bible." The answer to this wretched perversion is, of course, to ask with Luther (and he got the question from St. Augus- tine), Does the Flesh of Chi-ist profit nothing ? Now, in no sense does the Flesh even of Christ profit without the Spirit or without the word. But then, who would separate the Flesh either from the Spirit or from the word ? The Catholic Church has never done so. In the earliest Litui'gies extant — some of them in their substance trace- able to Apostolic times — we have an invocation of the Holy Spirit upon both worshippers and elements, and I shall show that our branch of the Church would have her children realise and receive with a living faith every " word " of the Eedeemer, or of His Apostles, which bears upon eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood. Into the exact meaning of these words I cannot now enter. I shall content myself with taking for the present the most Ultra-Protestant view of them which can possibly bo suggested. Let us suppose that by the " Spirit here our Saviour 158 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. means the Holy Spirit, and that by " quickening " is meant illuminating and sanctifying the soul; and that Christ desires by these words to teach His Church the obvious truth, that " the bare participation of ordinances, unless the Spirit of God work with them, and quicken the soul by them, profits nothing." ^ Now, so far from militating against the Church of Eng- land doctrine, that if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive the Holy Communion, we then and there receive the benefits attached by Christ in this discourse to the eating of His Body and driaking of His Blood, this interpretation does not even militate against Transubstan- tiation ; for I never heard of any Eoman Catholic writer who has asserted that the partaking of the consecrated host, i.e., of what he (the Roman Catholic) holds to be the natural Flesh of Chi-ist, will of itself, without the Spirit of God, benefit an impenitent man. No Papist ever held that the taking of this Sacrament turns an impenitent man into a penitent one, or a wilful sinner into a true saint. So that it appears to me that these words of Christ, as they are commonly understood, cannot be safely cited against the grossest view possible of the presence of Christ's Body and Blood. If any persons believed that we could be profited by the Flesh of Christ without His Spirit, or that His dead Flesh, carnally eaten by a carnal wicked man, would save that man, then these words, in their popular acceptation, would set such persons right. Calvin's remarks upon these words are sufficiently near the truth, and may be useful for those on whose account I chiefly write : — "Angustinc fhe says) thiuks that we ought to supply the word ' Note in Matthew Henry. HOLY COMMUNION. 159 -onl)',' or 'by itself,' as if it had been Laid, 'The flesh alone, by itself profiteth nothing, because it must be accompanied by the Spiiit/ This meaning accords well with the scope of the discourse, for Christ refers simply to the manner of eating ; He does not therefore exclude every kind of usefulness, as if none could be obtained from His flesh, but He declares that if it be separated from the Spirit it will then be useless." And so with the latter clause of the words of Christ in this verse : " The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." A man must believe in. and accept, all the words of Christ respecting eating Hi{ Flesh and di'inking His Blood— both the words which He spake in the synagogue of Capernaum, and the words which He spake when He instituted the Eucharist — if ho is to " eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood " to life eternal. The words to which Christ alludes are those which He had been speaking, and which had given offence, and, of course, we cannot separate from them any sayings of His or of His Spirit which throw light upon them. If His words, " Except ye eat of the flesh of the Son of Man," are spirit and life, so are His words, *' This is My body," and so are the Eucharistic words of His Apostle, St. Paul, to whom He gave a special revelation respecting Holy Communion. If these words are spirit and life, they cannot be mere figure and metaphor. If, too, they are spirit and life, they are only so to those who receive them in faith and submission. Let those, then, who see no mystery of grace in these words fear exceedingly lest they destroy the faith of their brethren in sayings of Christ which seem, on the face of them, to demand great faith — deep submission of the whole soul to God's teaching : and I cannot but think tliat they are guilty of this who explain these words in a 160 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — J3IBLE TRUTH. way which implies that words far less startling and ob- scure would have been more suitable to the meaning which (in their opinion) Christ intended to convey. Everything, then, in this discourse points to some gift of God to be given and received in the Supper or Sacra- ment which Christ shortly afterwards ordained. They who deny this betray their secret consciousness that our Lord, throughout this discourse, alludes to a gift which cannot ordinarilij be separated from the Sacra- ment of His Body and Blood. They do so by systematically refi'aining from the use of the remarkable expressions with which this discourse is characterised. These expressions are the most noteworthy and startling of any in the whole range of Scripture. If words have any meaning, they betoken the most intimate union with Christ possible. There is nothing elsewhere in Scripture which can be put in comparison with — " He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I m him." Now, they who have seen a Sacramental reference in the terms, " eating the flesh of the Son of Man, and drinking His blood," have freely used such terms when they have spoken of the dear and intimate relations sub- sisting betwixt Christ and the Christian. And they who have seen no reference to Holy Com- munion in these words, but have explained them as merely expressing the inward realisation of the Atonement, have, as a rule (wlien speaking of the union of the Chris- tian ^vit]l Christ), studiously avoided the use of these remarkable terms, and have substituted for them other vrords containing no such depth of meaning, and by no means so suggestive of close union. Christians, like the Fathers, whose theology leads them HOLT COMMUNION. 161 to consider Holy Communion as the means of partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ, freely and naturally make use of the expressions found in this discourse, as if they had sure gi'ounds for their application. Christians, on the contrary, who evince the most un- doubted love to their Eedeemer, but whose prejudices have led them to ignore any Sacramental reference in this discourse, have avoided the use of such terms as — " eating Christ's flesh, and drinking His blood," and have rather dwelt on other aspects of the soul's imion with its Beloved, as, for instance, that Christ is the Christian's garment, or robe, or crown, or shepherd. SECTION V. THE 3IYSTERY. We have now carefully examined all the Scriptures which teach any doctrine respecting Holy Communion. Let us put together, in few words, tl 1 results of our investigation. Oui' Lord, in His discourse at Capernaum, leads those who believe in Him to believe in Him, not only as the Son of God, or as the one Sacrifice for sin, but as the " bread from heaven" It is manifest that, if He is " Bread," then as " Bread " we must, in some sense, partake of Him ; and so He says, "He that eateth Mc, even he shall live by Me." He then further tells us, that "the bread which He gives is His flesh " — not His whole Person, but His Flesh — and He fm-ther tells us, that we are to eat His Flesh and to drink His Blood to have His life in us. M 162 CHURCK DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Shortly afterwards, this same Jesus joins eating His Body and drinking His Blood with the partaking of certain bread and wine, which He ordained to be used in a very solemn rite or ordinance, which He instituted on the eve of the Bedemption of the world by the giving of His Body to death, and by the shedding of His Blood. After this, He gives, directly from Himself, a further and final revelation respecting this Holy Communion, to His last chosen Apostle ; in obedience to which final revelation, St. Paul speaks of the bread and cup as the Communion or participation of Christ's Body and Blood, and bids men examine themselves before they eat and drink, lest, " not discerning the Lord's body," they become *' guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." From all this, it is clear that Christ would have us receive certain great benefits of His redemption, through the eating of what He calls His Body, and the drinking of what He calls His Blood. I'hese terms are never qualified, nor is any explanation of them vouchsafed. If we are to abide by Scripture, then, no matter what the mystery involved in the use of such terms as " eating the Flesh" or "Body" of Christ, and "drinking His Blood," — no matter what the difiiculty in apprehending that the highest blessings are made over to us through the reception of this Body and Blood, — no matter, too, what the danger on the side of carnality and superstition, arising from the use of these terms, still the expressions « eating Christ's Body " or " Flesh," and " drinking His Blood," are the only fitting terms to indicate the channel through which we receive certain extraordinary benefits, and so are the nearest to that truth and reality which God alone can see as it is. If we virtually set these terms aside, out of fear lest HOLY COMMUNION. 163 they be perverted or misunderstoocl, or if we so explain them away that it would clearly have been more feasible for our Lord to have used (or for us to substitute) more spiritual modes of expression in their place, then we commit the daring sin of presuming to bo more spiritual than Christ Himself. For we cannot conceal from om'selves the fact, and we must steadily look it in the face, that Christ, if it had been His blessed will, might, in this matter of the Holy Communion, have expressed Himself more spiritually than He has actually done. AYhen Christ uses the word " flesh," He, of set purpose, employs a term which expresses a grosser and more corporeal thing than the word " spirit." When Christ speaks of " eating the flesh of the Son of Man" and "drinking His blood," He deliberately uses expressions of a more material or less spiritual significa- tion than if he had spoken of " partaking of His mind," or spirit," or " realising His Atonement." When He instituted His Communion in the elements of bread and wine. He necessarily, and of course designedly, instituted it in things which pertain to the lower world of matter and sense, rather than the higher world of mind or intellect. When St. Paul says, " We, being many, are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread," he evidently intends to say a thing very different from — " We, being many, are one mind and one soul, for we are all partakers of one spirit." Both the Master and the servant deliberately use words associated with man's lower and fleshly nature, when they might have used words associated with man's higher and spiritual nature. And, if they do so, we must see to it that we fall into their mind. 164 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. We must not assume to be more spiritual than Clirist, or than that Holy S^oii'it Who sj^ake by St. Paul; or, whilst professing to avoid superstition, we may fall into the more spiritual, and therefore more diabolical, sins of intellectual pride and presumption. However strongly we assert (and we assuredly must assert) that this eating is to be a spiritual eating, still it is clearly absurd for creatures so profoundly ignorant as we are of what constitutes either mind or matter, flesh or spirit, life or death, to insist upon virtually substituting " spirit " for " flesh," and to say, in effect, that Christ, by the words " eating flesh," means only, in fact, " partaking of spirit." We have now arrived at a point from which we can see something of the nature of the mystery involved in these terms which Christ uses, and from which we can some- ivhat realise its dimensions, and be certified that, as long as we are in this world, its solution must be out of our reach. So that our only safe way is to adhere implicitly to the terms used in Scripture, without attempting to explain these hard sayings, and to leave them, where Christ has left them, in impenetrable obscurity. In His discourse in Capernaum, Christ offers to us certain unspeakably great benefits, not through partaking of His Spirit alone, but through " eating His flesh, and drinking His blood." Of course, we cannot hope for any spiritual benefits from His hands without we have His Spirit, or apart from His Spirit ; but in these places He mentions particularly and with extraordinary emphasis, not His Spirit, but His Flesh" and " Blood." Now, what are the Flesh and Blood of Christ? Evidently, that part of His whole adorable Person which He has in common with us men, and with us only. HOLY COMMUNION. 165 He has tlie Godhead in all its fulness, in common -with the Father and the Holy Ghost. He has a spiritual nature in common with all purely spii'itual beings, such as the angels. He has Flesh and Blood in common with man, and with man only. The Flesh and Blood of the Kedeemer is that part of His Nature, and that only, which is exclusively human. " Inasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same and, to do this, He " passed by the nature of angels, but He took on Him the nature of the seed of Abraham." It is the will of God, then, that we should partake of certain amazing benefits, through direct and particular communion with that part of His Son's nature which is strictly human — that part alone which lie has in common with us. Herein is the mystery of this Sacrament. In it we have offered to us the greatest benefits of Eedemj^tion ; and these benefits become ours, not merely through re- ligious intercourse with the Deity of Christ by prayer — not merely through such communion ^dth the Spirit of Christ as consists in having within us a spirit whose will is conformed to His will, or in having a spirit made like to His in goodness and truth, but thi'ough a something over and above these blessed things — through the com- munication or partaking of His lower nature, His Flesh and Blood. ^ ^ lu preparing this fourth edition I have met with an admirable exposition of what I cannot but regard as a view very similar to my own on this subject, in the "Farewell Counsels " of the present Dean of Norwich (Dr. Goulbm-n) : — "But sometliing more than the union of Christ with our nature is necessary, in order to our salvation. It is necessary that we should be joined individually to Clirist ; should be made to belong \o the family of which He is the Head ; should be brought into a 166 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. A moment's consideration of all this must convince us tliat this partaking must be unutterable and inexplicable. In the following extracts, we have the confession of two of the highest intellects of these latter days, as to their inability to fathom, much less express in words, the Sacramental mystery. " If we doubt what those admirable words may import, let Lim real connection with His limuanity as we already stand in a real connection with the humanity of Adam. I say, into a real connec- tion with the humanity of the Lord Jesus. To be brought into connection with Him as God, as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, would not be what we need. He, tht; Lord from heaven, is the Second Adam, Who has repaired the ruin of our race : and if that ruin is to be repaired in us, we must belong to, and become part of His humanity. And so He speaks in the text of eating the flesh, and drinking the blood of the Son of Man, as an indis- pensable condition of life. There is a twofold significance in the expression ' flesh and blood ' which we must not miss. First, these words are used to shew us that the union is to be with His humanity. ' Flesh and hlood ' is an expression used in Scripture, and by our Lord Himself, to denote man — human nature in its present state. Thus when St. Peter is to be assured that he had received the communication of Cluist's Messiahship, and Divine Sonship, from God, not from man, tlie words are — ' Flesh and hlood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Fatlier which is in heaven ' " (pages 76, 77) : and again ''page 82), '* By the Sacrament, when duly administered and duly received, is effected the closest possible union with the crucified humanity of the Lord Jesus ; and to express the closest union, the Sacramental act is that of eating and drinking the consecrated elements of bread and wine, which pass into and are absorbed in our living frames. The elements are not only the sign and symbol of the Body and Blood of Christ, but also the instrument of conveying, in some highly mysterious way, far above, out of our reach, an actual participation in His Crucified Human Nature, according to that word of St. Paul's, * The cup of blessyig which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the Body of Christ ?' " HOLY COMM UNION. 167 be our teacher for the meaning of Christ, to whom Cbrist was Himself a schoohnaster ; let our Lord's Apostle be His interpreter ; content we ourselves with his explication — My Body, the oom- munion of My Body ; My Blood, the communion of My Blood. Is there anything more expedite, clear, and easy, than that as Christ is termed our life, because through Him we obtain life, so the parts of this Sacrament are His body and blood, for that they are so to us jfho, receiving them, receive that by them which they are termed ? The bread and cup are His body and blood, because they are causes instrumental upou the receipt whereof the participation of His body and blood ensueth. For that which produceth any certain effect ia not vainly nor improperly said to be that very effect whereunto it tendeth. Every cause is in the effect which groweth from it. Our souls and bodies quickened to eternal life are effects, the cause whereof is the Person of Christ, His body and blood are the true well-spring out of which this life floweth. So that His body and blood are in that very subject whereunto they minister life, not only by effect or operation, even as the influence of the heavens is in plants, beasts, men, and in everything which they quicken, but also hy a far more Divine and mystical kind of union, which maketh us one with Him, even as He and the Father are one." — Hooker, " Eccles. Pol." Book V. ch. Ixvii. sec. 5. " Our participation of Christ in this Sacrament dependeth on the co-operation of His omnipotent power which maketh it His body and blood to us, whether with change or without alteration of the element, such as they imagine, we need not greatly to care or inquire." — Ibid. sec. 6. " Where God Himself doth speak those things which either for height and sublimity of matter, or else for secrecy of performance, we are not able to reach unto, as we may be ignorant witliout danger, so it can be no disgrace to confess we are igcierant. Sucli AS love piety will as much as m them lieth know all things that God commandeth, but especially the duties of service which they owe to God. As for His dark and hidden works, they prefer, as becometh them, m such cases simplicity of faith before that know- ledge which, curiously sifting what it should adore, and disputing too boldly of that which the wit of man cannot search, chilleth for tlie most part all warmth of zeal, and bringeth soundness of belief many times into great hazard. Let it therefore be sufiQcient for me, presenting myself at the Lord's Table, to know what there I receive from Him, without searching or inquiring of the manner how Christ 168 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. pcrformeth His promise. . . . What these elements are in themselves it skilleth not, it is enough that to me which take them they are the body and blood of Christ, His promise in witness hereof Bufficeth, His Word He knoweth which way to accomplish : why should any cogitation possess the mind of a faithful connnuuicant but this, — 0 my God, Thou art true ; 0 my soul, thou art happy ?" —Ibid. sec. 12. "I am not satisfied with the view of those v/ho, while acknowledg- ing that we have some kind of communion with Christ, only make us partakers of the Spirit, omitting all mention of flesh and blood. As if it were said to no purpose at all, that His flesh is meat indeed, and His blood is drink indeed ; that we have no life except we eat that flesh and drink that blood, and so forth. Therefore if it is evident that full communion with Christ goes bej'ond their descrip- tion, which is too confined, I will attempt briefly to show how far it extends ... if, indeed, it be lawful to put this great mystery into words, a mystery which I feel, and therefore freely confess that I am unable to comprehend with my mind, so far am I from wishing any one to measure its sublimity by my feeble capacity. Nay, I rather exhort my readers not to confine their apprehension within those too narrow limits, but to attempt to rise much higher than I can guide them. For whenever this subject is considered, after I have done my utmost, I feel that I have spoken far beneath its dignity. And though the mind is more powerful in thought than the tongue in expression, it too is overcome and overwhelmed with the magnitude of the subject. All then that remains is to break forth in admiration of the mystery which it is plain that the mind is inadequate to comprehend, or the tongue to express."— Calvin's " Institutes," Book IV., chap, xvii., p. 395. (Calv. See. Translation.) " Now, should any one ask me as to the mode, I will not be ashamed to confess that it is too high a mystery either for my mind to comprehend or my words to express ; and, to speak more plainly, I rather feel than understand it. The truth of God, therefore, in which I can safely rest, I here embrace without controversy. He declares that His flesh is the meat, His blood the drink of my soul ; I give my soul to Him to be fed with such food. In His sacred supper He bids me take, eat, and drink His body and blood, under the symbols of bread and wine. I have no doubt that He will truly p;i\e and I receive. Only, I reject the absurdities which appear to be unworthy of the heavenly majesty of Christ, and are inconsietett HOL'S COMMUXIOX. 109 with the reality of His human nature. Since they must also be repugnant to the Word of God, which teaches both that Christ wa3 received into the glory of the heavenly kingdom, so as to be exalted above all the circiunstances of the world (Luke xxiv, 2G), and no less carefully ascribes to Him the properties belonging to a true human nature. This ought not to seem increchble or contradictory to reason (Iren. Lib. iv., cap. 34), because as the whole Kingdom of Christ is spiritual, so whatever He does in His Cliurch is not to be tested with the wisdom of this world ; or, to use the words of Augustine, * this mystery is performed by men like the others, but in a Divine manner, and on earth, but in a heavenly manner.' Such, I say, is the corporeal presence which the nature of the Sacrament requires, and which we say is here displayed in such power and efficacy, that it not only gives our minds undoubted assurance of eternal life, but also secm-es the immortality of our flesh, since it is now quickened by His immortal flesh, and in a manner shines in His immortality." — Ibid. Book IV., chap, xvii., sec. 32, p. 431. SECTION VI. THE C05I3IUNION SERMCE. Having thus examined all the direct statements which we find in the New Testament respecting the nature and benefits of the Lord's Supper, we are able to ascertain what doctrines the Articles and Formularies of any par- ticular branch of the Church must assert, if they are to be accounted Scriptural. First of all, if any confessions and formularies are to be accounted Scriptui-al, they must set forth the Holy Communion as primarily intended to enable men to partake of the " Body " and " Blood " of Christ. However they may protest against the natural eating of a natural body, they must not so explain away the terms " Body " and "Blood," as that the use of other words, such as 170 CHUBCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. "spii-it" or "doctrine," would evidently bring us nearer to the truth. Secondly, the greatest benefits of Eedemption must be acknowledged to depend upon the right reception of this « Body " and " Blood." Thirdly, any formularies to be Scriptural must distinctly recognise that the body of the Christian as well as his soul has its share in these benefits. Fourthly, the utmost prominence must be given to the fact that the reception of these benefits depends upon the state of heart of him who receives the Communion. Fifthly, the medium for the communication of these blessings must be set forth to be, not the elements of bread and wine generally, but the particular bread and wine consecrated after Chi-ist's institution. Sixthly, the whole Service— viz., the consecration and administration of the elements, with the service of prayer and praise accompanying it — must be accounted the most solemn memorial possible before God and men of the Sacrifice of the Death of Christ, and so must, of necessity, be the most prominent act of worshij} in the Christian Church. We will now consider these several points in their order. Firstj then, if our formularies are Scriptural, the Sacra- ment of the Lord's Supper must be set forth in them as a means of gi'ace, instituted by Christ for the purpose of enabling us to partake, in some mysterious but real way, of His Body and Blood. In the twenty-eighth Article the Lord's Supper is defined to be "a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death,' ' Sacraments having been previously defined (Article XXV.) to be " certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace, and God's good ^yili towards iis, hy the which He doth icork invisibly in us." HOLY COMMUNION. 171 inasmuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ." ^ On the Sunday before the Celebration, an invitation is given in which the Eucharist is described as " the most comfortable Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Chi'ist," and that " God hath given His Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, not only to die for us, but also to be our spiritual food and sustenance in that Holy Sacrament . . . so DIVINE and comfortable a thing to those who receive it worthily." Then, in the exhortation to the assembled communi- cants, those who intend to partake are addressed as those who " mind to come to the Holy Communion of the Body and Blood of Chi'ist." In the prayer immediately pre- ceding the consecration, we pray that " we may so eat the Flesh of God's dear Son, and drink His Blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by His Body," &c. In the prayer of consecration, the priest is directed to ' Let the reader particularly observe that this definition of Holy ' Communion was given advisedly, in the face of descriptions of it apparently more spiritual, which were then broached amongst the sects to which the Eeformation gave rise. Such a more "spiritual" or rationalising definition of it is mentioned in the beginning of the Article, " The Supper of the Lord is (not only) a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another," We may marvel that the compilers of the Articles took the trouble to allude to an opinion on the face of it so manifestly short of every Scripture which refers to the Lord's Supper, but their having done so is valuable in this respect, that it may serve to convince those who write and speak as if our Reformers were only half-enlightened, and had never had the " truth " (?) fully set before them, that they were quite aware of these so-called spiiitual interpretations, and dehbcratclv rejected them. 172 CHURCH DOCTRINE,— BIBLE TRUTH. pray that " we receiving these God's Creatures of brehe Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost — for the Rcdemp- ;ion of the world, by the death and passion of our Saviour Ohiist," &c, 180 CHURCH DOCTKiNE, — BIBLE TRUTH. There is also another short address to those who desire to communicate, in which they are spoken to as those who " truly and earnestly repent of their sins, and are in love and charity with their neighbours." &c. Aftei this, the more solemn part of the Service begins a^ it does in all the ancient Liturgies) with the words, " Lift up your hearts." Then we are led to pray that we may so eat— i.e., with such faith, and such inward desire aftor the good things of God's salvation — that our sinful bodies may be made clean by His Body, and our souls washed with His most precious Blood. And having com- municated, we thank God that " He hath vouchsafed to feed us who have duly received these holy mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of His Son our Saviour Jesus Christ." In the Catechism, " The Body and Blood of Christ are said to be verily and indeed taken and received hy the faithful ^ in the Lord's Supper." And in Article XXVIII. : " To such as rightly, worthily^ and loith faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ." In the fifth place, if our Service is to be Scriptural, tho outward part of the Sacrament must be set forth to be, not bread and wine generally, but tho particular bread and wine which has been consecrated after the Institution of Christ. For no other bread and wine is spoken of in the Scrip- tures, in connexion with the Lord's Supper ; and in every mention of the Eucharist, particular allusion is made to consecration, or blessing, or thanksgiving. * I cannot believe that the term " faithful " in the context is to be mi'lerstood as simply meaning ' Clnistian " in the broad sense of 8 p^-ofessor of Christianity. HOLY COMMTTXTON. 181 In Holy Scripture tlie outward parts are never dis- sociated from the act of benediction, or Eucharistia, by which they have been set apart. In all the foiu' accounts of the Institution, our Lord's act of " blessing " or " giving thanks " is particularly men- tioned. Thus, in St. Matthew, "As they were eating Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and break it." In St. Mark, " As they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake," In St. Luke, "He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it." In St. Paul, " I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He brake it. . . . After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped." St. Paul afterwards twice characterises the Sacramental elements as " this bread," " this cup " (1 Cor. xi. 26, 27) ; and when he has occasion to mention them in connexion with the inward part, it is as the bread and cup blessed or consecrated : " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ?" Again, in the two places in the Acts of the Apostles in which Holy Communion is alluded to, it is called " The breaking of bread" (Acts ii. 42; xx. 7) : by this ex- pression tlie whole Eucharistic action being evidently meant — the " breaking " being always accompanied by tJie " blessing." Observe how the Ordinance in these places takes its name from the outward visible act done by the minister, as distinguished from the act of reception or the realisation of the thing signified. We do not read that they continued steadfast in the " eating " of bread, but in the " breaking " of bread. The disciples came not together to eat bread, but to break bread. 182 CHURCH DOCTROE, — BIBLE TRUTH. St. Paul says not, " The cup of blessing which ye par- take of, or which ye realise," but " The cup of blessing which we bless ;" and this Scripture principle is strictly adhered to by the Church of England; for there is a rubric directing that, " when the priest, standing before the table, hath so ordered the bread and wine that he may with the more readiness and decency break the bread before the people^ and take the cup into his hands, he shall say the Prayer of Consecration, as followeth." Then comes this Prayer, containing, as all the ancient Liturgies do, an acknowledgment of God's mercies in liaving given Christ for our Redemption : and then reciting the words of om* Lord in the accounts of the Institution, following, so far as regards the bread, St. Paul's account, but combining the words as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke in the blessing of the cup. After this there is a further rubric, recognising still more emphatically the need of consecration : " If the consecrated bread and wine be all spent before all have communicated, the priest is to consecrate more according to the form before prescribed, beginning at ' Our Saviom* Christ,' &c." This rubric was introduced at the last revision, and it renders the Service more Scriptural, i.e., more in accordance with every notice of the Holy Communion in Scripture, for the only bread and wine recognised in Scriptm'e as the outward part of the Sacrament is that which has been consecrated in accordance with the Institution of Chi'ist. flOLt COMMUNION. 188 SECTION VII. THE EUCHARISTIO SACRIFICE. In the sixth and last place, if our Service is to be Recounted Scriptural, it must distinctly set forth the act of celebrating the Eucharist as the most solemn memorial or commemoration possible before God and man of the Sacrifice of the Death of Christ. It must be the chief Christian sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and so the most prominent act of worship in the Christian Church. The commemorative or sacrificial character of the Eucharist rests on the words of our Lord, " Do this in remembrance of Me," and on those of St. Paul, " As oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come." We should naturally suppose that those who loved the Saviour, and received His every word as the word of the Living God, would have looked upon this memorial of His love, instituted by Himself on the eve of His Passion, as the great demonstrative action of the Church when gathered together ; and so we find that they did. This solemn commemorative rite formed the distinctive feature of Christian, as distinguished from Jewish or heathen worship. There are very few references throughout the New Testament to stated Christian assemblies (not more, I think, than six). And in three, or probably four, of these, Holy Communion is expressly mentioned as the object for which such assemblies were gathered together. Of course, I should exclude from the above enumeration 184 CHriEcn rodrixE— bible truth. tlie notices of the meeting of the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem and its neighbom-hood in the temple, because attendance in such a place as the Jewish temple of sacri- fice cannot form any precedent for after ages. I should, for the same reason, exclude all notices of preaching and teaching in Jewish synagogues. Having, in this inves- tigation, to do only with purely Christian congregations for worship and instruction, it is clear that the grand object for which such were gathered together was the celebration of the Eucharist. Thus it is said in Acts xx. 7, that the specific object of the gathering together of the disciples on the first day of the week was the breaking of bread." On that occasion St. Paul preached to them, but the purpose for which the assembly came together is expressly stated to have been the celebration of the Eucharist. Again : the notice of the Lord's Supper in the eleventh chapter of the Fii'st Epistle to the Connthians would lead us to suppose that the early Church gathered themselves together chiefly, if not mainly, for it : and the " giving of thanks " mentioned in the notice of Christian worship in 1 Cor. xiv. 16, is evidently the Eucharistic consecration prayer or blessing.^ Again : the partaking of the Lord's Table is alluded to in 1 Cor. xi. 16 — 21, in evident contrast with the par- taking of the Jewish or heathen sacrifices, which of course were the leading features in Jewish and heathen worship. In two other places only are distinctive Christian assemblies referred to; namely, in Hebrews x. 25, and James ii. 1, 2 ; but in neither of these do we find one word respecting the worship of such assemblies. I do not for a moment mean to assert that Christians never met 1 See Chrysostom on 1 Cor. xiv. 17, p. 49i. KOLY COMMUNION. 185 together except for Eiicliaristic purposes ; but I 'do assert that we have no record of any stated meetings except for this purpose. We have no account, for instance, of any stated meetings for prayer, or preaching, or the reading of the Scriptures onhj. It will be needful, at this stage of our inquiry into the position of the Eucharist as the great characteristic act of Christian worship, to investigate, as far as our limits will permit, the exact sense in which the Holy Eucharist is a " sacrifice." The Sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist most assuredly does not seem prominent in the Scriptures which teach us the nature of this Sacrament. It appears in them rather as an ordinance in which God offers something to us, than one in which we offer anything to Him. Taking also into account the idea almost always attached to the English word " sacrifice," there is a difiS- culty amongst us in applying it to the Eucharist ; for, in most cases, we mean by a sacrifice, a thing voluntarily sur- rendered, or given up, which costs the sacrificer sometliing. Thus, in common conversation, we speak of a man making great sacrifices for his religion, or country, or friends. This idea we derive from the accounts of sacrifices in the Old Testament, which were, for tbe most part, costly : the most prominent sacrifices being those of bullocks, calves, and lambs, in which mainly consisted the property of the men of those days. When these things were sacrificed, they were slaughtered, and afterwards partially or wholly consumed by fire, and were of no further value to the sacrificer. Besides these, there were other sacrifices, which were mostly taken away altogether from the offerer. Some of them are particularly described in Leviticus ii. : and these, 186 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. beiug offerings of fine flour, or cakes, were not (compared with the others) costly ; but they also were partially or wholly consumed by fire : and, when once offered, ceased to belong to tlie person who provided them ; nor were they partaken of at all by him ; but, part of them having been burnt, the remainder was to be eaten by Aaron and his sous. A sacrifice, then, always implied the surrender to God, in solemn worship, of something more or less valuable to the sacrificer. Then there was the offering of incense, which was a very costly compound, and was wholly consumed by fire on the altar appropriated to this kind of sacrifice. Now the Holy Eucharist presents none of these features of sacrifice. I mean, of course, the actual Eucharist, divested of all its accessories ; for, in this investigation, we must be most careful to distinguish the offering of our substance in the offertory, and the sacrifices of prayer and adoration which have always accompanied the celebration of the Eucharist, from what constitutes the Eucharist itself. The actual Eucharist is the consecration and con- sumption, as food, of a small quantity of bread and wine. It is clear that such a rite cannot present those features which we usually associate with the idea of a sacrifice. No part of it is consumed by fire. No part of it belongs to the priest as his peculiar portion. The whole costs little or nothing. Each communicant, whether priest or layman, receives the same ; and all that is consecrated is consumed by the worshippers. Another point, too, a little consideration will mako abundantly clear ; which is, that the contrast which we have drawn out between the Lord's Supper and the ancient sacrifices is little, if at all, affected by the light in which we regard the elements after consecratioii. HOLY COMMUNION. 187 For, supposing that we regard the elements as transub- stantiated into the natural Flesh and Blood of Chi*ist, even that would not constitute the Eucharist a sacrifice in the sense of the Levitical sacrifices. For a Sacrifice, as its very name implies, is not a thing, but an act performed upon a thing, i.e., immolation, or something answering to it, without which there cannot be a proper sacrifice. Besides this, it would involve no cost or self-denial on our part, and so it would, in a very material point, differ from the Jewish sacrifices, and from all that English Chi'istians have long been in the habit of calling by the name of " sacrifice." No matter what the elements become by consecration, no part of them is burnt, as was the case in the corre- sponding Jewish offering of fine flour. The sacrifice, in whatever it consists, does not involve that total or partial consumption by fire of the thing sacri- ficed, which formed the chief feature in the sacrifices of oxen, flour, or incense. Again : it is very distinctly laid down in a great number of places in the Old Testament, thp.t the burnt - offerings and some other sacrifices were propitiatory. Now, wdthout looking narrowly into the pui'pose and extent of this " propitiation," it is evident that the pro- pitiatory character of the sacrifices was intimately asso- ciated with the fact that they were costly to the offerer, and that they involved the death of the victim at the time when it was offered. All the imperfect and typical pro- pitiation which they afforded was connected with the death or destruction of the thing sacrificed. But the Eucharist cannot in this way be a propitiatory sacrifice. If we take the grossest possible view of the presence of Christ's Body and Blood, wo cannot suppose for a moment that in the Eucharist that Body actually 188 CHTJRCh DOCTRTKE, — BIBI.E tRtlTH. suffers over again pain and death. No matter liow com- plete the identification of the elements with the Body and Blood of Christ, it is not to be supposed that Christ suffers crucifixion afresh whilst they are consecrated, or broken, or consumed. And yet it was the death of the animal offered which gave to the sacrifice its limited, typical, pro- pitiatory value : just as it was the pains and death suffered Dy the Body of Christ, and the separation of the Blood from that Body by death, which constituted His Body the One Eeal Propitiatory Sacrifice. The Holy Eucharist, then, has scarcely one feature in common with the things which in Scripture arc called, and which English Christians commonly call, sacrifices. The things offered in the Sacrament cost the offerer nothing. There is neither pain nor death suffered at the time by the thing offered. It is not wholly consumed or destroyed in such a sense as to be lost to the offerer ; nor is it partially destroyed, and the remainder consumed by the priests alone, as in the Levitical offering most resembling it in outward form. Yet, notwithstanding all this, the Holy Communion possesses the most intense sacrificial reality. No sacrifice that ever was presented before God, in solemn worship of Jew or Gentile, can come near it. No God-ordained offering of the old Law can, in the matter of sacrificial virtue or significance, be named beside it in regard of the one all-important element of ancient sacrificial worship, viz., dii'cct reference to, and close connexion with, the One all-atoning Victim. For the real spiritual value of the old sacrifices lay not in the costliness of the victim, nor in its death and the outpouring of its blood, nor in its consumption by fire ; but it lay in the implied reference to the atoning Death of Christ which pervaded the whole transaction. HOLY COLIMUNIOX. 189 In tlie ages preceding the sacrifice of the Death of Christ, there was nothing Avhich had anything like the close reference to it, or anything like the close connexion with itj which the Eucharist has — and that, too, by the express appointment and institution of Clu'ist Himself.^ ' May I ask the reader's attention to the following extract from ^ Tolume of essays written by men supposed to entertain the hi.irliesi Eucharistic doctrine consistent with adherence to the English Church : — " In the strictest and most literal sense, ' expiatory cacrifice ' there never was any but that which was begun in the upper cliam- ber and finished upon the Cross ; ' priest ' there never was nor could be any but Jesus Christ; nor 'altar/ save only the Holy Cross. Still, because they have an important connection with, and relation to, those grand and unique realities which can be expressed in no other way, the Christian Eucharist being the solemn memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross, and the present exhibition of Christ's priestly intercession in heaven, is called a Saori^ce, its celebrant is culled a 'priest,' and that whereon it is celebrated is called an • ultar.' "We Christians, as St. Paul says, ' have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle,' i.e., who, not believing in Christ, still clung to the worship of the Jewish temple — an altar more truly so than ever was any in the camal Jerusalem, though dedicated with the slaughtered hecatombs of a Solomon. And indeed,' as Bishop Cosin has well said, ' the Sacrament of the Eucharist carries the name of a Sacrifice, and the table whereon it '.s celebrated an altar of oblation, in a far higher sense than any of their former sei-vices did, which were but the types and figures of those services that are performed in recognition and memory of Christ's own Saciifice once offered upon the altar of the Cross,' (Bishop Cosin's Notes on the Prayer Book, Second Scj*ies, Works, vol. V. p. 348.) "NVe see, then, that the Ordinance of tliC Holy Communion, besides its aspect of blessing to oui'selves as a means of feeding us with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of Christ, has another most important aspect as a solemn, the most solemn, act of worship towards Almighty God, the pleading Ix^ibre God for man of the one acceptable propitiation, in union vrith the perpetual presentation of Himself in heaven by the Man Christ Jesus, as our sole acceptable priest, the one Head of the redeemed 190 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Respecting the flesh of no victim ever offered in old times were such words said as " This is My body, which is given for you." Respecting the blood of no victim was it ever said " This is My blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for you." Previous to the Eucharist, no memorial of Himself was ever instituted by " God manifest in the flesh." So that, having regard to that one thing which gave family of God." — Rev. P. J. IMedd's Essay on the Eucharistic Sacrifice."' After an attentive perusal of the essay, the part which I have extracted above appears to me to give the very pith and mar- row of the whole. Now, it is worthy of remark that a Dissenting (Wesleyan) review — the " Wesleyan Methodist Magazine " — in a severe article on these essays in general, has this remark upon this one in particular : " The doctrine of the volume is throughout that of the highest sacramental school, with one remarkable, and, indeed, astonishing exception. The only essay which contains a fairly Evangelical and a truly spiritual view of fundamental theology is that in which the Romanism of the book [ ' The Church and the World '] would have been expected to reach its height ; that, namely, of the Rev. P. J. Medd, Fellow and Tutor of University College, Oxford, on the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Mr. Medd expounds this sub- ject in a manner which, to a large extent, must command the approval of all spiritual and Evangelical Christians. He quotes two of Charles Wesley's hymns (Nos. 545 and 551) as fully expressing his own views respecting the Eucharist." After much more in the same strain, and without a word of disapproval, the reviewer says, " His (Mr. Medd's) theological exposition of the doctrine of the Eucliarist is essentially Protestant ; certainly it is by no means Romanist," &c , &c. — " Methodist Magazine " for Nov. 1866, p. 1017. I ask the reader to mark these words of the essayist and his reviewer; I am satisfied, after long and deep consideration, that there need be, in our Church at least, no dilference of opinion on this weighty subject, if men would but state clearly, unreservedly, and I must add, frequently, the precise sense in which they applj the term Sacrifice to the Eucharist. HOLY COmiUNION. 191 the old offerings theii- spiritual value (viz., tlieir reference to the Death of Christ), all the burnt-offerings and sacri- fices which all the priests of Aaron's line ever offered, are, in the eye of faith, as nothing when set side by side with one celebration of the Eucharist. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist depends on the words of our Lord, " Do this in i-emembrance of Me," and on the words of the Holy Spirit by St. Paul, " As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do .show the Lord's death till He come." Let us consider what these words must be taken to mean. " Do this in remembrance of Me," must signify either, " Do this as a solemn public or Church commemoration of My death," or " Do this as a means of reminding your- selves individually of what you owe to My death." According to the first, om* Lord instituted a solemn commemoration of Himself to be performed, before God and man, by the whole Church gathered together in its stated assemblies. According to the second, He ordained, in fact, nothing more than an acted sermon — a mere means of publicly instructing or edifying individuals, who, by the use of certain types, were severally to remind themselves of His death on theii* own private account. The first of these views seems to be remarkably well expressed in the following passage : — " By commanding His Chui^h to do this in remembrance af Him, He bids her, in truth, do that continually which tie did in the upper room, and which He Himself is ever doing in heaven. We believe that He is continually inter- ceding for us at the right hand of the Father — presenting night and day before the mercy-seat His glorified Body, with all its wounds, and thereby reminding the Father of 192 CEURCIl DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. tlio one oblation of Himself, once for all offered upon the cross ; and in the Holy Eucharist, the Church on earth joins in the memorial whicli He is making, and pleads together with Him the unspeakable merits of His Death and Passion." — Young's " Daily Readings," vol. i. p. 438 (for Fourth Sunday in Lent). The second of these views is well expressed in the words of a man who has, more than any other man, stamped his own character on the modern Evangelical party in the Church of England : " It is also here added, that as oft as they drank of that cup, they ought to do it in remembrance of Christ ; in order that the frequent recollection of His love. His sufferings, and their obligations to Him, might have a proper effect upon their hearts and lives." — Thomas Scott's " Commentary on 1 Cor. xi. 25." A very little consideration will show that anything like this latter gloss cannot be taken as coming up to the meaning of the words, " Do this in remembrance of Me for there are many things which, far more directly than the Eucharist, answer the purpose of thus reminding us of Christ's death. The ordinance of preaching far more dii*ectly proclaims Christ Crucified as the sinner's only Hope. The reading of those Scriptures in which we have the account of His Crucifixion is far better calculated than the breaking of a morsel of bread to impress upon us how His love was stronger than death ; for in them we have the extremity of His Sufferings, in His Agony, and in His endurance of desertion, shame, and contempt, simply but vividly set forth. The simple reading of Isaiah liii. would far more lucidly set forth the atoning, reconciling virtue of His Passion. All this has been felt and practically acknowledged by the various sects which have denied, or lost sight of, the true sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist : and so amongsi HOLY COMMUNION. 193 ttem, as I am pre^Dared to show, tlie Eucharist has de- generated into a means of proclaiming or showing forth, not the death of Christ, but the faith of particular persons in the fact that Christ died for them, and that they have been enabled to exercise an act of self-appropriating faith in Him. According to them, oui" Lord should have said, not " Do this in remembrance of Me," but " Do this to show your faith in Me." ' ^ Such is [or was] apparently the only view taken of the Eucharist by tlie Independents or Congregationalists. " They believe in the perpetual obligation of Baptism and the Lord's Supper : the fonner to be administered to all converts to Christianity and their children, by the application of water to the subject in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; and the latter to he celebrated by Christian Churches as a token of faith in the Saviour and of brotherly love." One can scarcely imagine a view of Holy Communion which more completely excludes the teaching of every passage of God's Word in which this Sacrament is referred to. The above extract is taken from " The Constitution of the Congregational Union of England and Wales," as giveu in "The Congregational Year Book " for 1864. But I have reason to believe that juster and more Scriptural views are gaining ground in the body. The views put forth by the Rev. W. R. Dale, in the followiug extract, show this :— " The strong expressions about eating the Flesh and di-inkiug the Blood of tho Son of Man are very commonly interpreted as though they meant notliing more than believing what Christ taught. If this is all they mean, then it is difficult to understand why our Lord should have used such expressions at all. His subsequent explanation to the disciples of his 'hard sajdng,' does not satisfy me that language so startling was meant to convey a truth so obviour and simple. . . . They would brood over His strange words, woa dering what their full meaning was. By and by they came to undec stand them. In the Lord's Supper we have the development of the tmths which the Apostles could not apprehend when they were first revealed. We have these truths developed, I say, in the Lord's Supper. It is, however, very doubtful whether it is possibla Q 194 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. A more mistaken gloss on any Scripture was never put forth ; for the evidence of faith, according to God's word, is not the reception of sacraments, but holiness of life. The sole view of the nature and objects of the Lord's Supper, entertained by tens of thousands of religious Englishmen and Englishwomen, is that of an ordinance in which they are enabled individually to make a profession of their spiritual hold on Christ. In opposition to all this, we have to maintain the true obvious meaning of Christ's words, " Do this in remem- brance of ME." "Do this as a solemn commemoration before God and your brethren of what I have done and suffered for you." And the true meaning of the words of the Spirit by to exhaust in definite propositions the meaning of the Ordinance. . . . The ceremony is not a mere artificial aid to memory, assisting to perpetuate certain abstract or historical truths which might as well be written in a book : it is intended to convey, and does actually convey, more than mere words can express. To explain therefore what Christ means by making the bread the symbol of the body, and commanding His disciples to eat it, seems to me not merely difficult but impossible. . . . The bread is the body of Christ ; and no fami- liarity with theological speculation is required to suggest to the mind of every communicant that our Lord iu tended to connect the higher life which He originates and sustains with His humanity. As the bread itself is the natural symbol of all that supports our physical life, so the body is the natural symbol of human nature. It is impossible to resist the conviction that Christ meant to say that He is the life of man because He Himself has become man. We live by Him, not because He is God simply, but because He is God manifest in the flesh." (Eev. W. R. Dale on the Lord's Supper, in "Evangelical Magazine" for 1867, pp. 302—304.) Of com-se, in reading the above, one desiderates that the mystery should have been rather recognised as pertaining to what is given than what is taught, but such teaching is a great advance upon what is held even by Evangelicals in the Church of England. HOLY COMMUNION. 195 St. Paul, " Ye do show tlic Lord's death till He come." "Ye do show forth before God, and the elect angels, and the Church, not your miserable faith, but the love unspeak- able — the love stronger than death and hell — the love which passeth knowledge, of the Son of the Most High God." When we " do this," we commemorate and show forth before God the Father, and before the Church, the Sacrifice of the Death of Christ. We commemorate it, or show it forth, in solemnly and religiously partaking of certain things, which (if we receive Chi'ist's own words as true) we must believe to have the closest relation to that Body and Blood by which He re- deemed the world : so that the representation of the Death of Christ by the flesh of the slain bullock or lamb was as nothing, in the eye of God, to the representation of the Death of Christ by the Eucharistic elements. When, then, we celebrate the Communion, we do, in remembrance of Christ, an infinitely greater thing than the Jews did by their sacrifices : for we show forth Christ's Death by the use of outward parts or signs, whicli Chi'ist Himself calls by the names of the things which they signify, and by no other names. It is clear that if the Church believes in the reality of her Lord's own words when He instituted this ordinance, she must believe in its superior acceptableness, above all the typical ordinances which went before it. Believing this, she cannot but consider the time of cele- ' brating the Holy Communion as the most sacred season of her worship, and so she will naturally choose it as the most fitting opportunity for bringing before God her lowliest confessions, her deepest desires, her highest praises, her most grateful thanksgivings. She will humbly offer these at such a time, with the view of connecting them as slosely as she possibly can with the Atoning Sacrifice of il 196 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. her Great Mediator. Just as the pious Jew, who entered most deeply into the spiritual and evangelical signification of his burnt-offerings, would naturally present along with {hem his heartiest prayers and praises. This, then, is the sacrificial view of the Eucharist. It is the solemn ecclesiastical memorial of the Sacrifice of the Deatli of Christ. It is the Saviour's own ordained means of showing forth before God, men, and angels. His love in His Death. Just as the Old Law sacrifices were anticipatory showings forth of the One Atoning Death which was to be, so this Communion is a memorial, or commemorative showing forth, of the One Atoning Death which has been. All this accoimts for the otherwise inexplicable fact — • with the mention of which we commenced this part of our subject — that the " breaking of bread," or Eucharistic celebration, appears, in the few notices of Christian assemblies recorded in the New Testament, as the leading featm*e of those assemblies. All this, too, is the only way of accounting for what would otherwise be an equally inexplicable fact, that the earliest records in ecclesiastical history concerning Chris- tian congregations, and the earliest di-afts of Christian Liturgies, are in strict accordance with these Scripture allusions to the Eucharist ; for both ecclesiastical History and all early Liturgies set forth Holy Communion as the grand terminal act of all meetings of Chiistians for united worship. Stated Christian assemblies do not appear either in Scripture or in ecclesiastical writers as prayer-meetings, or meetings for mutual edification or instruction, by the reading or exposition of Scripture alone : they always appear as meetings for celebrating a worship of which the Eucharist was the grand termination. Proyerfs of tij*- HOLY COMMUNION. 197 tonisbing fervoiu', supplications for every conceivable class of human safferers, praises founded on tiie most exalted views of the Divine nature and attributes, all take their places round the " breaking of bread " as their centre ; all lead the worshipper on to the culminating point, the reception by each individual present of the Eucharist. The following notice cf Christian assemblies by Justin Martyr is one of the earliest and, at the same time, the most circumstantial which exists, of what in those days (a.d. 140) constituted the Divine worshiiD of Chi-istians on the Lord's Day : — "Over all our ofierings, we bless the Creator of all things, through His Son Jesus Chi-ist, and through the Holy Spirit. And, on the day which is called Sunday, there is an assembly in one place of all who dwell either in towns or in the country, and the memoii's of the Apostles or the writings of the Prophets are read as long as the time permits. Then, when the reader has finished, he who presides admonishes and exhorts by word of mouth (8ta Xoyov) to the imitation of their noble deeds. We then rise up altogether and put forth prayers, and, as we have already said, bread is brought, and wine, and water, and the President in like manner offers up prayers and praises with all his power ; and the people join in with one voice, saying the Amen, and those things over which the Eucharistic prayer has been said are distributed and received by each person, and are sent, through the Deacons, to the absent." — Justin Maettr, " Apol." i. G7. Such is the memorial, or commemorative, or sacrificial view of Holy Communion as it exists in the New Testa- ment, and as it has obtained in the Church from New Testament times. We have now to consider how all this is represented in the Book of Common Prayer. 198 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. First of all, Holy Communion is, according to the theory of the Church as exj)ressed in the construction and arrangement of the Book of Common Prayer, the great distinguishing act of Christian worship on the Lord's Day. For the Church, in having provided for every Sunday a different Collect, Epistle, and Gospel, as part of the Communion Service, has shown her mind upon the celebi^a- tion of Holy Communion, on every Lord's Day at leasfc. Each Sunday is known by the special differences in its Communion Service, for these constitute the leading, if not the only, distinction between the Services of one Sunday and another. The Table of Old Testament Lessons of course following the lead of the Collects, Epistles, and Gospels, whilst the remainder of the Service is in no way distinguished from that for week-days. In addition to this, the very sermon itself comes in as part of the Communion Service, for the only recognition of a sermon in the whole Prayer-book is contained ii-i a rubric in the middle of the Communion Service, after the Nicene Creed and before the Offertory. All this shows indisputably that Holy Communion has now in theory the same place in the Church's Sunday worship as it had in primitive or New Testament times. It is true that this has been, to a lamentable extent, only the theory of the Church ; in practice it has not been carried out ; but the Prayer-book is not to blame for this. Each minister, no matter how infrequent his actual administration of Holy Communion, is obliged to read a part, viz., the commencement, of the Communion Service before he preaches, thereby forcing the more thinking of his flock to ask, Why does he omit the rest ? Why does he begin a separate and distinct Service, and break off short in the middle of it ? HOLY COMMUXION. 199 Oiu- usual practice of readiug the beginniug of the Holy Communion Service and not administering the Sacrament, is like " saying grace " when there is no food on the table. But the fault is our o^sti, not the fault of the Church ; for, in the Prayer-book, Holy Communion still occupies the same position which it did in Xew Testament or primitive times. Then, in the next place, if the Chm-ch of England has the right view of Holy Communion — if she regards it as the one grand memorial, or commemorative sacrifice of the New Testament — she will naturally choose the time of celebrating it as the time in which her children are to bring before God their deepest confessions of sin and highest acts of worship and praise. And so she does, for at the celebration of the Eucharist — imder a deep sense of that awful nearness of the presence of God our Savioui', to which we approach, we briug before God our lowliest con- fessions of sin — we put up a confession of sin far deeper in its expressions of humiliation than that used in daily morning or evening prayer. The prayer of humble access also (•' We do not presume to come to this Thy Table, 0 merciful Lord, trusting in om* own righteousness," &c.) can scarcely be surpassed in its expressions of a sense of utter un worthiness. Then, at the time of Holy Communion, we bring before God our most earnest supplications and intercessions for all orders and degrees of men. But here it may be objected that the form of supplica- tion in which we do this — the Prayer for the Chui-ch Militant— is much too succinct and meagi'e. It may be so, compared with the corresponding form in some of the ancient Eastern Liturgies ;^ but it should be remembered > The Prayer for the Church Militant, however, is far mere full than any correspciidiug furm in tUe Canon of the l^fasa. 200 CHURCH DOCTElNEj — BIBLE TRUTH. iliat the vast mass of our communicants partake of the Holy Sacrament after the Sunday Morning Service, «.e., after they have joined in the Litany, a form of supplication ^msurpassed in its union of particularity of petition with conciseness, and of holy fervoui' with deep self-abasement and reverence. At Holy Communion, too, we offer to God our most exalted praises and deepest thanksgivings. Now, the highest acts of praise will ever be the simplest. The thing which mars our praises in these latter days is the self-contemplation which, somehow, it seems we cannot keep out of them. But it is evident that the nearer we get to God the more complete will be the annihilation of self. God has revealed to us the very words in which He is praised by the unfallen spirits who are nearest to His throne. And there is no taint of self about these praises. God is very near indeed to those who sing them, and their words are very few : " Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts ; the whole earth is full of His glory so we read it in one vision (Isa. vi. 3). " Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come thus we read it in another (Rev. iv. 8). No praise can be simpler, and none can be higher. And the Church Catholic has confidently adopted this anthem of the Seraphim. Conscious that she comes nearest to God on earth in Holy Communion, she boldly claims to use in it the words of those whom, in heaven, He has set the nearest to Himself. And with one consent has she done this. The drafts of ancient Liturgies used in Churches debarred by sheer distance from all intercourse with one another — scattered HOLY COMMU■^'IOX, 201 over the earth from Gaul to Ethiopia, and from Spain to Malabar — all bear witness to the fact, that centuries before there was either Pope or Christian Emperor to compel, or even to recommend throughout the whole Christian world, uniformity in praise and thanksgiving, still, guided either by the direct inspiration of God's Spii'it, or by agreement of the College of Apostles before their dispersion, every branch of Christ's Holy Church has presmned to offer to God in the most sacred service, the very same incense of praise which He receives from those whom, of all created beings, He has placed the nearest to Himself. This act of praise in om* Service-book is as follows : — "With angels and archangels, and with all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify Thy glorious Name : evermore praising Thee, and saying. Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts, heaven and earth are full of Thy glory : Glory be to Thee, 0 Lord Most High !" The reader will perceive that these words of highest adoration will more than beai* comparison, for majesty and simplicity, with the corresponding act in any Liturgy, no matter how ancient or widely used. Tg assist him in forming a due estimate of them, I give, in a note at the end of this section (page 204) this anthem, or hymn, as it exists in Litm-gies used in all parts of the world from the remotest times. In addition to this, we offer up to God, at this most I sacred time, the " Gloria in excelsis." This act of praise, ! also, is characterised by its extreme simplicity. It is, if I ! may so say, a more human act of praise than the Tersanctus ' or Seraphic Hymn. There are cries for mercy mingled I with the strain of thanksgiving. It is also more par- ii ticularly addressed to the Son of God, as the Lamb of God I that taketh away sin. The use of this hymn can be traced, according to 202 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Palmer, for more than fifteen hundred years in the Eastern Church ; and the Church of England has used it. either at the beginning or the end of her Liturgy, for above twelve hundred years. No forms of praise can be higher than these ; and none exist which have been sanctified like these, by the general use of the Catholic Church in her highest worship. A question arising out of the preceding remarks now calls for some notice. It may be asked, In what part of our Communion Service do we make that solemn sacrificial memorial of the Death of Christ which the Church has ever esteemed it her highest privilege to put up to God ? It is well known that all the ancient Liturgies had a particular form of words, in which the celebrant made the oblation. Thus, in the Clementine "Wherefore having in remembrance His Passion, Death, and Resurrection from the dead, Ills return into heaven, and His future Second Appearance when He shall come with glory and power to judge the quick and tlie dead, and to render to every man according to his works ; v/e offer to Thee, our King and om- God, according to His Institution, this bread and this cup, giving thanks to Thee tlirough Him," &c. The first Liturgy of Edward VI.'s reign had a form of oblation answering to this, in the words — " Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the Institution of Thy dearly-beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, we Thy humble servants do celebrate, and make here before Thy Divine Majesty, with those Tliy Holy gifts, the memorial which Thy Son hatli willed us to make, having in remembrance His blessed Passion, mighty Resurrection, and glorious Ascension, rendering unto Thee most heartv thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same, entirely desiring Thy Fatherly Goodness mercifully to HOLY COMMUNION. 203 accept this our Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving : most humbly beseecliing Thee to grant that by the merits," &c.* The pai'ticular form of oblation with which this i)rayer begins is omitted in our present Service, and I (with very many of my brethren) regret the omission. We have, however, now to inquire, whether this omission vitiates that true sacrificial character of the Eucharist which our Keformers, as well as all our great divines, have acknowledged. I cannot think that, in the sight of God, it does ; for, if we are to judge by the words of St. Paul, the special sacrificial act is the act of tlie whole Chui'ch, and is intimately connected with the par- taking. " As oft as ye eat this bread and dkink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come." From the words of Christ, " Do this in remembrance of Me," and from these words of St. Paul, we derive all our views of the sacrificial character of Holy Communion. Now, the words, " Do this in remembrance of Me " certainly do not refer to one particular act of oblation in the Service, but to the whole Eucharistic action — giving thanks, blessing, breaking, on the part of the minister ; taking, and eating and drinking, on the part of the whole Church.2 If we are to judge of it by these words of Chi-ist and of 1 The Scottish and American Liturgies contain an act of oblation almost identical with the above extract, as far as the words '• pro cured unto us by the same." 2 This is the proper drift of the word remembrance in the Lords Institution of the Sacrament. " Do this," He seems to say, " Bless, break, distribute, receive this Bread : bless, distribute, drink of this cup ; say over the two respectively, ' This is My body, this is My blood,' in order to that memorial sacrifice which belongs to Me the memorial which My servants are continually to make of Me, among one another, and before My Father." — Iveble's " Eucharistic Adoiatiou," p. G8. 204 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. His AxDostle, the sacrificial character of the Eucharist is not to be confined to any particular form of oblation, in words or acts, but is to be extended to the whole Eucharistic Service, especially to the " partaking." Wc do, or may, however, make a verbal act of oblation in the words, We, Thy humble servants, entirely desire Thy Fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacri- fice of praise and thanksgiving, most humbly beseeching Thee to grant," &c. The words, " sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving " (as any one who is in the least conversant with any Com- munion Service besides our own well knows), allude not to any act of praise in the Service (such as the Tersanctus, for instance), but to the Eucharist itself, the blessing, breaking, giving, taking, and eating, as a memorial of Chi'ist. Note I. I l)ere give some very ancient forms of the *' Ter- sanctus," or "Hymn of the Seraphim," called by some the " Triumphal Hymn." From the Liturgy of St. James, anciently used in the Church of Jerusalem : — ' It is very meet, right, and our boiraden duty tiiat we should praise and bless, worship, glorify, and give thanks to Thee, the JMaker of all visible and invisible things ; the Treasure of eternal happiness, the Fountain of life and immortality, the God and Governor of the universe : To whom the heavens sing praise and all their powers : The sun and moon, and the whole choir of stars : The earth and sea and all their inhabitants : Jerusalem the heavenly assembly and Church of the first-born that are written in heaven : The spirits of Just men and Prophets : The souls of Martyrs and Apostles, Angels, Archangels, Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, Authorities, and the tremendous Powers : The many-eyed Clierubira and the Serajjliim with six wings, who with twain cover their faces, and with twain their feet, and with twain they fly, crying incessantly one to another, and with uninterrupted shouts of piaisQ. j HOLY COiTMUXION". 205 •* People. — ■ Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabaoth, Heaven and earth are full of Thy glory. Hosanna in the Highest : Blessed is He that Cometh in the name cf the Lord : Hosanna in the Highest.* " From the Liturgy used in the Church of Alexandria, ascribed to St. Murk :— "... The many-eyed Cherubim and Seraphim of six wings, who with twain cover their faces, and with twain their feet, and with twain they fly, calling one to another, never ceasing from Divine praises, singing, crying aloud and glorifying, lifting up their voices and saying to the Majesty of Thy glory the tiiumphai hymn, • Huly, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth, Heaven and earth are full of Thy glory.' " It is Thou indeed Who dost make all Holy, but, with all that glorify Thee, accept our Holy Song which we sing together with them, saying, ''People.—' Holy, Holy, Holy Lord.' " From the Clementine, a Liturgy of the remotest antiquity : — " The Cherubim and Seraphim with six wings .... crying in- cessantly, with uninterrupted shouts of joy : and let all the people say with them, " Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lc)rd of Sabaoth. Heaven and earth are full of His glory : Blessed be He for evermore." From the Liturgy used in the Church of Ethiopia or Abyssinia : — " And as they (the Seraphim and Cherubim) always pi-aise and sanctify Thee, so do Thou receive these our praises and thanksgivings which we offer to Thee, saying, ' Holy, Holy, Holy.' " People. — ' Holy, Huly, Holy, Lord God of SiJ^ ioth. Heaven and earth are full of the holiness of Thy glory.' ' From a Liturgy used in ancient Persia, called the Liturgy of the Apostles. According to Neale (•' Holy Eastern Church," General Introduction, vol. i. pp. 319, 321), "this Liturgy bears every mark of the remotest age. It is simple, stem, entirely unlike the pompous effusions of later writers, evidently incapable of being derived from any amplification or change of the oflBces of Csesarea or Jerusalem." The introduction of the Ters^inctus is so singularly good, that I give it in full :— "Worthy is praise from every mouth, and confession from all tongues, and worship and exaltation from all creatures unto the 206 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. adorable and glorious name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, who created the world from His goodness, and the inhabitants thereof by His loving-kindness, and who hath saved mankind by His mercy, and magnified His grace upon the perish- ing. Thy Majesty, O Lord, a thousand thousand spirits and ten thousand times ten thousand holy angels, the intellectual hosts, the ministers and spirits of fire, the Holy Cherubim and Spiritual Seraphim do sanctify and celebrate and praise without end to one another, crying, — " People. — ' Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty. Heaven and earth are full of His glory.' " From the Mozarabic, a Liturgy which the Court of Rome ia obliged to tolerate in a few churclies in Spain, and which, as Mr. Neale has proved, embodies what remains of the Galilean or Celtic Liturgies. In all probability, this very form of the Tersanctus was the one used in Britain before the native Liturgy was super- seded by the Roman : — " It is meet and right that we should extol," &c. [What follows varies with the Sunday or Festival, as our own proper prefaces do, but to a much greater extent.] " Whom angels and archangels extol, thus saying, ' Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabaoth, Heaven and earth are full of the glory of Thy Majesty. Hosanna to the Son of David. Blessed be He that cometh in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the Highest.' " Note II. Ox the Sacrificial Aspect of the Eucharist. — I have said (page 185) that " the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist most assuredly does not seem prominent in tlie passages of Scrip- ture whicli teach us the nature of this Sacrament." This is not to be understood as if I meant that that view seems even to be promi- nent, which sets forth the Eucharist as a means of merely reminding ourselves of what we owe to Christ's Death. Without, at present, entering into the question of the exact mean- ing of the term " Sacrifice," I assert that the words used by our Lord, as recorded by St. Luke and St. Paul, tovto -KoielT^ els r^v 4nT]v avdixvrjaiu, must have suggested to the Apostles a memorial- service answering to the Old Law sacrificial or oblatory rites in its public ecclesiastical impetratory character. I assert also that several other considerations derived from the language of Scripture compel us to give to these words of our Loid HOLY COMMUNION. 207 at least the meaning which a competent authority asserts that the ■iarly Church gave to them, "that Christ instituted not only a re- membrance of this sacrifice to ourselves, but also a special mode of pleading it before God, and therefore it was named a Sacrifice." — ^Bishop Plarold Browne on Article XXXI.) Owing to the course which popular Protestant theology has taken since the Reformation, many among us determine not to associate sacrificial terms (except in the merest figurative sense) with any- thing but tlie actual Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, so that, for instance, when we come to the passage, " we have an altar whereof they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle '* (Heb. xiii. 10), we at once determine to adopt any interpretation whatsoever except >hat which would make this altar to be the " Table of the Lord." I have no doubt but that St. Paul (or the author of tlie Epistle to the Hebrews) had in his mind the Lord's Table, and this because he uses the word " eat,'' and the speciality of the Christian altar is tliat the matter placed upon it is neither slain nor burnt, but " eaten." This comes out still more strongly when we attentively consider the force of the particular reason assigned by the sacred writer xjcliy we have an altar of which they who serve the tabernacle have no right to partake. Eeference is made in the words "/or the bodies of tiiose beasts/' &c., to that particular class of sin-otferings of which even Aaron and his sons miglit not eat (Levit. iv. 12 — 21 ; xvi. 27), and which had their fulfilment in the Sacrifice of our Lord. " The Jewish believers are reminded cf that singular privilege which attended the sacrificial feast of the New Covenant, whereby all Christians are allowed to partake of a Victim (as a sin-ofiering), the sacrificial type of which victim was under the Mosaic law forbidden to be eaten, save by the officiating priests, though it was tlieir sin- offering." So that, whilst Aaron himself was directly forbidden to partake of his sin-offering, every Christian is commanded to partake of his, i.e., of Christ. But how is the Christian to partake ? By eat- ling; for it is a fact that throughout the New Testament there are no words respecting " eating" Christ used anywhere except in con- nection with the Lord's Supper. However ice may extend the eating of Christ's Flesh and Blood to spiritual communion, as is, I think, rightly done in our rubric, at the conclusion of the Office for the Com- munion of the Sick, let it be remembered that no New Testament >vriter applies the word " eating " to spiritual communion. Bishop Harold Browne, in a note at the conclusion of his remarks )n the Thirty-first Article, writes : " Though we may speak of the 208 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Ci'033 on which the Great Sacrifice was offered up as the Christiana' altar, yet the Apostles could not have spoken of eating of the cross. The Christian feast is at the Eucharist." Putting these things together, it is obligatory upon us to explain this " altar " as the Tpdire(a Kvplov, the Table of the Lord — unless we find in other parts of the sacred volume some overwhelming considerations against such a way of taking it. But, on the contrary, we find considerations which would lead us to adopt such an interpretation. First, it is remarkable that the ancient Prophets in speaking of the worship of the times of the Messiah, always describe that worship by eacrificial images. I do not here allude so much to Malachi i. 1 1, (" in every place incense shall be offered unto My name, and a pure IMincha,") though writers as old as Justin Martyr and Irengeus have interpreted this place of the Eucharist, and writers as anti- Romanist as Mede have upheld the same view. I rather allude to the places which I quote in a suc- ceeding chapter of this book, from Jeremiah xxxiii. 15 — 22; and Malachi iii. 3, 4. If there be any prophecies of Messianic times, these are such ; and yet in them the pure worship of the future is described under sacri- ficial terms. There is the Eternal Priest-King of the house of David, and there are the " Priest-Levites " under Him, which are also by tlie same covenant " never to fail," and who are to " offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat-ofterings, and to do sacrifice oontinually." Again : Isaiah Ivi. is preceded and succeeded by chapters un- doubtedly containing visions of Messianic times, and in it we ha-^e a prophecy of the sons of the stranger being brought to God's holy mountain, and made joyful in His house of prayer— their burnt- offerings and their sacrifices accepted on God's altar." Similarly, in the latter chapters of Ezekiel (ch. xlvi. xlvii.), the details of sacrificial worship are in close connection with imagery which denotes the wide-spread healing influence of the Gospel. So again, the last part of Zechariah seems to project the details of sacrificial worship into the times of the New Covenant. (See also Isaiah xix. 21 ; Ix. 7. ) It seems to me impossible to suppose that this sacrificial imagery can be interpreted of verbal offerings of prayer and praise, bccauso these were common to the Mosaic and the Christian dispensations alike. The pious Jew brought his prayers and praises as well as bis lambs and goats (1 Sam. i, 12, 13: 1 Kings viii. 1.5~r.2 HOLY COMMUNION. 209 2 Kings xix. i4, 15, 16; Isa. xxxv.iiL 20";. It must look to the celebration under the new and better state of things of some public ecclesiastical rites, or rather rite, resembling the old sacrifice in its impetratory or pleading character, and in its close relation to the One true Sacrifice. Again, I would add to the above another consideration which, (hough it would prove little by itself, yet in connection with what I have just adduced seems veiy significant of the will of God, and this is that the Psiilms seem to be written for Christians rather than for Jews. They were claimed by Christian Apostles as the inheritance of the Church, and were used in public worship in Apostolic times ( I Cor. xiv. 2G), and yet this Book is full of sacrificial allusions with reference to the service of God. (" I will ofttr in His dwelling an oblation with great gladness," Ps. xxvii. 7 ; " Tliat I may go unto the altar of God," xliii. 4 ; also, Ps. xx. 3, xxiL 29, xxvi. 6, 7, 8, 11. 19, Ixvi. 13, cxvi. 13, 14, cxxxii. 8, 9, 16, cxxxv. 19, 20.) Again, if the Sermon on the Mount be intended for the guidance of Christians— and all Christians derive from it the use of the Lord's Prayer — then we have the altar assumed to be the perpetual centre of Divine worship. (Matt. v. 23.) 2. But, in the second place, we have in the one strictly prophetical Book of the New Testament a glimpse of heaven and its worship (Rev. viii. 3, 4, 5), and there we find an altar, not of burnt-ofi:ering, but of incense ; and the incense which was burnt on this altar ascending upwards in connection with the prayers of the saints, and so not, of course, identical with those prayers. An altar, then, is assumed to be the centre of the ritual of heaven. Now, the same reasoning which would make it wrong for us to call the Table of the Lord an altar would militate against the inspiration of the Book which assumes that there can be such a thing as an altar in heaven. If the altar in heaven was rightly 80 called, because incense was offered on it with the prayers of the saints, must we not call that an altar on which we exhibit and set foi-tb, imder His own appointed forms, the Sacrifice of the Death of Christ ? The elements in the Eucharist have, on the lowest view, a for closer relation to the thing signified than incense can possibly have : why, then, should we give the name of altar to the thing in heaven, and resolutely deny the same to the corresponding thing on earth? F 210 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRCTTH. No matter how figurative the heavenly vision be, unlawful images would not be used, even in a figurative scene. Now, though each of the foregoing considerations by itself would perhaps be insufficient, yet taken together they show that it is in accordance with the mind of the Spirit to apply sacrificial terms to some rite of the New Testament ; provided of course that Christ has instituted a rite to which sacrificial terms can be applied in some heavenly and spiritual sense, i.e., in some sense answering to the heavenly and spiritual nature of the dispensation. But let the reader particularly remember that I am not adducing these considerations to prove that there is such a rite, or that it must be sacrificial, but to show that certain sacrificial terms which seem to be applied to the great rite of the Church are really applied to it, and that there is no reason for us, in the one case (Heb. xiii. 10) to go out of our way to get rid of the application of the terms in question to the Eucharist, and in another case (Luke xxii. 19) to deny their sacrificial meaning. It is, then, obligatory upon us to understand the words, we have an altar," as the Chm'ch till Puritan times has understood the assertion, in fact, as such a Puritan even as Richard Baxter has understood them, for he says, " The ancient Christians used them all [the names Sacrifice, Altar, and Priest] without exception from any Christian that ever I heard of. As the bread is justly called Christ's Body, as signifying it, so the action described was of old called a Sacrifice, as representing and commemorating it. And it is no more improper than calling our bodies, and our alms, and our prayers, sacrifices. And the naming of the table an altar, as related to the representative sacrifice, is no more improper than the other. * We Lave an altar whereof they have no right to eat ' (Heb. xiii. 10) seems plainly to mean the Sacramental Communion," — Eichard Baxter's " Christian Institutes," i. p. 304. With these considerations in our minds let us approach the con- sideration of the words of institution, Tovto TroteTre ets rrju i^iT)v avdixvricnv. The early Church undoubtedly held these words to be the institution of a sacrificial act ; and the modern popular religion of the day denies this. Now, inasmuch as there is beyond all doubt no sacrifice in the Eucharist resembling, in the least degree, in ouhvard form, either tiie ancient Jewish saciifices or the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross — for there is no death in the Eucharist, nor any destruction, as by fire, of the thing sacrificed — inasmuch, I say as there is no immolation or mactation of any kind, let ua see HOLY COMMUNION. 211 wnetlier we can find any way of bringing to a point, as it were, the spiritual resemblance between the Old Law sacrifices and the Eucharist ; and, by contrast, the essential difierence hetween the ancient and modern view. I believe that the difi"crence will be found to be this. The ancients understood that the Lord here instituted a solemn memorial j-ite in which His death could most efiectually be pleaded before God— the modern view makes Him to institute a memorial before men only, or amongst ourselves. Now the former view — tlie old — though it makes the memo- rialising before God to be the great pm-pose of Christ in saying, Do this .els tt]v iixr]v audfij/rjaiu," does not exclude the fact that wo are to show forth His deatli before the Church ; whilst the latter view — that Christ instituted a memorial before men or amongst ourselves — can only be maintained by excluding altogether from the vision of faith the former, viz., that the Holy Communion is an avafivr^ais evavTi rov Qeov. It must necessarily be so, because the view of a solemn pleadmg memorial before God is, in the nature of things, so immeasurably greater than any exhibition before men, that, if held at all, it must be held as beyond all calculation the leading feature of the rite — the rite, I mean, considered as a memo- rial or avaiji.vr](ns. The reader, if he chooses, may see a remarkable proof of this by referring to so Avell-known a book as D'Oyley and Blant's Commentary (on Luke sxii. 19, and 1 Corinth, xi. There he will see lengthened expositions of the words of the Redeemer, not by Nonconformists, but by leading Latitudinarian Bishops and Divines of the last century, such as Tillotson, Stanhope, Atterbury, Tomline, in which there is not the smallest reference to any view of the Blessed Sacmment as a memorial before God. And yet this view of the Blessed Sacrament as a memorial before God is evidently the most worthy of the Death of the Son of God, and is most in accord with the atoning virtue of that death, /or the Death of Christ is the one only Death uchich ue are empowered to "plead hefore God. We may make an act of mere remembrance of the death of any man who may have died for our welfare, but we can plead before God in our act of remembrance only the One Atoning Death. To interpret, then, " Do this in remembrance of Me " as " Celebrate this rite as the most solemn pleading of My death before God," seems to recognise the Death of the Son of God to be what it really iS| not an act of mere love and endiuance only, which any man 212 CHURCH DOCTHINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. might hav-e performed, but as the one act of atoning love which it was only in the power of the God-Man to perform. The essence, then, of the sacrificial view is that Christ ordained a solemn memorial before God of His atoning Death. Do the terms in which He instituted this Sacrament accord with this? They are unquestionably the terms which He would have used if He had desired to make the most solemn memorial possible before His Father. "Whether He spake these words in the vernacular Aramaic or in the Greek we know not. All that we know is that the Holy Spirit has not preserved to us His words in Aramaic, but has preserved them to us in the Greek. We are, then, to take the words of Christ as if said in Greek, and not in that classical Greek which the Holy Spirit did not choose to honour as the vehicle of the ideas and thoughts of the Saviour and His followers ; but in that Greek of the Alexandrian translation of the Old Scriptures which the Holy Spirit caused the inspired writers to (xuote so often in preference to the original Hebrew of the Jewish Scriptures. The Saviour uses two words, TroteTre and avdixuriais, each of which is undoubtedly used in a certain technical sense in connection with the sacrifices and oblations. Now I think that in this investigation the stress has been most unhappily laid upon the word Troietre, whereas the stress ought to have been laid upon avau.vT](Tis, or upon the two used in connection. Yioi^Lv is unquestionably used in a technical Sacrificial sense. The first instance which I will give may be taken as an example of all similar ones (Exod. x. 25): Kal elTre Mwyo-^s, 'AAAa koa. avSwcrsis ij/xiu 6\QKavrwjxaTa iiai Ovalas, a iroL-fjaofj-ep Kvpio) Qecf tjixcov. (Other instances quite as technical are, Exod. xxix. 36, 39, 41 ; Levit. ix. 7, 22, xiv. 30, XV. 30, xvi. 24, xvii. 4, xxii. 23, xxiii. 12, 19, &c.) The Saviom-, then, in using this word, employs the term which He would have done if He had intended His Sacrament to be regarded as a solemn religious act of a sacrificial character; but the word is used continually in contexts where there can be no sacrificial allusion, and V'here it is used in the most ordinary sense of the word " do " (sec, for instance, Matt. v. 46, 47, vi. 1, vii. 21 ; John xui. 27). Very different is the use of the word avaixv-ncris. It is used (not in connection with the Eucharist) only once in the New Testament, in Heb. x. 3, where reference is made to the remembrance of sing : HOLY coinruxiON-. 213 but what remembrance ? Why, the most public solemn ei?clesiastical recognition before God of sin being {i.e., in JeAvish times) not yet fully put away, in the yearly repetition of tlie sacrifices of bulls and goats on the great day of atonement. It is used in the Septuagint, in the sacred test, but twice, in both cases with express reference to a memorial before God. I omit two instances in which it is used in the headings of Psalms — Ps. xxxviii. (xxxvii.) and Ixx. (Ixix.), — but in both witli especial reference to remembering and pleading before God. One of the cases in point the reader will find in Numbers x. 10: " Also in the day of your gladness, and in your solemn days, and in the beginnings of your months, ye shall blow with tiie trumpets over your burnt-ofiferings, and over the sacrifice of your peace-oflferings : that they may be to you for a memorial before your God " favdayrjais %pa.vTL Tov 0eoC v/xwv^. The other case is so exceedingly remarkable that I cannot but believe that ti.e word ava^ivna-is is used even on this most sacred occasion of the Institution of tlie Eucharist with some sort of refer- ence to it. It is Levit. xxiv. 7. The Septuagint translation runs— '• And ye shall put upon the row pure frankincense and salt, and they sball be for loaves for a memorial {avaiivqais) set before the Lord. On the day of the Sabbath it shall be set before {ivavrC) the Lord in the face of the children of Israel, for an everlasting covenant." Surely if this shewbread, when set forth by Aaron, is a memorial " before GoJ," what must be that bread which is set forth by the One High Priest of Humanity, the Eternal Priest after the order of Melchisedec — set forth after having been blessed by Him, identified by Him in some heavenly and spiritual, and therefore most true and real way, with His Body given and His Blood shed, as the blood of the New Covenant ? Can such bread, rather can such a rite of setting forth, be less "a thing before God" than the shew- bread ? And surely the fact that our bread is to be partaken of by all the priests of God and Christ, cleric and lay alike, cannot make it less an ava^vqais evauTi rod 0eoD r]iJ.S;v? I have never seen the true Sacrificial view more happily expressed than in the following words of one who is not supposed to hold high Euchaiiistic Doctrine : — " When the Son, in obedience to the Father's will, had ofiered Himself in human flesh through suffering and death to His Father, nothing was wanfed to onen the way completely for humanity to 214 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRaiH. the heart of God. The Father was perfectly well pleased in tho Son, Who was the Head of our sinful race. The Son took upon Himself the sins of His brethren, and in His Person human sin was brought into contact with the Divine forgiveness, and was swallowed up by it. We remember in our Sacrament the oflering which was thus perfect and precious; we re-enact in a manner that Sacrifice; we present it by the hfting up of our minds and spirits, as the demonstration of His own love, and as the response of the Son's love to our Father in heaven. The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ was instituted and made perpetual, in order that the Redeem- ing Death of Christ might be thus set continually in reconciling power between God and our sinful souls." — Rev. J. Ll. Davies' " Sermons on ' IMorality according to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.' " (Serm. ii. p. 43.) And lastly, to sum up in the words of Mede, the most anti- Romanist of expositors : — " This commemoration is to be made to God His Father, and is not a bare remembering or putting ourselves in mind only, but a putting of God in mind By this sacred rite of bread and wino we present and inculcate His blessed Passion to His Father ; we put Him in mind thereof, by setting the monuments thereof before Him ; we testify our own mindfulness thereof unto His sacred majesty ; that so He would, for His sake, according to the tenour of His covenant, in Him be favourable and propitious to us miserable sinners." TtiE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 215 CEAPTEB r. THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. SECTION I. THE SCBIPTL'KE DOCTKIXE OF THE MINISTRY. We have cousidered somewliat at length in two former chapters (that on Baptism and on the Eucharist) how God has been pleased to offer to iis certain great benefits in the faithful use of two Sacraments, each having an outward sign, in the right reception of which we hope to receive the inward grace. We have now to advance a step further, and consider a question closely connected with this. If God leads us to expect certain great benefits in the right reception of such things as Baptism and the Lord's Supper, then He makes us partakers of these benefits, not directly from Himself, but indii-ectly thi-ough the instru- mentality of others, for we receive the outward visible signs of these Sacraments through the hands of our fellow- men, who administer these things in the Chiu'ch. It is quite clear also that if we receive these Sacraments from God through the hands of others, we must receive them in virtue of some official power of administering them which the persons in question have received. I mean that neither the talents nor the spirituality of the person administering add to, or take away from, any benefit which the true Christian receives in the two Sacraments. All sects who profess to administer the Sacraments, and to believe that any benefit whatsoever is attached to their 216 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — felBtE TRUTH. faithful reception, must liold that this official power yet exists in some shape or other. But in addition to this, the Catholic Church has ever held that her ministers have power from God to dispense officially certain other benefits to the faithful — in some cases, by word of mouth, as in Absolution or Benediction ; in other cases, by laying on of hands, as in Confirmation and Ordination. As an integral part of the Catholic Church, the Church of England claims these powers for her ministers. Ac- cording to our Ordinal, the ministers of the second order are set apart to their office by the imposition of hands, the Bishop being then directed to say : " Eeceive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained." Here, then, an official or ministerial power of remitting and retaining sins is claimed to be both given and received. The nature and limitations of this power we shall after- wards consider. It is clear that in some sense a power of forgiving and retaining sins is given, if words, and very simple words too, have any meaning. In accordance with this we are furnished with certain forms of words, in the use of which the person ordained is to exercise this power. One is the Absolution in daily service, to be said by the priest alone — that is, by a jDcrson who has had autho-rity committed to him by the laying on of hands, accompanied with the words which I have quoted. Another is the Absolution in the " Visitation of the Sick," which runs thus : " Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left pov/er to His Church to absolve all sinners who THE CH'IIISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 21? truly repent and believe in Him, of His great mercy forgive thee thine offences : and by His authority com- mitted unto me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." In addition, then, to the functions which her ministers discharge as teachers or preachers, the beneficial effect of which, under God, depends on their own hearts and intel- lects, the Church claims for her ministers the exercise of certain other functions, which they exercise more officially, as it were, but in the exercise of which functions they are supposed to convey certain great benefits pertaining to the Kingdom of God, to those who are in a fitting state to receive them. Before investigating the Scriptiu-e grounds which we have for all this, it may be well to state at the outset that the whole matter is a question of things, and not of luords. It is perfectly immaterial to the matter in dispute, whether the word " priest " in the Prayer-book be the translation of a word which implies real sacerdotal functions, or whether it be the word "presbyter," in a contracted form. Supposing that it is the latter, then our Church claims for every " presbyter " ordained according to her ordinal at least one sacerdotal function which no j^riest of the order of Aaron ever exercised, for to no priest of the order of Aaron were any such words said at his consecration as — • " Eeceive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of thy ministry. Whose soever sins thou dost remit, they are remitted." It is, in reality, immaterial to the great principle involved whether our word " priest " be a translation of the Hebrew Cohen, or of the Greek icpev?, or of the Latin Sacerdos ; or whether the Greek word Upevs is ever 218 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. applied to a Christian minister in tlie New Testament ; because, if this word were so applied we should still have to ascertain independently what were the functions of the office so designated. The question does not respect a word but a thing, or rather a p-inciple, and may be expressed thus : Does God bestow all things pertaining to salvation directly from Himself ? or does God lead us to expect certain great blessings jDertaining to salvation, not directly, but in- directly — through means of grace which He has Himself established, and of which means He ordains certain of our fellow-creatures to be the administrators. It is allowed on all hands that in the matter of the conversion of souls God ordinarily acts upon man through his fellow-man. God does not preach the Gospel as He once proclaimed the Law, by a voice from heaven, but He calls sinners to repentance by the voice of their fellow- sinners. What, however, we have now to consider is, whether in certain other matters bearing upon our eternal well-being God has been pleased to lead us to expect certain blessings through the intervention of our fellow-men, administering to us certain ordinances of His Church. Before proceeding to examine the direct teaching of the Word of God upon this matter, we shall call attention to a well-known place, which will bring out clearly the prin- ciple. It being understood that we cite this place merely as an illustration, not as a p'oof, of that for which wtf contend. In Isaiah vi. we have an account of the appearance of the Lord Himself to the prophet, as he was worshipping in the temple. Confounded by the visible manifestation of his Maker's glory, Isaiah exclaimed, " Woe is me, for I am a man of unclean lips ; for mine eyes have seen tho THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 219 Kln^, tiie Lord of Hosts." Upon this, one of the Serapliiin fiew to him, and touched his lips with a live coal, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar, and at the same time pronounced this absolution : " Lo, this hath touched thy lips, and thine iniquity is taken away and thy sin purged." And Isaiah believed this, for when the Lord Himself asks immediately afterwards, Whom shall I send ? " he answers with holy confidence, *' Here I am, send me." Now we should, I think, have supposed that God would have pronounced with His own mouth the absolution of such a man as Isaiah ; or rather, we should have expected that God in such a transaction would not have even allowed His voice to be heard, but would have given to the prophet some secret assui-ance of His forgiveness. But it was God's good pleasure to adopt neither of these means. Though Isaiah was one who was con- tinually receiving revelations direct from God, and saying in His name, Thus saith the Lord," and though ihe prophet was standing in BLis immediate presence, yet God pronounced his absolution through the angel, and the angel himself used a significant aet, or outward sign, to assure the prophet. But even this is not all; the angel connected the " taking away of iniquity " with the authorised temple- service of Atonement, or Sacrifice, for he touched the prophet's lips with a live coal from off the altar, on which some sacrifice was burning. Unless, then, this vision is delusive, it cannot be con- trary to the glory of God that He should make use of subordinate agents and outward visible signs to convey even such things as cleansing and forgiveness, for He actually represents Himself as employing such agents when He is visibly present ; and in the case of one to whom He vouchsafed such direct communication respect- 220 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. ing the One Atoning Sacrifice as we Lave in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah's prophecy.^ We shall now take the three dispensations, Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian, in their order, and see how they bear on this matter. I. As to the Patriarchal. The first mention of a priest is in the following passage : " And Melchizedek king of Salera brought forth bread and wine : and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said. Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth : and blessed be the most high God, which hath de- livered thine enemies into thy hand. And he (Abraham) gave him tithes of all." (Gen. xiv. 18 — 20.) Now we should have said, that if ever a man trod the earth who needed no blessing from the lips of his fellow- mortal, it was Abraham, for thrice before this had God appeared to him, and once at least had God promised to Abraham that all the nations of the earth should bo blessed in him. What need, then, had such a man of Melchizedek's blessing ? Why should a priest interpose betwixt God and Abraham? And yet it was needful, because God ordained that this Priest-King of Salem should bless even " him that had the promises." And this benediction of Abraham, by Melchizedek, was immediately followed by Abraham's justification.- * ' Lo, this hath touched thy lips.' He shows that the confirma- tion which was obtained by the sign was not without effect ; but that the blessing signified by it was at the same time bestowed, so that Isaiah knew that he had not been deceived. Hence we may infer that in the Sacraments the reality is given to us along with the sign ; for when the Lord holds out a Sacrament, He does not feed our eyes with an empty and unmeaning figure, but joins the truth with it so as to testify that by means of them He acts upon ub efficaciously." — Calvin on Isaiah vi. 7. ' Compare Genesis xv. 1—6, with Romans iv. 1 and 20, 21, 22. THE CHRISTIAN I'lUESTHOOD. 221 Now it does not appear to me that God, by this ti'ans- action, conferred any honour or dignity on any order of men, considered as priests or ministers, but rather that in all this He asserted His own sovereignty — that He had a right to convey His blessing as He chose. For here was Abraham, whom God had honoured above all other men, by frequent personal converse with Himself. God had made his name great — and the name of no mere man stands out in sacred history like that of Abraham. And Abraham was the especial type of the Christian, as one who is justified by faith, and embraces the promises. And yet God's providence leads this man to a priest, to be blessed by this priest ; a priest who, whatever be the typical glories of his person and office, was then kno^vn only as one among the kings of Canaan. Whatever else, then, we are taught by this account, we arc certainly taught this, that no man, no matter what his spiritual hold on Christ, can assume to be above receiving blessing from any one to w^hom God may have given a commission to impart that blessing : we are also most emphatically taught, that direct communications from God Himself by no means supersede the necessity for more indirect communication from Him, if God has been pleased so to ordain. II. We now come to the Jewish dispensation. I need scarcely multiply proofs, that in this dispensation, the principle for which we are contending occupies a very prominent place. God ordained that out of the twelve tribes into which His people were divided, one whole tribe should be set apart, to give attendance in His Sanctuary. Theii- chief function in this Sanctuary was to make atonement. God, Who could have piu'doned His people without tho 222 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. intervention of any outward means, seeing that He had it in His mind to provide an all-sufficient, all-prevailing Sacrifice, was yet pleased to ordain that the sins of His people should be formally remitted only through the offering of certain sacrifices, which the priests were to receive from the people, and to offer to the Lord. Thus, with respect to such sins as violence, or deceit- fully appropriating the property of another, and even swearing falsely concerning it ; it is said that, to be for- given, a man must not only restore and add the fifth part, but " bring a trespass-offering unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord, and it shall be forgiven him for anything of all that he hath done in trespassing therein." (Levit. vi. 1 — 8.) No sacrifices of any sort were lawful, except the priest assisted in some way or other in their offering.^ Other functions pertained to the priest: they had to offer incense; to pronounce respecting the cleansing of the leper ; to set the shewbread in order upon the table ; and to bless the people in the name of the Lord. More particularly, one of their number, the high-priest, had to offer yearly certain sacrifices of peculiar sanctity. By these he apparently procured for the whole Church and nation what the inferior priests procured for each individual who brought his separate offering. We read (Levit. xvi. 30), " On that day shall the priest make an atonement for you to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord .... and the priest . , . . shall make the atonement, and shall put on the ' For the case of the burnt-offering, see Levit. i, 7, 11, 12, 15, 17 ; of the meat-offering, Levit. ii. 2, 8, 16 ; of the peace-offering, Le\it. iii. 2, 5, 8, 11, 13; of the sin-offering, Levit. iv. 5, 10, 17, 20, 2o, 26 ; of the trespass-offering, Levit. v. 8, 10, 23. THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 223 linen clotlies, even the holy garments : and he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation." So far, then, as the Jewish dispensation is concerned, the fact or principle is very clearly revealed, that God led His people to expect certain great blessings thi'ongh the agency of their brethren. But this dispensation was only preparatory. It w?-S intended to pass away after it had fulfilled its mission, which mission was to set forth principles which would lead men in due time more faithfully to accept, and better to understand a final dispensation — the dispensation of the One Only True and Eeal Priest. There are three points in which the subordinate priest- hood of this preparatory dispensation bears upon the ministerial agency of the New Testament dispensation. First, the fact of God's having separated or sanctified the whole nation to Himself, to be a " kingdom of priests," did not prevent His separating the tribe of Levi to be His priests in a peculiar sense ; to do things on behalf of their brethren, which it was not lawful for them to do themselves, and to convey certain blessings which were not ordinarily to be expected, except through their hands. The priesthood of all Christians, as members of the mystical body of the One Priest, is not more distinctly recognised by St. Peter, when he writes to his converts, " Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood " (1 Pet. ii. 9), than is the corresponding priesthood of all the Israelites recognised by God Himself, speaking to them through Moses, in the words, "Ye shall be to me a •dngdom of priests, and a holy nation." (Ex. xix. G.) 224 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Indeed, tlio words of St. Peter to Christians are but u citation or adaptation of these words of God io the Jews. The fact, then, that all members of the Church of Christ are priests of God, does not for a moment clash with auother fact, that God selects a certain order of men out of His Chui'ch, and makes them priests, in a special sense, to minister to their brethi'en. A second point also demands attention. Since the fall of Adam there has been but One True Priest, the Lord Jesus; and but One Atonement, His Body broken and His Blood shed for the remission of sin. Even if we had not the assertion of an Apostle for it, we might be sm-e of this, that the blood of bulls and of goats could never take away sin. But it is most certain, that if the Book of Leviticus bo in any sense the inspii*ed word of God, He would have His people regard these sacrifices and burnt-offerings as effecting some real atonement. Thus, of the burnt-offering it is said (Levit. i. 4), '-It shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him." Also, of the trespass-offering (Levit. v. 10), " The priest shall make atonement for him, for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him." Above all, it is said, respecting the gi'eat yearly expiation (Levit. xvi. 30), " On that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord.'' We camiot well imagine words more descriptive of real atoning ef&cacy than these, for here is cleansing, sc that the vrorshippers may be clean " before the Lord." There seems to me but one reconciliation between these statements, and that of the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is this,— that these sacrifices THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 225 cleansecl, not from any virtue wliatsoever iu themselves, but because they were the ordained means of making men in same sort partakers of the One All-sufficient Sacrifice. These sacrifices were efficacious— they made atonement ; they cleansed from sin " before the Lord," not because God saw any virtue in them, but because the virtue of the One Sacrifice was, in some degree, reflected back upon them. And so with the priests — compared with the One Priest ^Yho was to give Himself, there were no priests, for there never has been, and never can be, but One Real Priest ; but though, set side by side with Him, they were no priests; yet, compared with their brethren, the children of Israel, they were priests, for by God's appointment they ministered the atonement ; they even " cleansed before the Lord.'"' ^ And if God has ordained it, it may be so at the present time. Now that the all-prevailing Sacrifice has been oftered and accepted, God may see fit to ordain that its efficacy should be imparted to particular souls through ordinances administered by office-bearers in His Son's Chui'ch. Let us ever remember that the Jewish priestly system was, after all, but ministerial agency, for Aaron or Eleazar, on the great day of atonement, were, in very deed, only ministers dispensing to their brethren what was not their own ; and, indeed, in a considerable number of places in the Old Testament, the words " priest " and " minister " > It should be carefully remembered that the principle for which I am contending is altogether independent of the nature or extent of the cleansing or atonement effected by the Jewish sacrifices. If Ihey only availed to the merest " purifying of the flesh," still that ])urification came from God, and waa dispensed to individual Israelites through the toinistratious of theh brethren. Q 226 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. are evidently considered as synonymous ; for tlie one is put as the explanation of the other : thus, in Joel i. 9, we have — " the priests, the Lord's ministers, mourn." Again, in chap. ii. 17, " Let the priests, the ministers of tho Lord, weep between the porch and the altar :" also, Isaiah Ix. 6, " Ye shall be named the priests of the Lord : men shall call you the ministers of our God." The point is, not what these men are called, but what they minister. The thii'd point respecting the Old Dispensation and its bearing on the New in things pertaining to the ministry, which I would draw attention to, is this : we have in the sacred books of the elder dispensation, several very clear prophecies of the Kingdom of Christ, in which prophecies it is plainly foretold that " priests " and " Levites " are to exercise their respective offices under the rule of the Great Spiritual David. Thus, in Jeremiah xxxiii. 15 — 22, we have a prophecy of our Lord under the figure of the " Branch of Righteous- ness " growing up unto David, and executing judgment and righteousness, and that "David should not want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel." Unless this prophecy be fulfilled in the person of Jesus, the Son of David, it never has been and never can be fulfilled, for the actual family of David fell into obscurity shortly after the return from the captivity, and has now been extinct for eighteen hundred years. It is evident, then, that this prophecy is fulfilled in the present Kingdom of Christ, the Son of David; but the prophet distinctly foretells that under the rule of David's Son there should be "priests Levites," to offer "burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually." (Chap, xxxiii. verse 18.) Now, according to the letter, there never have been THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 227 these things under Cbi-ist, but according to the spirit and truth of Christian ordinances, there ever has been, as we have shown in our observations on the Eucharist. The same prophecy ls repeated with still greater emphasis in the twenty-first verse. Here, then, we have the ministers of the New Dispensa- tion prophesied of under the same names as those by which God's ministers were known under the Old Covenant. Again, in Malachi, the last of the prophets, we have the Saviour spoken of as the Messenger of the Covenant," and one of His acts is "to purify the sons of Levi, that they may ofifer to the Lord an offering in righteousness." (Mai. iii. 3.) This place can only be understood of Christ puiifying to HimseK a ministry fi'om amongst His people : for if the universal priesthood of all Christian people were here predicted, it would never be designated as the piu-ification of one particular tribe, to which tribe pertained the service of the sanctuary, whilst the whole people of God, as distinguished from that tribe, are ex- pressly mentioned as " Judah and Jerusalem" in the next verse. Even commentators like Thomas Scott recognise a reference, both here and in Jeremiah xxxiii., to tlie Christian Ministry, as distinguished fi'om the Priesthood Chi-istians. (Mai. iii. 3, 4.) If God had intended that under the new state of things the Priesthood of Chiist should render any assmnption of subordinate priesthood on the part of Christian ministers blasphemous or incongruous, why should He have inspired Jeremiah to predict the ministrations of " priests " under the rule of His Son ? And if God had intended that in the dispensation ol <'hrist there should be no ministerial priesthood between Ihe High Priesthood of His Son and the general priesthood 228 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. of all the redeemed, why should He have caused Malachi to predict that His Son, when He came amongst us, should purify, not all Israel only, but, in an especial manner, the " sons of Levi," Levi being only one tribe of the Holy peoj)le, specially set apart above his brethren to give attendance to the altar. III. We now come to the dispensation of the One True Priest and One True Sacrifice. Did our Great High Priest ordain any ministry ? If He did, What position in His system and what power or functions did He assign to it ? If He assigned to His ministers that they should dis- pense the benefits of His Atonement either by word of mouth or by significant acts, such as Sacraments, then these men were as much priests in reality as any Jewish or Patriarchal priests. For, as I said, we have not to do with names but with things. In looking to the Evangelic narrative we find that, next to the prominence given to the All-gracious Person of the Saviour Himself, our attention is fastened by the Holy Ghost on this fact, that the Saviour chose out of the re- mainder of His disciples twelve men, whom Pie associated with Himself, and whom He identified with Himself in every way. He constituted these men His ministers, His fellow-workers, and His representatives. He employed them to do the things which He Himself did ; and, after His crucifixion. He gave them a commission from Himself similar to that on which He had Himself acted : — " As My Father sent Me, so send I you." (John xx. 21.) Let us see to the Scripture evidence for this. Our Lord must have had a very large number of dis- ciples in addition to those whom He attached to Himself as Apostles. We read continually of " many believing on Him." (John iy, 39, vi. 60—66, vii. 31. viii. 30.) W© THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 229 read of His appeai-ing after His resurrectiou to " five hundi-ed bretlu'cn." (1 Cor. xv. 6.) Out of all these followers He cliose twelve. Tlie account of this in St. Luke (vi. 13) is, " He called unto Him His disciples, and out of them He chose twelve, whom also He named Apostles." Then follows a list of the mere names of these twelve. And it is a fact very significant of the official position oi the Apostles in the system, that the Holy Ghost has seen fit to cause four lists of the mere names of these men to be recorded. (Matt. x. 1; Mark iii. 14; Luke vi. 13; Acts. i. 13.) The call of four of them is the fii'st event of our Lord's ministry recorded by St. John. (John i. 35 — 43.) The call of the same four, or of thi'ce of them, is the fii'st event recorded by St. Matthew. (Matt. iv. 18—22.) If we are to gather anything respecting the principles of the Kingdom or Chui-ch of God from Christ's own deeds, then ministerial agency, as distinguished from the action of the rest of the Chiu'ch. must be a leading principle of that kingdom. This is still more manifest from the position assigned to these men. They are, as a rule, distinguished from the rest of the disciples, as " the twelve." ^ When one of them falls from his high standing, the rest are called " the eleven." When the number is filled up, they are again " the twelve." ^ When they were insufficient for the work, our Lord appoints additional labourers, but these ai*e care- fully distinguished from the twelve. The words are, " The Lord appointed other seventy also." (Luke x. 1.) Our Lord identifies Himself with the twelve in very extraordinary terms. " I appoint unto you a Kingdom, as ' Matt. xxvi. 20, 47 ; Mark xiv. 20 ; John xx. 24. - Mark xvi. 14 ; Luke xxiv. 9, 33 ; Acts i. 26. 3 Acta vi, 2 ; Eev. xxi. 14. 230 CHtJRCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE THUTH. My Father hath appointed unto Me." (Luke -^xii. 29.) To one of them He said, " I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." (Matt. xvi. 19.) On another occasion He gives (in the same words) the same binding and loosing power to all. (Matt, xviii. 18.) It is not now my purpose to explain these passages ; I would only remark in passing, that such extraordinary words from the Eternal Son of God must be intended to convey something more than the power to deliver a mere message. If the asserters of ministerial authority had found no words in our Sacred Books to give colour to their pre- tensions, and had desired to foist in words to serve thcii- purpose, they could hardly have invented stronger. Such a power, of course, can only be subordinate and ministerial, and is to be exercised in accordance with Christ's word, and in trembling subordination to His ratification ; but that there is some real room for its exer- cise we must allow, if we believe that Christ would not have ordained what is superfluous, or ensnaring. To realise how our Lord would raise these men up to the true greatness of the position which He designed for them, the reader must examine the Gospels for himself — extracts or references to texts can give but a very inade- quate idea of the truth on this point. I would, however, direct his attention to the accounts of the two sister mii'acles of the feeding of the multitudes in the wilderness as illustrating somewhat the position which the Apostles occupied. (Matt. xiv. 15, xv. 32.) These two miracles are so very much alike in all their leading circumstances, that we can assign no reason why the Holy Spirit should have given to us four accounts of the one and two of the other, except this, that such a THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 231 miracle is especially a typical one, foreshadowing soma great and gracious dealings of Christ with His Church. Kow, in each account of these miracles we have it especially recorded, that Christ gave the bread to the disciples (or Apostles), and they to the multitude. If, then, the multitudes represent the Chiu'ch, and the feeding of these multitudes represents the feeding of that Church, either by doctrine or Eucharist, what can the dis- tribution by the hands of the Apostles foreshadow, except a system of ministerial agency ; and this agency not superseding Christ's own acting or obscuiing His grace, but rather magnifying both ? It is quite clear, then, that Christ set apart certain per- sons to be His ministers, and put them into a remarkable position betwixt Himself and the rest of His followers. We have now to consider the functions which these persons were deputed to exercise. Did theii' powers exceed, or come short of, the powers of those men who, in former dispensations, had been called priests ? If Christ assigned to His Apostles any power of show- ing forth the One Atonement, and applying its benefits to the members of His Church, then He constituted these men *' priests" in His Chui'ch. It matters not a straw whether the name of priests were given to them; the thing itself, the power, the function, which men usually attach to the name and office of priest, was theirs, if it was theirs to dispense to theii* brethren the benefits of the One Atoning Sacrifice. Now, Christ commissioned His Apostles to do four things : to preach — to baptize — to administer the Lord's Supper — and to absolve. Let us fii'st take the power to baptize. Christ, on two occasions, after His Eesurrection, commissioned His 232 CHURCH DOCtRmE, — ^BIBLE TRUTH. Apostles to baptize. This commission was not given to the whole body of believers. Christ did not give it to the one hundred and twenty, or to the five hundred, but only to the eleven, by this stamping it as a ministerial act. (Matt, xxviii. 16—18, 19; Mark xvi. 14, 15.) Now (if we are to believe St. Paul) when an Apostle, or minister commissioned by an Apostle, administered bap- tism to a convert, he there and then caused that that man should be "buried with Christ;" i.e.^ he made the convert, in some sort, a partaker of Christ's death ; or, in modern phrase, an " interest in Christ's death " was made over to him through the ministration of the Apostle or minister. Again, even such a man as St. Paul was bid to " wash away his sins " in baptism (Acts xxii. 16) ; and he, in his turn, makes mention of this Sacrament as the means by which Christ cleanses His Church (EjDhes. v. 26). Of course, such things can only accompany Baptism because God has ordained it as a means by which He makes men partakers of the benefits of His Son's Atone- ment, for no one ever supposed that such a thing can cleanse of itself. When, then, an Apostle baptized, he did a sacerdotal act of a far higher character than any act which Aaron was commissioned to do ; for, concerning no act which Aaron had power to perform was it ever said that men were in it " buried with Christ," or " born again of water and of the Spirit." ^ All this is quite unaffected by the question of the validity of lay Baptism. The principle for which I am contending is, not that God rigidly confines the grace of the Sacraments to those who receive them through authorised ministers, but that He has ordained a system of regular ministration in His Church. If He has done this, we cannot but expect that He will bo with His own institution to insure the validity of its ministrations. How far, and in what cases, under exceptional cii'cumstances, the •THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 233 In the next place, our Lord empowered His Apostles to celebrate the Lord's Supper. The commission to do this was also not given to the whole Church gathered together into one place, but to the twelve alone. Now, when an Apostle, or other minister commissioned by him, administered the Lord's Supper, what did he do? In the first place, it is allowed on all hands, that he showed forth the Lord's Death. He showed forth, beforo God and the Church, not his faith in the Lord's Death, but the Death itself ; and, surely, this was a far greater thing in the sacerdotal sense than any act which Aaron was appointed to do ; if, that is, the act of celebrating Holy Communion be a more direct way of setting forth Chi'ist crucified than the sacrifices of the Old Law. Then, in the next place, by administering the Lord's Supper, the Apostles must have made men partakers of Christ's Atonement ; for, if the bread and wine, in any efiectual sense, exhibit or represent the Body and Blood of Chi-ist, they must make men partakers of the gi-ace and power of that Body and Blood. If otherwise, they would be mere vain and ineffectual things, having nothing like the virtue of the old Aaronic sacrifices. But St. Paul says, " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the ministrations of laymen or ministers not regularly ordained arc valid, I do not stop to consider. ISIy purpose is to show that God, in having ordained a ministiy for the regular celebration of sucli things as the Sacraments, has established under the Christian dis- pensation the principle, that certain benefits, the results of Eedemp' lion, are to be looked for, not directly from Himself, but indirectly through the hands of those whom He has authorised to dispense them. 234 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. body of Christ ?" And this, too, in a context full of sacrificial allusions. When, then, an Apostlo administered the bread, he gave to the believer that which Christ called His Body ; and when an Apostle or other minister gave the cup, he gave to men what Christ had called, and so would have men believe to be, " the New Covenant in His Blood." He must, by so doing, have applied to his convert the One Atoning Sacrifice far more directly and intimately than any priest of the order of Aaron could have done by his sacrifices : for the words in which the Holy Communion is described, establish the most intimate relation possible between it and the One Atoning Sacrifice. Then, in addition to this, our Lord commissioned His Apostles to absolve. This power He imparted to them when He said to them, " Eeceive ye the Holy Ghost ; whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." (John XX.) When the Apostles exercised this power, which, if they were faithful to their Master's commission, they must frequently have done, they must then have applied to those whom they absolved the Atonement wrought out by their Master. If not, they must have absolved on the score of their own personal merits ; a position for which I suppDse, none would contend. If, then, there be but One True Priest, and if all sub- ordinate priesthood, Jewish or Christian, be instituted simply for the application of the Atonement of this One True Priest, then an Apostle, when he absolved according to Christ's commission, exercised priestly functions in a way far more direct, and by an authority far nearer to the fountain of all efficacious Atonement, than Aaron ever did, even when once a year he cleansed the people from all their sins " before the Lord.*' THE CHRISTIAN PRIFSTHOOD. 235 When, then, the Cliurcli was founded, the Saviour Him- self appointed certain men to exercise functions of a far more sacerdotal character than any ever exercised before, because the exercise of these functions was far more intimately connected with His own Atoning Sacrifice/ ^ As some persons, however, may stumblp at this because the actual name of priest is never applied to a Christian minister, I have taken the liberty of transcribing the following passage from a well-known work, showing most fully the reasons why the name of pciest was for some time in abeyance : — *'The term 'Sabbath,' like the term 'Priest,' is employed no- where in the New Testament in reference to Christianity. The case is even stronger with regard to the terra ' Sabbatli,' than to that of * Priest.' For the observance of Holy Days, and specifically of the Sabbath day, is spoken of with positive reprobation, as destructive of the simplicity of faith in Christ. ' Let no man therefore judge you in meat or drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come ; but the body is of Christ.' (Col. ii. ] 6.) And again, ' Ye observe days, and mouths, and times, and years : I am afraid of you.' (Gal. iv. 10.) Again, it may seem, on a superficial view, from the fom-th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that all sabbatical observances, or days of rest, had passed away with the coming in of a deeper spiritual life, and that the only rest contemplated by the Gospel is the soul's inward repose on Chiist. Yet coincidentally with this rejection of the term Sabbath, and of holy days and seasons, the Apostles and brethren were observing the Lord's day ; and Passion Tide, Easter, and the Wednesdays and Fridays of the week, as days of observance associated with the betrayal and craci- fixion of our Lord, may be traced up through the dimness of the earliest tradition to the age of the Apostles. In the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, also, the term Sabbath never occurs except in connection with the Jewish apostacy, which was stigmatised by the opprobrious name of ' Sabbatising.' Later still, St. Augustine speaks of the Sabbath as observed only spiritually, and having its fulfilment in Christ. Tlie subsequent history of the two terms entirely coin- cides. Both arose to life again after a time, and became fixed in the ordinary language of the Church, only the term Priest at a much earlier date than the other. The term Sabbath has not been used 236 CHURCH DOCTRlXEj-^BIBLE TRUTH. The greater part of these men survived the close of the New Testament history. The Acts of the Apostles carries us down to A.D. 58, and St. Peter and St. Paul were not martyred till ten years afterwards, so that during the whole of the New Testament period the heads of the Church must have exercised sacerdotal functions of the highest character, and we have not a syllable throughout the whole Book to intimate that these functions were cither to cease, or to be in abeyance. We have now to consider the question whether the Apostles had any power to commit the exercise of these functions to others. If they had not, then only those Christians with whom they came in personal contact could have either been baptized, or received the Lord's Supper, or absolution : for I must ask the reader to bear in mind that the original commissions to preach the Gospel, to baptize, to administer the Lord's Supper, and to remit and retain sin, were given solely to the Apostles, for they and they only are mentioned as present when the commissions to do these things were given, and certain words in the Acts of the Apostles seem to limit it all to them. (Acts i. 2, in connection with Matt, xxviii. 16, 18, 19 ; Mark xvi. 14, 15; John xx. 19—27; Acts x. 40—42.) Our Lord might have assembled all His followers together, and have given to all of them power to do these things, and it of the day of Chi'istian observauce until quite modem times. From the remarkable similarity, there can scarcely be a doubt that tha same principle has operated in both cases. "\ATiile there was danger to be apprehended from Jewish ideas becoming attached to the New System, from mere confusion, or from the appearance of antagonism, the Jewish terms were suspended, though the ideas of Priesthood and Sabbath passed into the Christian system, and when this danger no longer existed, and the separation of the two systems was complete, the terms themselves were again fi-eely used." — Carteb'8 *' Doctrine of the Priesthood," p. 122. THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 237 appears to me tliat He would have done so if Ho had intended to maintain the universal priesthood of the whole Church or body of believers to the exclusion of that of the ministers of His Chiu'ch : but He did the very opposite of this. He gave power only to the Apostles, so that at the time of His ascension the Apostles wero the sole commis- sioned ministers of the Chui'ch. In order that these functions might be perpetuated, Christ or the Holy Spii'it gave to the Apostles the power of transmitting the authority to exercise them by means of the " laying on of hands," or Ordination. This laying on of hands was so prominent a feature in the New Dispensation, that it is included amongst the first principles of the doctrine of Christ : the foundations of Christianity. (Heb. vi. 1 — 4.) Every officer of the Church, from the Apostle (Acts xiii. 2) to the Deacon (Acts vi. 6), was set apart or consecrated to his office by this imposition of hands. We have reason to believe that every office-bearer of the Chui'ch was thus set apart ; for, if the Apostles would not commit to others so apparently secular a business as the control of the distribution of certain alms, without fii'st laying their hands on those to whom they assigned this work, we may safely assume that no spiritual fimctions whatsoever would be committed by thorn to others without this imposition of hands. In the last of the Pastoral Epistles, we find this principle of transmission of power by imposition of hands recognised as the appointed means of continuing in the Church the functions of the ministry. St. Paul bids Timothy stir up the gift that vras in him, by the putting on of his (St. Paul's) hands (2 Tim. i. 6), and bids him also, in his turn, " lay hands suddenly on no man " (1 Tim. V. 22). 238 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. It is clear, then, that not only were there ministers delegated by Christ Himself to exercise the highest sacer- dotal functions, but also that provision was made that the exercise of those functions should be perpetual. SECTION II. ABSOLUTION. This seems the place to discuss certain objections which have been urged against the doctrine of Absolution. The power to absolve was given in the words, " As My Father sent Me, so send I you : Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." (John xx. 22.) Any bond fide attempt on the part of the Church to give effect to these words has occasioned, in these latter days, great stumbling. Some men have said that there cannot be any delegated power of remission conferred by them, or by any other words. It is virtually implied that Christ Himself could not have given any such power. So it is said that these words must be taken as merely giving authority to " preach the Gospel." The Gospel, it is said, makes known the terms on which God will forgive ; and so, when our Lord says, " Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted," there are thoso who assert that He really means, " If ye preach the Gospel, and any one believes it, then God will forgive that man his sins [without any further ministerial action on your part]." Now, inasmuch as Christ Himself had, in the plainest THE CEBISTiAN PRIESTHOOD. 239 terms, and on two occasions, given to the Apostles a com- mission to "preach the Gospel" (Matt, xxviii. 19; ]Mark xvi. 15), it is inconceivable that the Lord should, on this occasion, have expressed so sin'.ple a matter as preaching the Gospel is, in terms so exceedingly ambiguous, and so certain of being misunderstood. How could any one, who wished his meaning to be clear, tell certain persons to do a particular thing, when he really meant them merely to publish the news that, on certain conditions, another would do what they were commissioned to do ; they who were told to do it having no part, even ministerially, in the actual doing ? I say, ministerially, for no one imagines that the decla- ration of absolution is anything but ministerial. Now it appears to me far less dishonouring to our Lord at once to reject His words, and to refuse to entertain them, than to put on them a gloss which makes Him express a very plain and ordinary thing in terms so very extraordinary, startling, and ambiguous. That these words were liable, if acted on, to prove a stumbling-block, is clear from the fact, that He Himself had been once accused of blasphemy for claiming to do what His words to the Apostles apparently gave power to do. He claimed to forgive the sins of the man sick of the palsy, in the words, " Son, be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee." (Matt. ix. 2.) And when accused by His adversaries of usurping the prerogative of God, He neither softened nor explained away His words ; nor did He assert that, as God, He possessed an inherent right to forgive. On the contrary. He claimed the authority, not as the Son of God, but as the Son of Man, " that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins." He claimed, then, on this occasion, to exercise, not an inherent, but a delegated power : and this delegated power He, in 240 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. His turn, delegated to the Apostles. "All power," He Bays, " is given unto Me in heaven and in earth, go ye therefore;" As My Father sent Me, so send I you. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them." By such words our Lord could not have meant to give power merely to declare the terms on which God will forgive, for He must have been conscious that He Him- self had been accused of assuming to absolve, and He must also hara been conscious that, in future ages, His Church vv'ould ground on the plain meaning of these words a similar power to absolve. I am ashamed to have to take up the reader's time with considering such a subterfuge ; but my labour has not been lost if what I have said leads him to realise the ex- treme plainness and simplicity of our Lord's words on this occasion, and so the dangerous folly of attempting to put an evasive meaning on them. In the second place, it has frequently been asserted that, though these words of Christ convey a real absolving power, yet that this power was limited to the Apostles themselves, and could not, like the authority to administer the sacraments, be conveyed by them to others. But what reason have we to make such a difference between the power to administer sacraments and the power to absolve, that the former should be for all time, and that the latter should be limited to the Apostles and expire ivith their lives ? The two Sacraments, and the form of Absolution, ai'O ttlike means of grace, instituted for the consolation and assurance of penitent sinners ; and so it seems most un- likely that those sinners who lived in the immediate vicinity of the original Apostles should possess, /or a time only, a means of grace which was denied to all other members of the Church. THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 241 It is incredible that a power against sin, or for the con- solation of sinners (which this power was), should bo confined to the time when the Church was the purest, i.e., the most fi'ee from sin. As one of our greatest divines, Jeremy Taylor, has well asked, ^' When went it [the power of remitting and retaining] out? When the anointing and mii-aculous healing ceased ? There is no reason for that ; for, forgiveness of sins was not a thing visible, and, therefore, could not be of the nature of miracles, to con- firm the faith and Christianity first, and, after its work was done, return to God that gave it ; neither could it be only of present use to the Church, but as eternal as sin is : and, therefore, there could be nothing in the nature of the thing to make it so much as suspicious that it was pre- sently to expire." — Bp. Jeremy Taylor's " The Office Ministerial," in vol. i. p. 13, Eden's edition. It has also been most ignorantly urged against absolu- tion, that the Apostles performed miracles, and that because they did this and their successors do not, there fore they have no authority to pronounce absolution. But what connexion is there between the two ? Christianity is for the comfort and healing of the soul, not of the body. The gifts of healing were given to establish the truth of Christianity. When its truth was fully established they passed away ; but all in Christianity that has to do with the comfort or healing of the soul must still continue. It is a remarkable fact, that the only mention of mii*a- culous cures as accrediting the Apostolic commission is given, not in connexion vdth Absolution, but in connexion with the preaching of the Gospel;" or rather with "be- lieving." " Tl^esc signs shall follow them that believe," &c. (Mark xvi. 17). Would any one say that no one now believes, because we do not lay hands on the sick and they recover '? ft 242 . CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. There is somehow an idea that even a delegated and conditional power of Absolution is too sacred a matter to be exercised by man ; but when we attentively consider it, is it one whit more difficult to apprehend that man can absolve than that man can administer the Lord's Supper ? if we have, that is, the slightest respect to the terms in which Christ and St. Paul speak of the Eucharist. For when a ijiinister, acting on Christ's commission, administers the Eucharist, what does he do but enable his fellow- sinner to partake, in a heavenly and spiritual way, of the Body and Blood of One at the right hand of God ? Is it one whit more easy to believe that one man can be the instrument, in God's hands, of communicating to another that inward part, to which the Saviour applies such terms as His Body and His Blood, than to believe that the same man can, in the name of the same Omni- present Saviom*, and by the use of certain words, make his penitent fellow-sinner a partaker of the Atonement pur- chased by the breaking of that Body of Christ, and the shedding of His Blood ? Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution are all alike in this respect, that they are means of ajDj^lying the Atone- ment, or Blood of Chi'ist, to the believer through the action of others, i.e., ah extra. They differ in this respect from prayer or from internal acts of faith, for a man can pray and exercise faith without any intervention of his fellow-man ; but he cannot either baptize, or administer the Lord's Supper to, or absolve himself ; and so, if he receives any benefit through these appointments of Christ, he must submit to receive that benefit through the instrumentality or intervention of another, and that benefit comes from the exalted Human Nature of Christ. Whether it be the remission of sin, as in Baptism, or the strengthening and refreshing of hig THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 243 BOTil by tlie Body and Blood of Christ, or Absolution, all is from Christ ; and it is just as difficult to believe that a man can be God's instrument to enable his fellow to partake of Christ in one of these ways as in another. But it has been objected that the Apostles had this power conferred upon them because they had the power of " discerning of spirits," and that the latter gift is necessary to the right exercise of Absolution ; but they who say this totally mistake the nature and intent of this gift of " dis- cerning of spirits." There is no evidence whatsoever that the power of " discerning of spirits " was a power of read- ing the heart. It was simply a power to pronounce whether such or such spiritual utterances were from God or not. "When the Spii'it was largely poured forth, and men were endowed with various gifts of knowledge and utter- ance, there was, as yet, no canon of the New Testament by which these utterances could be judged. Satan then raised up men who professed to teach as from the Spirit what was contrary to God's truth ; and these men not un- frequently came as " angels of light," and so the Churches would have been at their mercy, had not God raised up in each Church men whose critical faculties were so super- naturally informed, and strengthened, and purified, that they were able to pronounce who spake by God's Spirit and who not. We have no evidence that the Apostles, as they moved among men, were able to read their hearts. They aj^pear to have judged of others, as we have to do, by their pro- fession and their conduct. It appears to me little short of blasj^hemy to suppose that this " discerning of spirits " was a " discerning of the thoughts and intents of the heart •" for this latter is, throughout Scripture, ascribed to God only, as one of His 244 CinTRCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. incommunicable attributes ; and yet we find tliat good men scruple not to ascribe this Divine power to tbe Apostles, in order to avoid granting to tbeir successors a power of absolution, on the very face of it delegated, ministerial, subordinate, and conditiv!>nal. There is no evidence of any connexion between the power of granting absolution and that of discerning of spirits, nor need there be, for the power to absolve was merely ministerial and conditional. The person who absolved, absolved not infallibly as a judge, but con- ditionally as a servant or minister — always referring the ratification of Ms act to the Searcher of hearts. Absolution, of course, can only be a means of grace to sincere penitents, and so is exactly on the same footing as the two Sacraments. It was no doubt given, from the very first, to those who appeared sincere in their profession of repentance ; but the responsibility as to the right reception of it lay wholly with the man who applied for it. Whatever difficulty there may be in realising that a human being possesses this power, let us remember that Christ has taken the whole difficulty upon Himself, for lie has commissioned men to bind and loose— to remit and retain sin ; and it is really as difficult to believe that one man can exercise such powers as that another can. It is really as hard to believe that St. Bartholomew or St. Andrew could remit or retain sin, as that any Bishop or Priest now can. But when Christ has given the power, it seems to me a fearful tempting of Him to ask with the Pharisees, " Who can forgive sins but God only ?" for by asking this we assume to have more regard than He has for the honour of God His Father. It is clear, then, that we learn from the New Testa- ment that God is pleased to convey some of the highest benefits of Christ's Redemption through the instrumen- THE CHEISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 245 tality of subordinate agents, and by means of significant acts. And let it be remembered, tbat if God established tbis principle in the Pentecostal Cburcb, He bas for ever disposed of all objections to it which assume tbat it hinders the individual intercourse of the soul with the Eedeemer : for will any one dare to say that the Pente- costal Christians, who had all things common, and were of one heart and soul, and lived in constant daily prayer and praise, had less direct intercourse with Christ than the hearer at some modern places of worship, in which the principle of Absolution, no matter how explained or modified, would be scouted '? No doubt that in after ages this great truth has been abused. No doubt, also, that men, seeing that the priest was commissioned to make them partakers of certain benefits, were tempted by Satan to regai'd his office as if by relying on it they could divest themselves of their individual responsibility. But what of this ? We surely have not to be taught that the abuse of a thing is any argument whatsoever against the right use of it ; if so, we should have to surrender the Christian Sabbath, for that day is more abused than any other because it is the Sabbatb, a day of leisure on which to commit sin, as well as to worship God. SECTION 111. EXAMINATION OF THE OEDES'AI,. We now come to see how this Scripture principle is recognised in the Prayer-book. ;Fi;-st of all we have an Ordinal containing three services, 246 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. according to one or other of which the Apostolic rite of Ordination is to be administered, each service containing prayers, addresses to the people, questions to be asked of the candidate, and suitable readings from Scripture. Let the reader bear in mind, that from all which we can gather from Scripture, the Holy Ghost would have us regard the Apostles at our Lord's Ascension as the sole depositaries of all power to preach, administer Sacra- ments, ordain, or absolve — for no other ministers whatso- ever are mentioned as receiving a commission from Christ to perform ministerial acts. Now, in what terms did Christ constitute the Apostles His ministers ? Was their ministry inaugurated by acts and words which would lead us to take a high or a low view of it ? If, for instance, they were commissioned merely to preach or teach, they would have been commissioned to do what is ordinarily and naturally done by those who desire to propagate truths which they think will be useful. In such a case, no matter how high a view we were to take of the contents of their message as necessary to Salvation, we could scarcely take a high view of their commission. Their one business would have been to do (and in much the same way) what the propagators of all opinions have to do, and their success would mainly depend on the right use of natural gifts and acquirements, coupled with zeal, energy, and discretion. God might, of course, have endowed tliem with the highest supernatural gilts ; but no matter how great these gifts were, they would only have been given to them to enable them to perform more efficiently a natural thing, i.e.^ to spread opinions which they believed to be useful or necessary to their fellow-creatures. J^ow the original New Testament ministers, i.e., the THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 247 Apostles, were not commissioned merely to preacli and to t^ach. Tliey were commissioned to apply, by such tilings as Sacraments and Absolution, that Atonement wbicb was wrought out by their Master on the cross. And they received their commission, not in ordinary, but in very extraordiuary terms — terms which are open to the scoff of the infidel, and the rationalist, and the secularist, as affording grounds for sacerdotal pretensions ; but notwithstanding this, terms used by One who came to break the yoke of mere ritual and superstition from off men's necks, and to make them " free indeed." Consider such words as, " I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven;" " Verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven ;" " As my Father sent Me, so send I you ; whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them." These are not ordinary words. They are not the language of One who would wish His followers to take a rational, commonplace, safe, ordinary view of the state of things He was establishing. They are most certainly not the language of One who would wish His ministers to be regarded as mere propagators of doctrine, or teachers of morals. Such words, if they mean anything, stamp the Xew Testament ministry as a continuation of that heavenly and supernatui-al ministry which He Himself exercised. They are wonderful and mysterious ; but was not He Who spake them sm-passingly wonderful and mysterious, both in His person and office ? May I be permitted here to employ words which I have written and published some time ago, respecting the accordance between the mystery of Christ's own person and the mysteries of that state of things which He died to establish ? 248 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH " Let lis not deceive ourselves by the tliougiit that a low view of the meaning of such words, said by such an One, under such circumstances, is the safest for our own souls, or the most deferential to our Savioui*. The Man who spake the words was God in our nature — God manifest in the flesh, ' The Word made flesh.' He was, in very deed, ' Our Lord and our God.' In that frame, pierced though it was vdih spear and nails, dwelt the fulness of the Godhead. His very breath was sacramental — the outward visible sign of the transmission of the Spirit. " And He had become what He was for the sake of the trembling sinners whose hearts He was then reassuring, and for [the sake of] those who should believe on Him through their word. In and through them He was on the point of setting up His Church. This Chiu'ch was to be His fulness, so that even He did not reckon Himself complete without it. " Of that Church collectively, it is said that it is ' His body.' " Of the various individuals composing this Church it is said in Scripture, that they are each one in particular His members ; nay, even ' members of His body — of His flesh and of His bones.' " Of the ministers of this Church it is said in Scripture, that they are 'ambassadors for Christ,' 'stewards of God's mysteries,' and from ' Christ as the Head,' by them as 'joints and bands, the whole body having noui'ishment ministered and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.' "Such was the state of things on the eve of being established — heavenly and supernatural from beginning to end. Not a system of opinions, but a Divine organism; not a mere religion, but a kingdo^i of grace I And these words are its inauguration. THE CHRISTIAN PElfSTHOOD. 249 " They are wonderful words — surpassingly wonderful ; but so is He Who spake them; so was the occasion on which they were spoken ; so is the Church which they created. They are almost beyond belief; but they are in keeping with the whole character of that dispensation in which man is saved by the Son of Man, and in which sinful men are made the brethren of the ' Only Begotten called by Him His friends ; united to Him as His mem- bers ; associated ^^ith Him as His fellow- workers ; and, hereafter, if they abide in Him, to be raised by Him to His throne." The ministry, then, which these words inaugurate, is the Xew Testament ministry ; and, though the men who originally received the commission have long gone to their rest, we have Christ's own word that it is to exist in their successors till He come again. If our Ordinal is Scriptui'al it must embody these words, and be the instrument for transmitting the commission contained in them. An Ordinal is a semce to be used at the time when Christian ministers receive their solemn commission. I cannot see how we can honestly avoid stating, in such a document, the natui-e of this commission, and for what it makes them responsible, just as is the case in the deeds by which men are empowered to exercise any civil commission. An Ordination Service which did not embody the substance of these words would be as unscriptural, in its way, as a statement which professed to give the glories of Christ, and omitted all mention of His Godhead, would be in its way. If we had an Ordinal not recognising or embodying these words, wc should have one deliberately framed to come short of the words of Christ ; and, by using it, we 250 CHUBCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. should as good as assert that we put from us the highest view of the Christian ministry, and that the words of Christ inaugurating His ministry have literally " passed away." The Ordinal of the Church of England assumes that the ministry which Christ established will subsist, in its integrity, till His Second Coming, and that He will be so " with it " by His Spirit, that every ordinance for the salvation or restoration of souls which He committed to its keeping is as efficacious now as it was at the beginning.^ We will first examine the office for the Consecration of Bishops. This office commences with a collect, every line of which implies that the present ministry is a continuation of the Apostolic. "Almighty God, who by Thy Son Jesus Christ didst give to Thy Holy Ajiostles many excellent gifts, and didst charge them to feed Thy flock; give grace, we beseech Thee, to all Bishops, the pastors of Thy Church, that they may diligently preach Thy word, and duly administer the godly discipline thereof," &c. In accordance with the contents of this collect, there is a choice of three portions of Scripture as the Gospel for the occasion. The first of these (John xxi. 15) containing the account of our Lord earnestly commanding the ' It may be well here to call attention to the fact that the Ordinal is specially recognised in the Thirty-nine Articles. The Thirty-sixth Article declares " That the Book of Consecration of Archbishop and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by Act of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such consecration and ordination: neither hath it anything that, of itself, is superstitions and ungodly." No other part of the Prayer-book except tliG three Creeds has such an imj)rimg,tur. T-aE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 251 Apostle St. Peter to feed His lambs and sheep. The second (John xx. 19) containing the Apostolic commission, "As My Father sent Me, so send I you," &c. The third containing the Apostolic commission, as we have it in St. Matthew xxviii., " All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore," &c. From the Chui'ch having chosen these places as the Gospels to be read in order to stir up our faith in the presence and power of Chi-ist, it is evident that she con- siders that none of the words of Christ, which they contain, have passed away, but that all have a full present application. Before the Litany there is a short address by the Arch- bishop : — '* Brethren, it is written in the Gospel of St. Luke, that our Saviour Christ continued the wliole night in prayer, before He did choose and send forth His twelve Apostles. It is written also in the Acts of the Apostles, that the disciples who were at Antioch did fast and pray, before they laid hands on Paul and Barnabas, and sent them forth. Let us therefore, following the example of our Saviour Christ and His Apostles, first fall to prayer, before we admit and send forth this person presented unto us, to the work whereunto we trust the Holy Ghost hath called him." After this the Bishop elect is consecrated to his ministry with the words : — " Receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands ; In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. And remember that thou stir up the grace of God which is given thee by this imposition of our hands : for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and soberness." The reader will recognise the last sentence as the charge of the Apostle St. Paul to Timothy (2 Tim. i. 6, 7). Tho 262 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Arclibishop adopts the words of St. Paul as his own: assuming that God confers through his hands the same ministerial grace which He conferred through St. Paul' hands. In the words, " Receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a Bishop," we have a recognition of the great Scripture truth that the Holy Ghost is the Author, not only of all spiritual and moral ministerial influencfe, but also of all official authority in the Church of Christ. I cannot express this great truth better than in the words ol Hooker (Eccles. Pol. v. ch. Ixxvii. 5) : — " We know that spiritual gifts are not only abilities to do things miraculous, as to speak with tongues which were never taught us, to cure diseases witliout art, and such like, but also that the ^ery authority and power which is given men in the Church to be ministers of holy things, this is contained within the number of those gifts whereof the Holy Ghost is Author, and therefore he which giveth this power may say without absurdity or folly, ' Receive the Holy Ghost, such power as the Spirit of Christ hath endued His Church withal, such power as neither prince nor potentate, king nor Caesar, on earth can give.' " Again, William Law, in his second letter to Bishop Hoadley, has some words as forcible and as much to the point on this matter as even those of Hooker : — ''All sacerdotal power is derived from the Holy Ghost. Our Saviour Himself took not tliat ministiy upon Him till He had this consecration. And during the time of His ministry, He was under the guidance and direction of the Holy Ghost. Through the Holy Spirit He gave commandment unto tlie Apostles wliom Ha had chosen. When He ordained them to the work of the ministry, it was with these words, ' Receive the Holy Ghost.' Those whom the Apostles ordained to the same function, it was by the same authority. They laid their hands upon the elders, exhorting them to take care of the flock of Christ over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers. Hereby they plainly declared, that however this office was to descend from man to man, througli human bands, THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOT}. 253 that it was tlie Holy Ghost which consecrated them to that employment, and gave them authority to execute it. From this it is also manifest, that the Priesthood is a gi'ace of the Holy Ghost. That it is not a function founded on the natural oi civil rights of mankind, but is derived from the special authority of the Holy Ghost ; and is as truly a positive institution as the Sacraments." ' ' I trust it will not be considered presumptuous to give the following explanation from the Appendix to my " Doctrinal Eevisicn of the Liturgy Considered :" — " ' Eeceive the Holy Ghost for the ofiQce and work of a Priest in the Church of God.' " The words in the Ordering of Priests are more qualified and guarded in the book of ] GG2 than they are in that of 1552 ; for whereas in the Prayer-book of 1552 the Bishop is directed to say, "without any limitation whatsoever, ' Picceive the Holy Ghost,' the present book directs him to say, ' Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God.' Now we are at liberty to imderstand this as if, by the limitation, there was dis- claimed any power of giving the Spirit except that strictly official and covenant gift which makes valid the official acts of the priest who is ordained. " A minister of Christ has two sorts of powers : he has moral power as a preacher of righteousness ; and he has also official power to perform certain covenant acts in that outward and visible Kingdom of God of which he is a duly constituted minister. His moial power is his abihty, as a faithful teacher and preacher, to bring men to repentance and faith. This power depends on his prayers and Btudy of God's word, and (above all) individual application to his own soul of the work and promises of Christ. " Not so his official power. No matter what his private character or public usefulness, whenever he baptizes (for instance) he admits the person baptized into that kingdom of which he is the official minister, *' At his ordination the Bishop transmits to him this latter power complete — in its integrity — but the former power he only receives (or at least has a right to expect) in proportion to his own faith and prayer. " Now the Church, in her form of ordination, bears witness to two great truths — 254 (HURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Let US now examine the " Form and manner of Ordering of Priests." Priests are set apart to their office with words embody- ing the Lord's commission to His Apostles to absolve : " Eeceive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands : whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained," &c. The priest in the Church of England is the minister of a parish, as distinguished from the bishop, the minister of the diocese. The minister, then, of the second order, who is supposed to come into immediate and daily contact with the flock of Christ, is furnished with this commission of absolution. " 1. That every official work of the minister is a work of the Spirit — so that the whole framework and fabric of Christianity — visible as well as invisible — is kept in existence by the Holy Spirit ; so that we may be assm-ed that we are living in the same dispensa- tion of the Spirit which commenced at Pentecost ; and that the worda by which Apostles held even nominal Christians answerable for a gift of the Spirit may be applied to Christians now. " 2. The Olimch, by her form of ordination, bears witness that this state of things does not depend upon the prayers of any bishops or priests who may ordain, but upon the never-failing promise of Christ ; and so she shows the truest and most submissive faith in the promise of her Great Head, by directing the Bishop to say * Receive the Holy Ghost.' instead of directing him to pray— • ' IMaycst thou receive,' &c. "If this form was in the shape of a prayer, then its validity might, and no doubt would, be said to depend upon the faith or sincerity of the Bishop who ordains. " Now, on the contrary, it must be looked upon as an official acl for the transmission of an official power ; and so the more clearly we mark the validity of the act as not depending upon the private religion of the agent, the better. THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 255 Tlie fact of the commission to absolve being given to the Becond order rather than to the fii'st, appeal's to me to refute the idea that the power of remitting or retaining sins has to do with the retention or removal of Chui'ch censui'es ; for if so, it would be given to that officer (the bishop) by whose authority alone these censui-es are pronounced/ The priest ordained after this form is furnished in the Book of Common Prayer with three formulas, in one or other of which he is to pronounce absolution. The first of these being the Absolution in the order for Morning Prayer, the second that in the Holy Communion, and the thii'd the Absolution in the Visitation of the Sick. The terms of the last, being the plainest and most munistake- able, will alone requii-e attention. The priest is there directed to absolve the sick man in these words : — " Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in Him, of His great mercy forgive thee thine offences ; and by His authority com- ^ It is impossible to believe that the very comprehensive and general terms of the absolution in the Visitation of the Sick refer to the removal of Church censures. The loosing men from such censures may be of course included, but there is not one word said about such a thing in the Visitation Service, which tliere must have been, if such a view of absolution was the principal one taken by the compilers of the service, especially as the old form which this one superseded contained the words, "And I restore thee to the Sacraments of the Church" (et Sacramerdis ecclesi-x te restiluo). There is no word respecting Church censures in the coran.issiou ia Jolm XX. 20. I cannot see that any difiBculty is removed by this tlieory ; fcr it our Lord merely referred to the removal of Church censures, then excommunication must be a power of the most tremendous clia- racter, or the removal of its ban would not form the subject of such words said on such an occ^s'oa. 256 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRtJTH. mitted to me, I absolve thee fi-om all thy sins, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Here we bave tlie power wliich the Saviour gave to the first ministers of the New Covenant recognised and claimed by the Church. In the wording of this absohition the Church very carefully guards the due exercise of this power. First. Against presumption on the part of the person absolved. Secondly. Against assumption on the part of tho absolvcr. First. She guards this power against presumption on the part of the absolved, if he presumes that he can h-ave absolution without the exercise of repentance and faith on his part ; for the application of this power is, in the very words of the absolution itself, expressly limited to those who repent and believe in Jesus Christ. Secondly. She guards the right exercise of this power against assumption on the part of the absolvcr,* lest he should take to himself the glory ; for the absolvcr has to absolve in the words, " By His authority committed unto mc, I absolve thee." No less than four times in tlic few short lines composing this absolution is all power and authority to absolve referred to Christ as its Author, and Giver, and Controller. First. When it is said, " Our Lord Jesus Christ hath loft povrer in His Church." ^ I cannut, however, help thinking that the very carefnl annun- ciation on the part of the Church that this power is only delegated, subordinate, and conditional, is aimed not so much at some imaginary assumptions on the part of imaginary priests, who are supposed to arrogate to themselves the power to remit sins on their own authority^ but to stop, if possible, the mouths of adversaries who ask, with tlie avov.-ed eiiemiea of Christ, Who is this that speaketh blasphemies ? THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 257 Secondly. When the priest is directed to pray that ('.'hrist Himself may absolve : " Of His great mercy forgive thee thine offences." Thirdly. When the priest actually absolves, there is another recognition of the one Fountain of authority : *' By His authority committed unto me, I absolve thee." Fourthly. All is done in the name of the Trinity : " I absolve thee [not in my own name, but] in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The Church could not have done more to guard this commission of Christ from abuse, whilst she is careful to honour her Divine Head by accepting His words in their plain, natural sense. Any form of Absolution which honoui's these words of Ohi'ist by not taking from them, as well as by not adding to them, must contain the three words, " I absolve thee." No prayer that the person may be absolved by God, as the Absolution in Holy Communion, fully satisfies these words of Chi-ist. No declaration of the Gospel that God absolves for Christ's sake, satisfies these words of Christ. His words are more than " Whatsoever sinners ye pray for, they shall be forgiven." They are more than " Whatsoever sinners ye proclaim the Gospel to, if they believe, they shall bo forgiven." His words are, " Whose soever sins ye remit, they arc remitted unto them." Any alteration or emendation of this Absolution which would suit the rationalising or democratic tendencies of the present day, would leave these words of Chi'ist without anything answering to them in the Prayer-book. Worse than this, it would be a deliberate casting aside of a commission once recognised, or an attempt by the use of ambiguous expressions to evade the assertion of it. s 258 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Is it not probable that, in an age like tbis, we may have, on such a matter, to choose between the world and Christ ? Note. This absolution is not merely declaratory. It must in some sense convey what it declares. The words of Christ are too strong for a merely declaratory absolution. We must seek some solution which, whilst it jealously reserves all power of forgiveness to God, yet at the same time leaves room for some bond fide exercise of the subordinate authority which Christ has left, and so vindicates His wisdom in having used words which (on the anti-absolution hypothesis) are so much stronger than was needful. It appears to me that the conveyance of pardon in Absolution is analogous to the mode of its conveyance in Baptism. If we look to His " purpose according to election," God may have pardoned tlie penitent from all eternity. If we look to God's secret will, He may pardon the same man at the moment when he first believes. But still there must be room for the declared purpose of God (Mark xvi. 16; Acts ii. B8, xxii. 16; Ephes. v. 26) to convey this secret pardon to the unbaptized at the moment when he is engrafted into that mj^stical Body to which the promise of pardon belongs. And so with absolution. The words of the absolving minister may restore the penitent to the secret unity or fellowship of that Body from which he may be severed by many sins to which formal Church censures do not reach. But let us remember that an inability to give an exact theory respecting the conveyance of pardon in absolution can be no excuse for our refusing to take into real account such plain words of Christ. THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 259 NOTES ON CHAPTER V. The following extracts from W. Law's " Three Letters to the Bishop of Bangor " admirably expose some ever- recurring fallacies on this subject : — " Your Lordship tells us, we need not trouble our heads about any particular sort of clerg}'' ; that all is to be transacted betwixt God and ourselves : that human benedictions are insignificant trifles. "But pray what proof has your Lordship for all this? Have you any Scripture for it ? Has God anywhere declared that no men on earth have any authority to bless in His name ? Has He any- where said that it is a wicked presumptuous thing for any one to pretend to it ? Has He anywhere told us that it is inconsistent with His honour to bestow His graces by human hands'? Has He anywhere told us that He has no ministers, no ambassadors on earth; but that all His gifts and graces are to be received immediately from His own hands? Have you any antiquity, fathers, or councils, on your side? No, — the whole tenor of Scripture, the whole cm-rent of tradition, is against you. Your novel doctrine has only this to recommend it to the libertines of tiie age, who universally give in to it, that it never was the opinion of any Church or Churchman. It is your Lordship's proper assertion, that loe offend God in expecting His graces from any hands hut His own. " Now it is strange that God should be offended with His own methods, or that your Lordship should find us out a way of pleasing Him more suitable to His nature and attributes than what He has taught us in the Scriphn-cs. I call them His own methods, for what else is the whole Jewish dispensation but a method of God's providence, where His blessings and judgments were dispensed by human hands? What is the Christian religion but a metliod of Salvation where the chief means of grace are offered and dispensed by human hands ? . . ." — ;Second Letter, pp. 12, 13, in the first Tolume of the Works of the Rev. W. Law. London. 1762.) 260 CHURCH DOCTEINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. ^ There ia a superstitious custom (in your Lordship's account it must be so) yet remaining in most cases, of sending for a clergyman to minister to sick persons in imminent danger of death. Even those who have abused the clergy all their lives long are glad to beg their assistance when they apprehend themselves upon the confines of another world. There is no reason, my Lord, to dislike this practice, but as it supposes a difference between the Sacerdotal prayers and benedictions and those of a nurse. " We read, my Lord, that God would not heal Abimelech, though He hiew the integrity of his heart, till Abraham had prayed for him: — 'He is a prophet,' said God, 'he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live.' (Gen. xx. 7.) Pray, my Lord, was not God as just, and good, and true, in the days of Abraham, as He is now ? Yet, you see, Abimelech's integrity was not available (by) itself. He fv'as to be pardoned by the prayer of Abraham, and his prayer was r-ffectual ; and so represented because it was the prayer of a prophet. . . ." — Second Letter, p. 14. "We read, also, that Joshua was full of the Spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon him, (Dent, xxxiv. 9.) Was it not as absurd, my Lord, in the days of Joshua, for human hands to bless as it is now? Did there not then lie the same objection against Moses that there does now against the Christian clergy ? Had IMoses any more miiural power to give the Sphit of wisdom, &c., by his hands, than the clergy have to convey grace by theirs ? They are both equally weak and insufficient for these purposes ol themselves, and equally powerful when it pleases God to make them so. Again, when Elipharz and his friends had displeased God, they were not to be reconciled to God by their own repentance, or transact that niatter only between God and themselves, but they were referred to apply to Job. 'My servant Job shall pray for you, for him will I accept.' (Job xlii. 8.) Might not Eliphaz here have said, Shall I so far affront God as to think I cannot be blessed without the prayers of Job ? Shall I be so weak or senseless as to imagine my own supplications and repentance will not save me, or that I need apply to any one but God alone, to qualify me for the reception of His grace ?" — Ibid. p. 16. " From the places of Scripture above mentioned, it is evident, and indeed from the wliole tenor of Sacred Writ, that it may consist with the goodness and justice of God, to depute men to act in Hia THE CmUSTIAX PP.rESTHOOD. 261 name, and he miDisterial towards the salvation of others : and to li y a necessity upon His creatures of qualifying themselves for His favour, and receiving His grace by the hands and intervention of mere men. . . — Second Letter, pp. 16, 17. " It will not follow from anything I have said, that the Laity have lost their Christian liberty, or that nobody can be saved but whom the clergy please to save ; that they have the arbitrary disposal of happiness to manMnd. "Was Abimelech's happiness in the disposition of Abraham because he was to be received by means of Abraham's intercession? Or could Job damn Eliphaz because he was to mediate for him, and procure his recoucihation to God? " Neither, my Lord, do the Christian clergy pretend to this des- potic empire over their flocks. They do not assume to themselves a power to damn the innocent or to save the guilty ; but they assert a sober and just right to reconcile men to God (2 Cor. v. 18, 19), and to act in His name in restoring them to His favour. They received their commission from those whom Christ sent with full authority to send others, and with a promise that He would be with them to the end of the world." — Ibid. pp. 17, IS. To what purpose does your Lordship except against those powers in the clergy, from their common frailties and infirmities with the rest of mankind ? Were not Abraham and Job. and tho Jewish priests, men of Hke passions with us ? Did not om- Saviour command the Jews to apply to their priests, notwithstanding their personal faults, because they sat in Moses' chair? Did not the Apostles assure their followers that they were men of like passions with them? But did they therefore disclaim their mission, or Apostolical authority? Did they teach that their natural iufirmitiea made them less the ministers of God, or less necessary to the salvation of man? Their personal defects did not make them depart from the claim of those powers they were invested with, or desert their ministry ; but, indeed, gave St. Paul occasion to say, *We have this treasure in earthen vessels (i.e., this authority C5ommitted to mere men), that the excellency of it may be of God, and not of men.' " — Ibid. p. 19. " The Apostle happens to differ very much from your Lordship : he says that such weak instruments were made use of that the glory might redound to God. Your Lordship says, ' To suppose 262 CHURCH DOCTRINE,— BIBLE TRUTH. instruments to be of any benefit to us is to lessen the sovereignty of God, and, in consequence, His glory.* "Your Lordship imagines you have sufficiently destroyed the Sacerdotal powers by showing that the clergy are only men, and subject to the common frailties of mankind. My Lord, we own the charge, and do not claim any Sacerdotal powers from our personal abilities, or to acquire any glory to ourselves. But, weak as we are, we are God's ministers, akd if we are either afraid OR ASHAMED OF OUR DUTY, WT3 MUST PERISH IN THE GUILT. But is a prophet therefore proud because he insists upon the authority of his mission ? Cannot a mortal be God's messenger, and employed in His affairs, but he must be insolent and assuming for having the resolution to own it? If we are to be reproved for pretending to bo God's ministers, because we are but men, the reproach will fall upon Providence, since it has pleased God chiefly to transact His affairs with mankind by the ministry of their brethren." — Second Letter, p. 20. Your Lordship has not one word from Scripture against these Sacerdotal powers ; no proof that Christ has not sent men to be effectual administrators of His graces : you only assert that there can be no such ministers, because they are mere men. "Now, my Lord, I must beg leave to say, that if the natural weakness of men makes them incapable of being the instruments of conveying grace to their brethren ; if the clergy cannot be of any use or necessity to their flocks, for this reason ; then it undeniably follows that there can be no positive institutions in the Christian religion that can procure any spiritual advantages to the members of it ; then the Sacraments can be no longer any means of grace. For I hope that no one thinks that bread and wine have any natural force or efficacy to convey grace to the soul. The water in Baptism has the common qualities of water, and is destitute of any intrinsic power to cleanse the soul or purify from sin. But yom* Lordship will not say, because it has only the common nature of water, that therefore it cannot he a means of grace. Why, then, may not the clergy, though they have the common nature of men, bo constituted by God to convey His graces and be ministerial to the salvation of their brethren ? Can God consecrate inanimate things to spiritual purposes, and make them the means of eternal happiness i and is man the only creature that He cannot make subservient to His desig'ns ? — the only being who is too weak for an Omnipotent THE CHEISTIAK PRIESTHOOD. 263 God to render elFpctual towards attaining the ends of Hir grace? . . — Second Letter, p. 20. "And now, my Lord, let the common sense of mankind here judge whether, if the clergy are to be esteemed as having no authority because they are but men, it does not plainly follow that everything else, every institution that has not some natural force and power to produce the effects designed by it, is not also to be rejected as equally trifling and ineffectual. " The sum of the matter is this : It appears from many express facts, and indeed from the whole scries of God's providence, that it is not only consistent with His attributes, but also agreeable to His ordinary methods of dealing with mankind, that He should substitute men to act in His name, and be authoritatively employed in conferring His graces and favours upon mankind." — Ihid' pp. 21, 22. •'Your Lordship's argument is this: Christians have their sina jiardoned upon certain conditions ; but fallible men cannot certainly know these conditions : therefore fallible men cannot have authority to absolve. " From hence I take occasion to argue thus : Persc^ns are to be admitted to the Sacraments on certain conditions, but fallible men cannot tell whether they come qualified to receive them according to these conditions; therefore fallible men cannot have authority to administer the Sacraments. Secondly : This argument subverts all authority of the Christian religion itself, and the reason of every instituted means of grace. For if nothing can be authorita- tive but what a man is infallibly assured of, then the Christian religion cannot be an authoritative method of salvation ; since a man by being a Christian does not become infallibly certain of the salvation : nor does grace infallibly attend the participation of the Sacraments. So that though your Lordship has formed tliis argu- ment only against this absolving power, yet it has as much force against the Sacraments and the Christian religion itself. For if it be absui'd to suppose that the priest should absolve any one, be- cause he cannot be certain that he deserves absolution ; does it not imply the same absurdity to suppose that he shoidd have the power of administering the Sacraments when he cannot be infallibly certain that those who receive them are duly qualified? If a possibility of error destroys th3 power in one case, it as certainly destroys it in the other. 264 cnmicn doctrine, — bible tru-th. "Again, if absolution cannot be authoritative unless it be infallible, then it is plain that the Christian religion is not an authoritative means of salvation, because all Christians are not infallibly saved ; noy can the Sacraments be authoritative means of grace, because all who partake of them do not infallibly obtain grace." — Second Letter, p. 33. In answer to the Bishop's insinuations that Cliurcli- men make the absolutions of weak and fallible men so necessary, that God will not pardon without them," Law answers — ""Who ever taught such a necessity of absolutions, that God will pardon none without them ? "Who ever declared that all are pardoned who have them j^ronounced over them ? We teach the necessity and validity of Sacraments ; but do we ever declare that all are saved who receive them ? Is there no medium between two extremes? No such thing, my Lord, as moderation? Must everything be thus absolute and extravagant, or nothing at all ?'* — Ibid. p. 35. The Bishop had pronounced that " absolution supposes God to place a set of men above Himself, and to put out of His own hands the disposal of His blessings and curses.'' " If your Lordship had employed all this oratory against worship- ping the sun and moon, it had just affected your adversaries as much as this. For who ever taught that any set of men could ahsolutehj bless or withhold blessing, independent of God ? Who ever taught that the Christian religion, or Sacraments, or Absolution, saved people on course, without proper dispositions ? Who ever claimed such an absolving power as to set himself above God, and to take from Him the disposal of His own blessings and curses ? What have such extravagant descriptions, such romantic characters of absolution, to do with that power which the clergy justly claim ? Cannot there be a necessity in some cases of receiving absolution from their hands, except they set tliemselves above God ? Is God robbed of the disposal of His blessings, when, in obedience to His own commands, and in virtue of His own authority, they admit 8ome men «s members of the Church, and exclude others from the TIIE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 265 commimion of it ? Do they pretend to be channels of grace, or the means of pardon, by any rights or powers naturally inherent in them? Do they not in all these things consider themselves as instruments of God, that are made ministerial to the edification of His Church purely by His will, and only so far as they act in conformity to it ? Now, if it has pleased God to confer the Holy Ghost in ordination, confirmation, &c., only by them, and to annex the grace of pardon to the imposition of their hands, on returning sinners : is it any blasphemy for them to claim and exert their power? Is the prerogative of God injured because His own institu- tions are obeyed ? Cannot He dispense His graces by what persons and on ichal terms He pleases ? " Is He deprived of the disposal of His blessings because they are bestowed on persons according to His order, and in obedience to His authority ?" — Second Letter, pp. 36, 37. I would put it to any Evangelical clergymen into wliose hands this book may fall, whether the above extracts are in reality one whit stronger than the following, in the words of one whom they consider to have been God's great instrument for bringing about a revival of religion in the present century. " In pronouncing the benediction, I do not do it as a finale, but I feel that I am actually dispensing peace from God, and by God's command. Remember tlie force of such passages as these : — ' We pray you in Christ's stead ' (2 Cor. v. 20). ' Let a man account of lis as the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God ' (1 Cor. iv, 1). Men should think of us as speaking ' as the oracles of God' (1 Pet. iv. 11). It is not the priest, but the priestly ofiSce, that performs Divine Service. Hence, as indeed our Church de- clares, when the priest happens individually to be a sinful man, he still does not defile the bread and wine which he administers in the Lord's Supper (Art. xvi.)."— (From " Notes of Conversations of Eev. C. Simeon," edited by Rev. A. Brown.) The following extract, from a writer of a very different school of thought, may be useful to some into whose hands this book may fall. After arguing very forcibly 266 CHURCrt DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. that there cau be no place for a High Priest as a represen- tative or vicar of Christ in this dispensation, the writer proceeds — " But are we therefore to say, The idea of priests upon earth, of men witnessing of that filial High Priest who has ascended into the heavens, witnessing for the real relation between God and man, witnessing for tlie spiritual glory of humanity, connected as an order from generation to generation, yet having no tribe limitation, standing not upon the law of a carnal commandment, but upon the gift of the Divine Spirit ; declaring that the oil of gladness is not theirs exclusively, that it goes down from the head to the skirts of His garment, that the powers, gifts, means of benefiting their brethren, which they receive, are signs that all gifts and powers bestowed upon any class of men for any work have the same source — are we to say that such an order of priests would be incompatible with any maxim of the New Economy ? Can we think that it would interfere with the heavenly and perfect cliaracter of the Head, or with the privileges of the body, or with the distinctness of any one of its members ? Are we to say that such an order would have only a figurative, not a real right to the name of priests ? In what one characteristic of the office would they be deficient, save those which were the incidents of an imperfect period, or that which is the one property of Him to Whom they all refer themselves, and apart from Whom they have no reality ? Must we not rather think that if the priestly idea dropped out of the circle of Christian ideas, the sense of what mankind had gained by the ascension of Christ would dis- appear also ; that if it were limited to Him who has fully realised, and can alone fully realise it, the belief of His union with the crea- tures whom He has called His brethren would grow feeble ; that if it were claimed merely by the Christian body, the belief of the unity of that Body in its distinct portions, and as a whole, would evaporate, and merely a vague blessing be asserted for each person, the consciousness of which would be sufficient to exalt him in his ovn esteem, not to give him the practical assurance that he might draw nigh with a pure heart and spirit to God."— (From Rev. F. D. Maurice on Epistle to Hebrews, p. 85.) FORMS OF ?RAYEIl AKD PRTESTItOOr) OF THE PEOPLE. 26t CUAPTEB VI. FORMS OF PRAYER AND THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE PEOPLF- It will be needful now to consider what warra-nt we have from Scriptui-e for the use of a Liturgy in the public service of the Church. It is a singular thing that we should have ever been called upon to defend oui* practice in this matter, for it simply amounts to this, w^e have to defend our practice of having Cojimon Prayer. The title of the Prayer-book is " The Book of Common Prayer that is, prayer common to, or belonging to, the whole Chm'ch as the Body of Christ, and to each congre- gation as a part of that Body, and this as distinguished from the private prayer of the individual minister. By far the greater part of those who speak the English language, and who are not in communion with the English Chm'ch, consider that forms of prayer, such as oui'S, are unlawful, or at least inexpedient, for public worship. They, consequently, require the minister who conducts the service of God in their respective j^laces of worship to offer up to God in their hearing his own private devotions. Of course, the person who has this duty to perform will speak in the name of all, and ask for things which all have need of; but still, what he puts up to God will be his own, though it may be, to a certain extent, silently adopted by the congregation. Both thoughts and words are assumed to be his own — assumed indeed to be the unpremeditated effusion of his own mind at the moment, for it is supposed to be extempore. Every sentence must 268 CtttJRCH DOCTRIiTE,— BIBLE TRUTH. reflect his own individuality, and be tinctured with his o\vi\ views. Such a system may have advantages, but it is certainly very singular, that amongst these, Christian liberty should have been reckoned as one ; for in the matter of the united intercourse of the assembled Church of Christ with its Head, the congregation, if this plan be adopted, are delivered up, as it were, into the hands of one man. Those who would execrate the idea of a fellow-creatui-e thinking for them, depute him to p-mj instead of them ; for, in their approaches to God as His Church, not only do they make an individual their mouthpiece to offer up prayers, but they actually offer up what are, to all intents and purposes, his, and only his. So far, then, as regards Christian liberty, it all belongs to the minister ; for, as has been well said with reference to giving our own ministers more latitude, " The liberty of the minister is the slavery of the people." Of course, I need hardly say, that the service of the Catholic Church, and of every branch of it, from the very first, has been the opj)osite to all this. To speak for our branch, not only is every word of the service known beforehand, so that it is the common pro- perty of all — for all know what prayers and praises are to be offered up, and all by their presence, deportment, and response, are supposed to concur, — but opportunities are given at every turn for the congregation to assert their right as " priests of God," to take actual audible part in the service. They offer up the General Confession and the Lord's Prayer, whenever it occurs, with the minister. They confess the Creeds jointly with the minister. They take their share in the daily Psalms by offering up each alter- nate verse. Id cathedrals and places where the Psalms FORMS OF PRAYER AND PRIESTHOOD OF THE PEOPLE. 269 arc cliantecl antiplionally, this part of God's worship is put up solely by the congregation or laity, the priest join- ing only as one of the congregation. So also it is in almost all churches with such exalted acts of praise as the " Te Deum," " Magnificat," and " Benedictus." The Litany is thrown into its present form in order to give as much opportunity as possible for response on the part of the assembled worshippers. The use of short collects rather than long prayers affords more frequent occasions for the congregation to join in by solemn " Amen," for there is scarcely a prayer throughout the service, the reading of which, slowly and reverently, requires more than one minute of time. The very Commandments seem to be read chiefly vdth. a view of eliciting the response after each, if we may judge from the tenor of the rubric which precedes them.* Above all, it is the congregation rather than the minister who offer up the most solemn sacrifices of praise in the whole book, viz., the " Tersanctus," or " Triumphal Hymn," in Holy Communion, and the " Grloria in Ex- celsis," in the same service ; for before each of these acts of praise there is a rubric dii-ecting that it should be " said or sung ;" this rubric being, in fact, exactly similar to those which authorise us to surrender the " Te Deum " or Psalms to the whole body of worshippers. So that the Prayer-book is, in the strictest sense, what it professes to be — The Book of Common Prayer; both because it is the common expression of the devotion, not of an individual, but of the Chu_i'ch; and also because by * ^' Then sliall the priest, turning to the people, rehearse distinctly all the Ten Commandments ; and the people, still kneeling, shall, after every Commandment, ask God's mercy for their transgressions thereof for the time past, and grace to keep the same for the tirue to come." 270 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. response or repetition after the minister, tlic Church is assumed to use it in common. Before examining the Scripture testimony which bears upon this matter, I would remark that the whole dispute about it seems to me to be put on a wrong footing when it is represented as a question concerning the propriety oi using extempore instead oi preconceived forms of devotion. It is not a question between extempore prayer and any preconceived form, but between the devotional effusion of any individual you please, and that form or edition, so to speak, of the Liturgy of Christ's Holy Catholic Church which is used by our branch of it. If I had to take my choice between the extempore prayers of some fervent though mistaken Christian, and the long dull form which I have heard read in the assem- blies of some Continental Protestants, in which several pages of continuous printed matter are gone througli with- out animation or even change of voice, I should be tempted to say, Give me the extempore prayer. But the real ques- tion at issue amounts to this,— Ought Christian assemblies to procure an individual to supply the words and thoughts of United or Church intercourse with God ; or ought they to adopt for the use of their members a certain form of Divine Service, the greater part of which is in the very words of Scripture, and which is entirely their own, because previously assented to by them, and which, as far as is consistent with order and decency, they put up audibly themselves ? The case in Scripture stands thus : — We have, in the first place, an inspired Prrt?/cr-book, forming one of the books of the Bible, and that is " The Book of Psalms." In the other Scriptures God speaks to us. In the Book of Psalms He gives us words in which to speak to Him. Of this there can be no doubt. All Christians have, with FORMS Of PRAYER AND PRIESTHOOD OF THE PEOPLE. 271 one consent, agi'eed to use the Psalms in some sliape or other as devotional forms. The Jews used them in the Temple Service (2. Chron. xxix. 30). They formed a part of that Synagogue Service in which our Lord so often joined. The Catholic Church has from the first adopted them as a chief part of her daily service, and has so used them without omission or alteration. All the Protestant bodies of the Reformation period adapted them to their worship by tm-ning them into the form of metrical rhyme. God, then, has decided that forms of prayer are lawful, for He has provided us with a book of such forms, which book has always constituted in itself a very large part of the devotional utterances of His Church. So far also as regards the Xew Testament, the question of forms of prayer was taken up and settled by our Lord Himself. He was asked by His disciples for a form in the words, " Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples." In anstver to this request He gave them one — " When ye pray, say. Our Fa-ther which art in heaven." By this He disposed of the question of the expediency of forms, for if they had been inexpedient He would have plainly told them that He could teach them no form of words ; that such a thing would only cramp the freedom of their intercourse with God ; that He would in due time pour His Spirit upon them, and then they would have no need of forms, for the Spirit would enlarge their desires and unloose their tongues, so that any form whatsoever, even any form which He Himself could give them, would be a hindrance to them.^ * I have been reminded by a correspondent that ihe form given in Luke xi. is shorter than that given in Matthew vi. ; tlie petitions, Thy -will be done," " Deliver us from evil," not being found in Bu Luke in the best manuscripts, and that certain German critics 272 CHURCH DOCTRINK, — BIBLE TRUTH. If forms had been unlawful, or even inexpedient, the Lord would certainly have said something like this to those who asked Him to teach them to pray. argue from this discrepancy that Our Lord did not intend us to use either form. I should rather argue that on this account we should use both at times, not that we should discard both. I have no doubt but that the Lord intended us to use the fuller form, as indeed all who love His every word naturally would — for, unless expressly bidden, we could hardly fail to say, " Thy will be done." The fuller form was undoubtedly first given, and afterwards, being asked to teach a prayer, He referred to His former teaching by giving the leading petitions, so that His followers were at once reminded of what He had previously taught. The fact may, however, have been that on the second occasion He gave them the same form as on the first occasion, and that the memoranda of His discourses from which St. Luke composed his narrative gave only an abridgment. In this case the discrepancy between the Evangelists takes its place amongst many others in their respective narratives, and will require the same solution. Anyhow, the fact that on the second occasion (Luke xi.) our Lord gives the shorter form, is decisive against the notion that the words of this prayer were intended to be a mere model or skeleton to be clothed with extempore matter, for the second form (St. Luke's) is shorter than the first, and the petitions common to both are expressed in the same words. Why should we not use His very words ? They are quite as capable of being used as a collect as any that has ever been composed. Besides, our Lord had been warning us against " vain repetitions " and "much speaking," and then, apparently to enable us to pray in as few and simple terms as possible, He gives us this form of words. They who discard the use of the actual words are the last fo form their prayers on any such a model. I have, in my time, heard very many extempore prayers, but never one that seemed in the least degree founded on this as a model. It has always struck me that the reason why the ministers of some religious bodies refuse to use the form commanded is that the words of Christ present so remarkable a contrast to theii' own. FORMS OF PRAYER AND PRIESTHOOD OF THE PEOPLE. 273 But, instead of this, He gives to tliem a form of words, to the height of which the spirit of man has never at- tained, and to the depth of which the spirit of man has never yet penetrated. A form, of course, may be used as a mere matter of form, just as an extempore prayer may be made the vehicle of anger, wrath, and blasphemy; but there are forms to the full spirit of which the soul of man here on earth can scarcely hope to rise ; such is the prayer which Christ taught, and such is the simplest of all forms, the angelic hymn, " Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of Hosts." What tainted soul can ever hope to rise to these words as the pure spirits do, from whom we have learnt them ? We have no specific directions in the Acts or in the Apostolical Epistles respecting the conduct of public worship. Stated meetings of Christians for joint prayer and praise, as I have shown on page 183, are not alluded to more than six times throughout the whole of the New Testament, and from three or four of these notices we gather that the chief object for which these assemblies came together was the celebration of the Eucharist. The conduct of public worship is, in fact, in the same position as the keeping of the Lord's Day, respecting which we have not a hint in the New Testament. But what is the inference which we are to draw from the fact that the order of public worship is nowhere laid down in the New Testament ? An inference of the most preposterous character has been gravely di'awn from it by the great majority of English Ultra-Protestants, viz., that because we have no particular directions laid down, there- fore each assembly of Christians is to commit its public intercourse with God to one man, so as to adopt his thoughts as their thoughts, and his words as their 274 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. words, when they come together as a Church to worship God. Such must of necessity be the case if no forms are allowed. Forms are essential if the congregation are to take any orderly part in public worship beyond the repe- tition of the single word " Amen " at the end of prayers. The various Ultra- Protestant bodies of this kingdom and America who reject the use of Liturgies, are obliged to adopt forms to enable their congregations to join in the praises of God ; for what is a hymn but a form of praise ? A metrical hymn, too, must be, from its very nature, in a certain sense, more formal, because cast into the "form" of rhyme.^ To return. Did, then, the Apostles debar Christian congregations from the use of forms, compelling them to adopt the devotions of ©ne man as their own, and so to forego taking any part themselves in the service ? ' The Presbyterians of Scotland till lately went farther still. The only part of the service in which their congregations were permitted to join was the singing, and in this they were confined to a metrical version of the Psalms, and a few metrical paraphrases of certain passages of Scripture. Latterly, however, the General Assemblies have authorized the use of books of Hymns, some of which are taken from Catholic sources. Let it be, however, freely confessed that in this matter of metrical Psa'lms, the Church of England has descended to a level miserably below that of any other body. It seems a just Nemesis for a Church, of whose services the Psalter forms the chief part, and whose theory is that the Psalter should be chanted as of old, to have been given up to Sternhold and Hopkins, and then to have sunk so low as to permit the use of Brady and Tate in her sarnctuaries, and this because she virtually left the ancient use of the Psalter to a few Hirelings in her cathedrals, and because, too, having recognised the use of ancient hymns in her ordinal, she has taken no pains as a Cliui-ch to get them rendered into decent English verse suiJuble to congregational singing. FORMS OF TRAYER AND PRIESTHOOD OF THE PEOPLE. 275 Certaiuly not. The evidence of all Cliristian antiquity on the subject of ancient Liturgies puts it beyond all doubt that the Apostles themselves ordained the use of certain forms in the Service for the Administration of Holy Communion, which both Scripture and antiquity unite in testifying to have been the leading service of the Church when gathered together on the Lord's Day. By these forms the lay people, as priests of God, were enabled to co-operate in the most sacred parts of their most sacred service. There are now in existence (and some of them have been translated and published) ^ a considerable number of * The reader will find the anaphorje or more sacred parts of ten of these Liturgies, translated by Dr. Brett, in bis collection of Primitive Liturgies. Mr. Neale has also translated the wliole of five, viz., those of St. Mark, St. James, the Clementine, St. Chrysostom, and Malabar, in a small volume ^published by Hayes, Lyall Place, Eaton Square), but the fullest information for the English reader will be found in Neale's "History of the Holy Eastern Church: General Introduc- tion," pp. 380 — 710. Here the anaphoree of eight (viz., St. Chrysostom, Armenian, St. James, St. Basil, St. Mark, Coptic St. Basil, Mozarabic, and Theodore the Interpreter) are tabulated, so that he will be able to compare at a glance the corresponding parts of each. The anaphora of one of the oldest of all, viz., the " Apostles," is omitted by Neale, for, I think, a very insufficient reason. The reader will find it translated in Etheridge's " Syrian Churches, their Early History, Liturgies, and Literature," p. 221 (London • Longmans). The reader will find much information in the first volume ot Palmer's " Origines Liturgicse." I confess, however, that when I read this book as a student, his observations were all but unintelli- gible, simply because ho gives no example of a Liturgy. Much information also on this subject, of a popular character, is to be found in Bates' " Lectures on Christian Antiquities and the Ritual of the English Church," pp. 15S— 161 (Loudon: J. W. Parker). 276 CHURCH DOCiRJNE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Liturgies, wMch have been in use from the remotest period in Churches scattered over all parts of the world. The use of these documents reaches to a time when there was no central ecclesiastical authority recognised all over Christendom — such as the Pope — to recommend to distant Churches the adoption of any form used by his own Church, and when there was no union of Chui'ch and State to compel obedience to any ritual. These Liturgies, whilst in some respects differing from one another very widely, all agree in certain remarkable features. They all contain particular forms of words, which are in substance the same, and the most noticeable of these are forms which the people either use wholly, or in which they take their part along with the celebrant by response. I have given above (page 204) the Hymn of the Seni- phim as it is embodied in six Liturgies used in all parts of the ancient world. I would now particularly draw the reader's attention to the fact, that the hymn itself, though always prefaced by words used by the priest, is invariably sung or said by the people. In the Clementine Liturgy there is a specific direction : " And let all the people say with them (i.e., with the angels), Holy, Holy, Holy," &c. The reader will also find the Mozarabic Liturgy discussed in a review by (I believe) Mr. Neale, in the " Christian Kemembrancer " for October, 1853. This is, or ought to be, the most iuterestuig of all to us, as it in all probability contains the substance of the Communion Service used in this country before Augustine and the missionaries from Rome superseded it by the Roman. The writer shows that the groundwork of tlie Mozarabic is coeval with the introduction of Christianity into Spain ; that it cannot be derived from the Roman or Eastern rites, that it is closely allied with the Gallican, and he pronounces it to be "the richest, the fullest, the most varied of all known Liturgies." FOUMS OF PRAYER AND PRIESTHOOD OF THE PEOPLE. 277 Tn all the ancient Liturgies (as translated by Brett and Neale) there is a rubric directing that this hymn of praise should be said by the choir or people. In the Liturgy of St. Mark the priest says a fuller or rather longer form, and the people respond with the shorter "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord." Tn Brett's translation of the Mozarabic, which is an independent rite, and, according to Neale, represents the ancient Celtic liturgy, we have a direction, "Let the chorus answer. Holy, Holy, Holy," &c. The Seraphic Hymn, then, is a form put up peculiarly by the people. Again, the more sacred parts (or anaphoree) of these Litm-gies begin with forms of words similar to those in our Liturgy, in which the priest calls upon the people to " lift up their hearts," and the people respond. These forms slightly differ, but are all substantially the same. I give four examples. From the Liturgy of St. James — The love of the Lord and Father, the grace of the Lord and Son, the communion and gift of the Holy Ghost, be with us all. People. — And with thy spirit. *' Priest. — Lift we up our minds and our hearts. " People. — It is meet and right. ^'Priest. — It is verily meet and right, fitting and due, &e., to praise Thee," &c. From the Liturgy of St. Mark, used in Egypt — " The Lord be with all. People. — Aiid with thy spuit. '^Priest. — Lift we up our hearts. ^^feojple. — Wc lift them up unto the Lortl, 278 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. " Priest. — Let us give thanks unto the Lord. " People. — It is meet and right. " Priest. — It is verily meet and right, holy and becoming, and advantageous to our souls," &c. From tlie Liturgy of Mesopotamia, and Malabar, repre- senting the form prevailing in the furthest East — " Priest. — Lift up your minds. " People. — They are lifted up to Thee, O God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Israel, the King of Glory. " Priest. — Let an oblation be offered unto God the Lord of all. " People. — It is meet and right," From the Mozarabic, representing the ancient Liturgies of Spain and Gaul before the Koman was forced upon them — " Priest. — Your ears to the Lord. " People. — We raise them to the Lord. "Pnes^.— Lift up your hearts. " People. — We lift them up unto the Lord. " Priest. — To our Lord and God Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who is in the heavens, let us render worthy praise and worthy thanks. " People. — It is meet and right." It is not my intention here to enter at large into the subject of ancient Liturgies, the very many points in which they agree, and the many points in which they differ. I must restrict myself to bringing before the reader certain features, in which they all agree in giving the congregations opportunity to take part in the most sacred portions of the service. I have already noticed two — the responses at the commencement of the more sacred part, and the Seraphic Hymn. I will notice three more. AU the Liturgies agree in reciting the words used by FORMS OF PRAYER AND TRIESTHOOD OF THE PEOPLE. 279 GUI' Lord as the form of consecration, but in no caso adhering strictly to any one of the four accounts given in the Evangelists ; sometimes adding to one account what is taken from another ; most of them amplifying. Now here, in almost every Liturgy, we find a rubric, or specific dii'ection to the people to say, " Amen." In some cases, a distinct response is provided for them, but in all cases they are suiDposed to take part in this most sacred portion of the service. Thus, in the Liturgy of St. Mark, they simply respond "Amen," while in the equally ancient Liturgy of St. James, after the consecration of the cup, they take their part by a very significant response, which I give : — " The Priest. — This ig My blood of the Now Testament which is slied aud given for you and for many for the remission of sins. " 27*6 People. — Amen. " 37*6 Priest. — Do this in rememhrance of I>te, for as oft as ye eat this bread and diink tliis cup, ye do show the deatli of the Son of Man, and confess His resurrection till His coining again. " The People. — 0 Lord, we shew forth Thy death, and confess Thy resurrection." Li the Armenian Liturgy, there are three responses for the people. One, at the commencement of the words of institution, is simply " We believe." The second is simply " Amen," after the recital of cur Lord's words respecting the bread. A thii'd is after the recitation of the words respecting the cup, and is very touching : — " Priest. — This is My blood of the New Testament, which for you and for many is shed for the remission and pardon of sins. '■''People. — 0 heavenly Father, who didst give up Thy Sou to death, as the debtor of our debts, we beseech Thee, for the sake of His blood, which hath Ijeen shed, to have mercy upon Tliy rational flock." 280 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BJBT.K TRUTH. In the Etliiopic (as given by Brett) the people respond — Amen, Amen, Amen ! We believe and are sure ; we praise riiee, 0 Lord our God : this is truly Thy body, and so we believe." And after the cup — "This is truly Thy blood, and we believe it." The opportunities given for response in this most solemn part of the service are particularly to be noticed. A great principle seems to be asserted in them, — no less than the priesthood (in its due place) of the whole flock of Christ. Mr. Neale, in his " Translation of Primitive Liturgies," gives in full the " words of institution " as they are read in no less than fifty of these venerable documents. It is to be noted that in all the Eastern Liturgies, and in the Mozarabic, directions are given for at least two distinct responses, one after the words relating to the bread, the other after those relating to the cup. So that the principle of the priesthood of the whole flock of Christ — in that they have part given to them in the very consecration itself — is asserted in those docu- ments more clearly than in our reformed office, which gives opportunity for but one response in the shape of one Amen," after the prayer of consecration. Again, iu all, or at least in a large number of these Liturgies, the Lord's Prayer is preceded by a sort of preface, expressing particular unworthiness to say this prayer above all others, and asking for boldness and confidence in calling God " Our Father." This prefatory prayer is said by the priest, and the people join in with the Lord's Prayer itself, which is said with their united voices. FORMS OF PRAYEll AXD PRIESTHOOD OF THE PEOPLE. 281 The example I first give is from the Liturgy of St. James — " Aud grant us, Lord and Lover of men, with boldness, without condemnation, -svith a pure heart, with a broken spirit, with a face that needeth not to be ashamed, with hallowed lips, to dare to call upon Thee, our Holy God and Father in the heavens, and to say — People. — Our Father," &c. I give two other examples. From the Liturgy of St. Mark — "And sanctify us wholly, soul, body, and sphit, that with Thy holy Disciples and Apostles we may say to Thee this prayer,— Our Father, &c. And make us worthy, 0 Lord and Lover of men, with boldness, without condemnation, with a pui-e heart, with an en- lightened soul, with a countenance that needeth not to be ashamed, with hallowed lips, to dare to call upon Thee, our Holy God and Father, and to say — "People.— Our Father," &c. From the ancient Mesopotamiau Liturgy of All Apostles," with which agrees, verhatim, the Malabar — " Forgive, 0 Lord, by Thy clemency, the sins and transgressions of Thy servants, and sanctify our lips by Thy grace, that they may give the fruit of praise and thanksgiving to Thy Godhead, with all Thy Saints in Thy kingdom. And make us worthy, 0 Lord God, that without spot we may ever stand before Thee, with pure heart and open face, and with confidence towards Thee mercifully given to us. So will we together call upon Thee, saying, — Our Father," &c. From an extremely ancient Gallicau office, discovered by Mono — " We are indeed unworthy of the name of sons, Almigiity God ; but Thou being our Helper, trembling, yet obeying our Lord Jesua Christ, with humble mind we pray and say — Our Father," &c. I shall conclude with one more instance of a form ixi 282 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. which all the congregation arc called upon to bear their part. There is, in almost all ancient Liturgies, a part towards the conclusion called the " Sancta Sanctis," consisting of the words " Holy things for holy persons," followed by a very strildng response. In the Clementine it ru^ns thus : — " jBis/iO^.— Holy things for holy persons. And let all the people answer — There is one Holy, one Lord, one Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father, blessed for evermore. Amen. Glory be to God in the highest, and on earth peace," &c. The Liturgy of St. James differs but slightly — • " Holy things for holy persons. People. — One Holy, one Lord Jesus Christ in the glory of God tlio Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever." In St. Mark's Liturgy the response is — " People. — There is one Holy Father ; one Holy Son ; one Holy Ghost, in the unity of the Holy Spirit." In the Ethiopian the response is the same as in St. Mark's. In the Malabar the form runs — " Priest. — That v/hich is holy befits the holy, my Lord, to be received. Deacon. — One Holy Father, one Holy Son, one Holy Ghost, alory be to the Father," &c. In the Mozarabic this form also occurs, but in the case of this Liturgy alone without its response. The Sancta Sanctis is referred to by St. Cyril of Jeru- salem (a.d. 350) in these words : " Holy things to holy men. Holy are the gifts presented, since they have been visited by the Holy Ghost; holy are you also, having been vouchsafed the Holy Gliost ; the ' holy things there- fore correspond to the holy persons. Then ye say, ' One FORMS OF PRAYER AND PRIESTHOOD OF THE PEOPLE. 283 is Holy, One is the Lord Jesus Christ.' For truly One is Holy, by nature Holy ; we too are holy, but not by nature, only by participation, and discipline, and prayer." It is worthy of notice that in most Liturgies there is closely connected with the Saucta Sanctis (sometimes preceding it, and at other times following it) a threefold repetition of the Kyrie Eleison, by the people alone. Let us now sum up how matters stand respecting these Primitive Liturgies. We have cited them, not merely as testifying to the use of forms, but to the use of certain forms which enable the people to join prominently and audibly in the most sacred parts of the service.' The New Testament winters have left no directions whatsoever respecting public prayers. The only thing which we learn from the New Testament is, that the leading act of Christian assemblies was the " breaking of bread." But it is the height of absurdity to infer that, because there are no specific dii'ections in the New Testa- ment, therefore the Apostles ordained that the presiding minister of each congregation should have all the public devotions of the Church so made over to him, that his own thoughts and words should become the sole public prayers of the people, and be their sole mode of public access to God. Before we can allow that sach a thing is according to the Divine will, we must be shown a very distinct command for it, for it bears extreme improbability on the face of it. If there is to be " common " prayer, there must be forms, in order that the congregation may know what they are going to ask for ; and fui*thermore, if the congregations are to take a part in the service of God, in a way at all suitable to their high vocation as " priests of God," these forms must be of that responsive character which we ' See Qhrysostom ou 1 Corinth. 5iv. 33, p. 518. 284 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. observe in the ancient Litm-gies, and with which we are familiar through using our own Liturgy. Well, we have certain documents called Liturgies (the very word " Liturgy " signifying a service belonging to the people) — all Communion offices — all traceable to the remotest antiquity, in lands as fiir apart as Malabar and Spain, Gaul and Ethiopia, Armenia and Milan. These Liturgies contain certain forms of prayer and praise which are alike both in the words used and in the fact that particular oj)portunity is given for the whole congregation to take part in them. Who ordered the use of these forms ? The most ancient are ascribed to Apostles, or to Apostolic men. Of this we may be certain, that no name in the Universal Church of Christ, from the times of the Apostles to the full esta- blishment of the Papacy,^ has had sufficient weight to induce all Christendom, from Spain to Malabar, to begin their Communion Services with certain words to which the people all the world over give the same response, and, besides this, to cause them universally to adopt as theii own the Hymn of the Seraphim, and also to recite the words of our Lord when He instituted the Eucharist, and also to ordain that every Liturgy (except the Eoman) should have a specific direction in this place to the people to respond, and also that all should recite the Lord's Prayer, but not without a preparatory prayer for bold- ness, or, in other words, for the Spirit of adoption, to say, « Abba, Father." ' And uot even then, for tlie power of the Court of Rome was oU'ly established over Western Europe. As late as the year COO the Pope, who sent Augustine to convert our Saxon ancestors, was careful not to impose the whole Eoman Liturgy on his converts, but bid him choose from other existing rites, as the Gallican, what seemed likely to edify. FORMS OF PRAYER AND PRIESTHOOD OF THE PEOPLE. 285 And in other matters besides these do these Liturgies agree ; for in seven or eight other features do thej all correspond with one another, as has been shown in such a well-known book as Palmer's " Origines Litnrgicfe." Now, since the Apostles passed to their rest, what Saint, or Patriarch, or Pope, or Emperor has had the power so to revolutionise the worship of all Christendom as to induce Churches at opposite ends of the earth to substitute for a fancied primitive worship, in which all was left to the will of the one man who conducted the service, a totally different worship, which with every variety of detail in particular Liturgies still rigidly adhered to certain forms, and was characterised by certain very strongly-marked features ; these forms being such as enabled the people to take their part in the most solemn acts of Divine Service, and the features the very opposite of those which now characterise Ultra-Protestant worship ? ' * Cvril of Jerusalem, in a series of Catechetical Lectures delivered before the year 350). comments on the Liturgy used in his time in Palestine, much in the same way as any clergyman of the present day would lecture on our Prayer-book. From his comments we gather that it had all the leading features of the Liturgy of St. James as it now exists, with one notable exception — the address to the Virgin Mary, which has evidently been foisted into it since Cyril's time. Cyril expressly notices the "kiss of peace," the '"lift up your hearts," the response to it, the " Holy, Holy, Holy," the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the elements, the prayers answering to our prayer for the Ciiurch militant, the commemoration of the faithful departed, the Lord's Prayer, and the introductiou to it, the '* Holy things fur Holy persons,** and the response to it. All these Cyril mentions in the same order as that in which they occur in the extant copies of this Liturgy. The Liturgy of St. Mark, Tised in Alexandria, contains all these features of the Liturgy of St, James, though arranged somewhat differently. All Liturgical writers agree in considering it a totally independent rite, in no way derived from the Liturgy of St. James. Again, we have the fact that various bodies of heretics, such 286 CHURCH DOCTRINE,— BIBLE TRUTH. The circmnstances of time and place under wliicli tlio Apostles met to institute tliese forms we know not— just as we know nothing whatsoever respecting the formation of the Canon of the New Testament. But if we dare apply the doctrine of chances to a matter so sacred, and add together the points in which these Liturgies agree, and take into consideration also the remoteness of the times to which their use in various Churches can be traced, and the distance of these various Churches from one another, and add to all this the fact that in those early times there was no attempt to impose the Liturgy of any one Church upon all ; — if, I say, we give due weight to all these con- siderations, we shall be forced to acknowledge that the chances are incalculable against any man since the times of the Apostles having been able to impose upon all Christendom that extremely peculiar method of Divine Service of which we enjoy the substance in our " Order of the Administration of the Lord's Supper." the Nestorians, seceded from tlie Cliurcli in the century after tliis, and their leaders composed their own Liturgies, but in doing so carefully adhered to the prescribed model, and incorporated in these new Liturgies all the leading features of the old ones to which I have alluded, which they would not have done if they had not been satisfied that these features were of Apostolic origin. The Galilean and Mozarabic (or Primitive Spanish) Liturgies differed essentially from the Roman, and were sister Liturgies. The framework of the Gallican seems to have been coeval with the intro- duction of the Gospel into Gaul from Asia Minor, and was superseded by the Roman in the time of Charlemagne. Manuscripts of the Gallican Liturgy have been discovered in Carlsruhe, which the learned editor (Mone) believes cannot possibly be of a later date than 305, and may be as early as 177 a.d. The total absence of any prayer or petition in any of these Liturgies (except, of course, in the Eoman) for the Bishop of Rome, is one of the strongest proofs which remote antiquity afiforde us of the absurdity of his pretensions to universal dominion. FORMS OF PIIAYER A.ND PRIESTHOOD OF THE PEOPLE. 28? Unfortunately, the Post-Nicene Chui'cla, in all its branches, did not exhibit that jealousy respecting altera- tion in the words of public prayer, Avhich has been (perhaps) carried to excess in the Church of England. Consequently, prayers were continually inserted which reflected the state of popular religious feeling; and as the cui-rent of that feeling set in strongly in favour of Mariolatry, we have some of these documents disfigui-ed by addresses to the Virgin which are manifestly un- primitive. I would now, in conclusion, briefly allude to another matter in which our prayers, if they are to be accounted Common Prayers, must agree with Scripture. Our Lord, in His Pai'ables, gave us clearly to under- stand that His Church, would not be a select assembly of spiritually-minded men and women, but a great, open, mixed body, including [outwardly at least] every form of moral character and every grade of spiritual advancement. The Apostles, even in the fii-st age, addressed the Churches as being of that very mixed character which their Lord had foretold. There are, in the Epistles, many messages of the Spirit which seem above the reception of even the most spiritual, and there are many other messages which make us wonder that the Churches in that age should have needed such admonitions. St. James, for instance, begins his Epistle vdth, " My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temp- tations ; knowing that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing." I think few, very few, have attained to this, that they should in very deed count it all joy when God casts them 288 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. into the furnace. And yet, see wLat things the same Apostle, in this same letter, deems it needful to say to his brethren: "Lay apart all filthiness, and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word." Again, " Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." Again, "If ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth." Again, " Cleanse your hands, ye sinners, and jnu-ify your hearts, ye double-minded." St. Paul speaks to his Ephesian converts as " sealed with the Holy Spii'it of promise," "saved by grace through faith," and " made nigh by the blood of Chi'ist;" and yet this very Apostle, in this very letter, finds it needful to write to these persons such things as — " Putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour.'^ " Let him that stole, steal no more." " Let no corrnpt communication proceed out of your mouth." "Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil- speaking, be put away from you, with all malice." (Eph. iv. 28, 29, 31.) " Be not ye therefore partakers with them," i.e., with fornicators, and unclean, and covetous persons, as the context shows (Eph. v. 3 — 7). Such was the state of the members of the Primitive Chui-ch— some of them "full of goodness" (Eom. xv. 14), "having Christ in them" (Coloss. i. 27, 28). Some not spiritual, but carnal (1 Cor. iii. 1). Some needing words of solemn warning against base and degrading sins. Now, it is manifest that the Common Prayers of the Church, if they are to be Scriptural, must descend as low as these Apostolic precepts. The Common Prayers of the Catholic Church must not be pitched in the key of a sect or body whose profession is a profession of individual conversion, or individual spirituality. The Church must not assume that she is a FORMS OF PRAYER AND PRIESTHOOD OF THE PEOPLE. 289 coterie of "enlightened " people, all "saved" now, and all siu-e of being saved ultimately, and whom we should insult if we prayed that they might be delivered fi-om disreputable sins. This is the snare of all Evangelical bodies of Christians who commit their public prayers to one man, and demand, or look for, or encourage, professions of spirituality, or unvcilings of inward experience. Their ministers would be more than human if they could divest themselves of their consciousness of the presence of professors who are sitting in judgment upon the outward expressions of their (the ministers') intercourse with God. Every petition, then, is adapted to a certain so-called high spiritual tone, which, from the things not prayed for, and therefore assumed not to be needed, must be incom- parably purer and holier than was the spiritual atmosphere of the Ephesian, Colossian, and Thcssalonian Churches. In the Book of Common Prayer it is assumed through- out that the Chiu'ch is now what it was at the first — a field sown with wheat and tares, or a vine having some of its branches fruit-bearing, and some barren. "We consequently pray Gcd to " ^'lake clean our hearts within us," and " not to take His Holy Spirit from us." We pray Him to deliver us from " all evil and mischief, from sin, from the crafts and assaults of the devil, fi-om His wrath, and from everlasting damnation " — " from all blindness of heart, from pride, vain-glory and hypocrisy, from envy, hatred and malice, and from all uncharitable- ness" — " from fornication and all other deadly sin, and from all the deceits of the world, the flesh, and the devil." In the first Collect of the Christian year, we pray that God would give us grace to "cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light." In the fourth Collect (Fourth Sunday in Advent) we pray U 290 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. God to come among us, and with great might succour us, ** because through our sin and wickedness we are sore let and hindered in running the race that is set before us." In the Collect for Innocents' Day, we pray Him to "mortify and kill all vices in us." In the Collect for the Circumcision, we pray that " our hearts and all our members being mortified from all carnal and worldly lusts, we may in all things obey God's blessed will." And so throughout the book. In this respect also it is a Book of Common Prayer, and reflects the teaching of the word of God. CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 291 CE AFTER VIL CHURCH G0VERN3IENT. SECTION I. It will be needful now to ascertain what princiiDles of Churcli government are laid down by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, and in what form of Church polity these principles find their development. There is, in very deed, but One Governor, or Bishop, or Overseer of the Church, in the same sense as there is but One Priest, and One Pastor. The Eternal Son of God, as He is the True Vine, has every office of salvation wholly in Himself. He is the One Apostle, or Messenger of His Father ; He is the Angel of the Covenant ; He is the Bishop of om* souls ; He is the High Priest of our profession ; He is the Chief Shepherd or Pastor — the Good Shepherd; He is even the One sole true Deacon or Minister (Mark x. 45 ; Eom. XV. 8), assisting, upholding — in fact, " working" all other ministry or service. It is clear that, if it had been His sovereign will. He could have exercised all these offices alone — by Himself— for He is Omnipresent. Even though He left this world, He might have ministered to every need of His Church by Himself, dispensing altogether with any intermediate ministry of any sort ; so that there would have been no room for any outward Church polity or organization — no place for any order of men to teach or preach, or govern, or administer Sacraments, 292 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Let US then see whether we can gather His will fi-om His word. Now, first of all, as soon as ever He began to oxerciso His own ministry, He associated others with Himself as His fellow- workers. Scarcely had He himself begun to preach before He called Simon Peter, and Andrew, and immediately afterwards, James and John. To these He added eight others, so as to make up the mystical number twelve. The account runs thus : — " And when it was day^ He called unto Him His disciples, and of them He chose twelve, whom also He named Apostles " (Luke vi. 13). We can scarcely exaggerate the greatness of the position which He accords to these twelve men. " I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard of My Father I have made known unto you." " Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit." " As Thou hast sent Me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world." " Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, but to others in parables." " The Spirit of truth shall testify of Me, and ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with Me from the beginning." In His last prayer He prays for them, especially distin- guishing them from all the rest of His followers (John xvii. 20). He baptized by their hands (John iv. 2). By their hands He twice fed the multitudes. Six times do we read that " He took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to His disciples, and the disciples to the multitude." And that, after His departure, they were to continue to repre- sent Him, we cannot but gather from what He said to them : — " I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." " Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." " As My Father sent Me, so send I you.'* CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 293 In addition to this, we find that the things which Christ intended to be demo for the salvation of souls, He gave a special commission to these men to do ; and, apparently, at first to these alone. To them alone, at the outset, He gave the commissions to preach, to baptize, to administer the Eucharist, and to absolve. Even if other persons were accidentally present, thesb particular commissions were given especially to the eleven, inasmuch as we read : " He through the Holy Ghost had given commandment to the Apostles whom Ho had chosen " (Acts i. 2), Now it is clear that if our Lord's procedui'e with respect to these men, in placing them in such a position with reference to Himself and His Church, is any indication of His will respecting the future of His Chm*cb, then minis- terial agency and authority must be a leading principle of His kingdom. Such a precedent as the position which He assigned to the twelve could hardly fail of developing into a system in -v^hich ministerial agency and authority play a most conspicuous part. Then, in the next place, our Lord's procedure in the matter of the calling and commission of the Apostles shows that something analogous to Apostolic succession is the principle on which He designed all Church authority to be transmitted. All ministration is derived from our Lord through the Apostles to the Church, for the Apostles were not chosen by the Church, though there were apparently many pro- fessed followers of our Lord when they were chosen. They were chosen before the Church was in existence, and they were chosen to found it. In the circumstances under which He designated them for their work, Christ altogether ignored any such theory 294 CHURCH DOCI'RINE, — BIBLE TUtlTH. as tliat all ecclesiastical power is invested in the people, and that ministers, when exercising their functions, are only the delegates of the people, for mere order's sake doing what the whole body of believers cannot conve- niently do. If such had been the mind of Christ with respect to His Church, no reason can be given for the position which He assigned to "the twelve," and for the apparent limitation of the original commission to them. On such a theory the new dispensation starts with a principle of Church rule, which has to be set aside in order to make room for the [supposed] true one, that the power resides in the people. It would have been easy for Him Who had the Spirit without measure so to order matters that the principle of popular rights should have been intact from the very first. He might have chosen the very same Apostles by con- trolling the whole body of His followers to choose them, but He did not. He appointed the eleven personally. He designated Matthias by lot.^ He singled out Paul by a special miracle. ' It has been a question whether the two, Joseph and Matthias (Acts i. 23), were appointed to be presented to the Lord by the Apostles alone, or by the one hundred and twenty. I have little doubt but that they were appointed by the Apostles, and for this reason, that the t^o persons in question were not chosen out of the whole multitude of the disciples, as being the most devout, or energetic, or fitted for exercising rule, but out of the more limited number of those who had " companied " with the Apostles all the time that the Lord .Jesus went in and out among them, bcginniug from tlie baptism of John (Acts i. 21). The Apostles aloue, as far as I can see, could possibly have been judges respecting the fact of the companionship in question, as well as of its constancy an(3 dui-ation. The fact also that the Lord's ministry was chiefly exercised in Galilee, or out of Jerusalem, and that these cue CHURCH G0\ KKNIilEM. We now come to the actual govemment of the Church as we find it described in the Acts of the Apostles. Dui'ing the whole of the fii'st part of this history, " the twelve " exercise sujDreme control over the entire Chiu'ch. They seem to have been the only ministers of any sort ; at least, till the appointment of the "seven," we read of no other. We find them actually occupying the position which our Lord marked out for them. They reigned supremo in the Chui'ch. They acted together with one mind as if they were one person, St. Peter seeming to have the same office as their mouthpiece which he had before the Ascension. Thus we read (Acts ii. 14), " Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and said," &c. Also (Acts ii. 37 j, " They said unto Peter, and to the rest of the Apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Those who believed " continued stedfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship " (Acts ii. 42). We read that the price of the goods sold to supply the needs of the poor was laid at the Apostles' feet ; i.e., placed at their disposal (Acts iv. 35). We read that when Barnabas sold his laud he " laid the price at the Apostles' feet" (Acts iv. 37). The judgment inflicted upon Ananias seems to have still more confii'med hundi'ed and twcutj' disciples were probably dwellers in Jerusalem, seems to point the same way. The remarks in this chapter are not to be understood as written against the election of clergy by the people, or of Bishops by the clergy, which, in some cases, as, for instance, in the Episcopal Church of Amenca, seems a necessity, but against the idea that authority in tlio Church proceeds from the people, and is to be exercised at tlieir will. In our own Church, the Sovereign in nominating the Bishops may be said to represent the Christian nation, the Bishops who consecrate conferring the spiritual authority. 296 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. their authority ; for, after it we read, " of the rest durst no man join himself to them, but the people magnified them" (Acts v. 13). Such was the Pentecostal government of the Church : certainly no<-., in the modern sense of the terms, popular or democratic. All authority and discipline from above, not from beneath. It was, in point of fact (and I use the term with tlie deepest reverence), a spiritual oligarchy, for the governing power was a college of only twelve persons, not removable by the popular will : and the Spirit was so dwelling in them, that when men attempted to deceive them, it was taken as if they lied to the Holy Ghost. Hitherto we have had no mention of any other ministry. We now come to the appointment of the persons usually called the " Seven Deacons." The twelve called the multitude and bid them look out men who might be guardians or trustees of the interests of those believing Jews who spoke Greek, and so were looked down upon by the Hebrews of pure blood. As it was a matter connected with the administration of public funds, the Apostles desired, as another Apostle did on a similar occasion (2 Cor. viii. 20), that " no one should blame them in the matter of the abundance which was ministered by them ;" and so they placed the matter, as all similar matters should he placed, entirely in the hands of the lay brethren ; re- serving to themselves the right to appoint and ordain those whom the brethren chose. " Look out among you seven men whom we may appoint over this business." The names of these " seven " being all Greek names, show clearly that the appointment was made solely with reference to the dispute betwixt the Grecians and tlie Hebrews. CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 297 These men, designated to an office almost wliolly secular, were set apart by laying on of the Apostles' hands. This is the first Christian ordination on record. From it we learn that, according to Apostolic rule, every Church officer requii'ed this imposition of hands. If the Apostles felt it necessary to lay their hands on these men, to conse- crate them to serve an office so comparatively secular, we may be sure that no one who administered the Sacraments would be suffered to do so without ordination. We learn also from the subsequent history (chap. viii. 14) that the Apostles ordained the seven to discharge a part, but not the whole of their (the Apostles') own spiritual functions, for we find there that it was reserved to the Apostles remaining at Jerusalem to send two of their number to lay hands on (or confirm) the Samaritans converted and baptized by Philip. This is to be carefully noted. It shows that a man may have a commission to perform some spii'itual offi-ces without having power to perform all. Hitherto all Church rule aj^pears to have been vested solely in the Apostles, who seem to have all continued in Jerusalem. It is probable that the Apostles mentioned in Acts viii. 1, as having continued in Jerusalem, were the whole college of twelve. About this time (that is, the time covered by the narrative from the eighth to the twelfth chapters of the Acts) a great enlargement of the Church takes place. Before this we read of no Christians except at Jerusalem. Now we read of Christians (Jewish, of course) at Antioch even. We read of the Churches throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria (ix. 31). We read of St. Peter passing through all quarters, and on one of these missions opening the door of faith to the Gentiles: Christ expressly reserving it to an Apostle to 298 CHURCH DocrraxK, — bible truth. do a tiling wliicli many would have thoiiglit that any Christian was competent to do without any commission whatsoever. About this time also the Lord converted St. Paul. I shall consider fully the bearing of his life and acts ujDon Church government, after I have shown how tho Church of Jerusalem, and the Churches dependent upon it, were governed. About this time the Apostolic college of twelve was broken up. One — James the brother of John — was removed by martyrdom ; and we never afterwards read of " the twelve " as in the former part of the history. The government of the twelve is now exchanged for the presidency of one man, St. James, called by St. Paul, " The Lord's brother." From every notice of this man recorded in Scripture, it is certain that he exercised epis- copal power over the Church of Jerusalem. When St. Peter was delivered from prison, he directed that tidings of his release should be conveyed to " James, and to the brethren " (Acts xii. 17). This of itself would, of course, prove little or nothing ; but, taken in connection with other notices, it comes in like an undesigned coincidence between two parallel nar- ratives, confirming the truth of both. The next notice of St. James is, when we read of him presiding at the first council, and delivering his sentence, ex cathedra, as it were. " My sentence is, that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned unto God ; but that we write unto them that they abstain," &c. (Acts XV. 19.) That he should have so delivered the sentence in the presence of the Apostles is only to be accounted for on the hypothesis that the perpetual pre- sidency over the Church in Jerusalem had been committed to liini. CflURCH GOVERNMENT. 299 TliG tliird notice is wlien St. Paul, after his arrival after liis tliird journey, is reported to liave " gone in unto James, and all the elders were present" (Acts xxi. 18). The mention of his name here, as distinguished from the elders who were present, agrees with the other notices of his high position in this Church. He is mentioned in Galatians ii. 9, as the first of the three which " seemed to be pillars;" and a little further on, those Jewish Christians, on account of whose presence even Peter and Barnabas laid themselves open to reproof, are said significantly to have " come from James " (Gal. ii. 12). These are the only notices of him in the sacred narra- tive, and one and all of them tend to confirm the truth of the testimony of all antiquity, that he was the first Bishop or perpetual President of the Church of Jerusalem. We have now to notice the appearance of another order of Church officers — the Elders. They are first mentioned in Acts xi. 30 : " Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea, which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul." When these Elders were first appointed, and what was the nature of their office, we are not told. It is difficult to believe that they were appointed before the " seven," because there is such absolute silence respecting any persons ministering any office whatsoever under the Apostles, before the appointment of the " seven." They arc mentioned three or four times in the account of the council held in Jerusalem respecting the circumcision of the Gentiles. They there appear to occupy a middle place between the Apostles and the brethren. The last notice of them is when we read that St. Paul went in imto James, " and all the Elders were present." 300 CHURCH DOCTRINE,— BIBLE TRUTH. That tlicy were a separate estate, as it were, in tlie Chnrch, is certain ; but, respecting their authority and ministry we are told nothing whatsoever. Such are all the notices of Church offices and govern- ment which we can glean from those parts of the Acts of the Apostles which treat of the Church in Jerusalem. It is quite clear from this, that the book of the Acts of the Apostles was not ^vritten to teach us the details of Church government ; for consider the questions respecting the government of the Church of Jerusalem which are left wholly without solution. First of all, we are told nothing respecting the par- ticulars of the Apostolic government. There is abundant proof that the Apostles exercised absolute authority, but they did this as one man. They seemed invariably to have acted in concert, with one mind determining, and with one mouth decreeing, and that mouth was St. Peter's. This could only be accounted for by the fulness of the Spirit perpetually dwelling within them. It seems a most remarkable answer to the prayer of the Saviour on their behalf, " that they all might be one." Then, in the next place, there were persons called Apostles — and, apparently, in the strictest sense of the term, such as St. Barnabas — who were not of " the twelve." Most probably St. James, the brother of our Lord, was of this number ; but respecting the authority of these secondary Apostles, and its relation to that of the twelve, we are told nothing. Then, with respect to the seven called Deacons, what we are told is almost contradictory. They were ordained to execute one work of a quasi-secular character, but we afterwards find them going about as Evangelists. Then, with respect to the Presbyters, or Elders, we are iu total ignorance respecting the nature of the ministry on CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 301 wliicli tliey waited. We are not told whether they were, as their name implies, older men, who formed a sort of senate or chapter under James, or whether they were superintendents of particular congi'egations, meeting in houses or rooms, of which (as the Christians then pos- sessed no large buildings) there must have been an immense number. Then we are told nothing respecting another matter of the deepest importance, viz., the relations between the authority of St. James and that of the other Apostles. He was, most probably, not one of the twelve. He is called an Apostle, but so were Barnabas and others, who were certainly not of the twelve. When his separate authority commenced, and under what circumstances, we know not. When the twelve were at Jerusalem in the former part of the history, St. Peter always spoke or decreed for them ; but at the council held at Jerusalem, at which apparently the Apostles as a body were present, St. James was unquestionably the president, for he summed up and pronounced the decree authoritatively ; and, at the end of St. Paul's third journey, he was evidently exercising undivided authority, as no other Apostles were then in Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 18). Then a number of now insoluble questions arise respect- ing the council held in Jerusalem. The Apostles and elders come together to consider of the matter. After they have come to a decision, they send letters headed, " The Apostles and elders and brethren send greeting to the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia and ending with, *'It seemed good unto the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessary things, that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication " (Actsxv. 23—29). 302 CHUTvCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TKUTH. Now, how is it that the elders and hretliren write in this way to the brethren in such far-distant places as Cilicia ? What authority had the "elders" and "brethren" ia Jerusalem to bind upon the " brethren " of Cilicia absti- nence from things strangled, and to loose them from the obligation of the Mosaic Law ? The Apostles had un- doubted authority so to do, but surely not the " elders " and "brethren" of a local Church. The letter is not hortatory, but authoritative. Did the Apostles then, simply for form's sake, associate the elders and brethren with them, as St. Paul at the beginning of his Epistles frequently joined the names of his companions with his own, though every line of the subsequent letter shows that his mind alone had been at work upon it ; or had the Church of Jerusalem some real precedence or authority over the scattered Churches of the circumcision, which, on a matter like this, they naturally stretched over their Gentile neighbours ? But there is another matter, of far more importance, on which the Acts of the Apostles throws no light whatsoever, and that is the relations subsisting between the Jewish and Christian ecclesiastical polities ; for, for nearly half a century, a Christian Israelite was under two systems, each having its own discipline and its own worship. Such an one would be a Christian, having hope only in Christ ; and yet he was zealous for the law, i.e., for the Mosaic ritual. We read that there were " many thousands " of such (Acts xxi. 20). St. Paul even " walked orderly, and kept the law," i.e., the ritual law, at the very time when he was stoutly re- sisting its imposition on the Gentiles. (Acts xviii. 18, 21, 22; XX. IG ; xxi. 26.) A member of the Church of Jerusalem, then, being a Christian, would be under the rule of St. James and of CHURCn GOVERNMENT. 303 tho Clu'istiau elders; being a Jew, would be under the ecclesiastical discipline of the high priest and of the Jewish Sanhedrim. Now, as both these systems affected the whole of pri- vate, social, and public life, it is clear that their claims would require continual adjustment in the case of those who considered both as binding on the conscience ; but respecting this adjustment we are told nothing. Such a state of things, of com-se, could not be perma- nent, but it was in force dui'ing the whole period embraced by New Testament history. This may be the true reason why so little is told us respecting the ecclesiastical organization of the Chui-ch of Jerusalem, the mother of all Chm'ches. If more had been told us, it might have misled us ; for, owing to the Jewish element pervading it, much in that Church must have been temporary, and so no rule for the Church in aft^r ages. The few notices of its organization or government all teach one principle, viz., Apostolic rule merging into Episcopal. It remains now to show, that in the life, acts, and writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles, we have the principles enunciated which necessarily developed into that government which the earliest ecclesiastical history represents as pervading the Church , It pleased the Lord to raise up another Apostle, one not of the twelve, to gather the Gentiles into His fold. His Apostolic commission came, as ho expressly states, not " of men, neither by man," i.e., not by popular election, or by designation of the other Apostles, but directly from (.■hrist. His solemn setting Lpart to his office was by the sensible interference, one would almost sav, by the word 304 CHriRCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. of mouth, of tlie Holy Gliost. The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul to the work whereunto I have called them" (Acts xiii. 2). Even in his case the laying on of hands was not dispensed with. Though he had "seen the Lord," and had been "caught up into Paradise," he had yet to submit to the Divinely-appointed rite. After this, his life was spent in visiting the countries bordering on the Mediterranean Sea, founding Churches, superintending them, revisiting them, writing letters warn- ing them against false teachers, or reproving them for not continuing in the doctrine which he had taught them, or answering questions which they had sent him by letter. His personal history closes very abruptly after the account of his arrival in Rome. I said that in the case of the Church of Jerusalem we are told nothing respecting the mode in which the twelve Apostles brought their joint authority to bear on the Church. Not so with St. Paul. He exercised over the Churches which he had planted undivided Apostolical authority, and he did not allow this authority to be disputed. He based its exercise upon his Apostolic commission, which he asserted, often in strong terms, at the head of his Epistles ; and he grounded this commission on the direct will of God. The following are instances : — " Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to bo an Apostle .... by whom (i.e., by Jesus Christ) we have received grace and Apostleship." (Rom. i. 1, 5.) " Paul, called to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God." (1 Cor. i. 1 ; also 2 Cor. i. 1, and Ephes. i. 1.) CHURCH GOyERXilEXT. 305 *' Paul, an x\postle (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father)." (Gal. i. 1.) It is to be particularly noticed, that though in several Epistles he associates other jiersons with himself, as send- ing the opening salutation, yet he takes care never to join these persons with himself as bearing the Apostolic commission. It is, " Paul, an Apostle, and Sosthenes our hrotlier " (1 Cor. i. 1) ; " Paul, an Apostle, and Timothy our hrotlier" (2 Cor. i. 1); "Paul, an Apostle, and Timotheus our brother" (Coloss. i. 1).^ In every Church, harassed by false teachers, he reasserts very decidedly his Apostolic authority. In the Epistle to the Galatians, he intimates his equality with James, Peter, and John, and how they had arranged together that he should take the Gentiles, they the circumcision (Gal. ii. 9). In the two Epistles to the Corinthian Chui'ch, also dis- tracted by false teachers, wc find several direct assertions of his Apostolic authority ; such are (1 Cor. iv. 9), " I think God hath set forth us the Apostles last (ix. 9), " Am I not an Apostle ? am I not free ? have I not seen Jesus Chi'ist our Lord ? are not ye my work in the Lord ?" (ver. 5), " Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other Apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas ?" (xv. 9), " For I am the least of the Apostles, that am not meet to be called an Apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God ; but by the grace of God I am what I am." ' In the Epistle to the Philippians lie drops the assumption of Apostleskip, and this enables him to associate Timothy with him- self as a fellow-servant of Chi'ist. In the two Epistles to the Thessalonians he does not style himself anything, and so we read : "Paul and Sylvanus and Timotheus unto the Church of the Thessalonians," &c. 306 CHURCa DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Compare tliis witli " I suppose I am not a whit betiiid the very chiefest Apostles " (2 Cor. xi. 5), and with " In nothing am I behind the very chiefest Apostles, though I be nothing" (xii. 11).' We have now to consider the exercise of this authority on the part of the Apostle. A man who has but once read his Epistles can have but one opinion on this matter, which is, that St. Paul exercised this authority autocratically. He exercised, it is true, this authority with all the love and tenderness of a parent. He never exercised it for selfish purposes or personal ends. He called himself, and he acted as, the least of all and the servant of all. He abased himself. He worked with his own hands rather than be chargeable. He entreated his converts, he im- plored them; he was with them in meekness and fear, and in much trembling (1 Cor. ii. 3) ; he even made their prayers a condition of his salvation (Phil. i. 19) : but, with all this, he never let the reins of power out of his own hands ; he never permitted his authority to be called in question, and he allowed no opposition. The following instances will show that I have not overstated this. I take them in order. "I will come unto you shortly, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.'* " What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spii'it of meekness?" (1 Cor. iv. 19, 21.) " I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed. In the Name of oui- Lord ^ 'T-rrepXiav^ however, may be used ironically, as the " over- much" Apostles — referring to the pretentiousness of the false teachers. CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 307 Jesus Christ, wlien ye arc gathered together, and my Bpii'it, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan," &c. (1 Cor. v. 3 — 5.) I wrote unto you in an Epistle, not to keep company with fornicators ; . . . but now I have written unto you not to keep company," &c. (1 Cor. v. 9, 11.) " I command, yet not I, but the Lord ... So ordain I in all Churches." (1 Cor. vii. 10, 17.) " I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them unto you." " The rest " (of the regulations respecting the Eucharist) " will I set in order when I come." (1 Cor. xi. 2, 34.) " Concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the Churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the fii'st day of the week, let every one of you," &c. If Timotheus come, see that he may be with you with- out fear." (1 Cor. xvi. 1, 10.) " If I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, for yoiu' sakes forgave I it in the person of Chi'ist." (2 Cor. ii. 10.) " Titus .... remembereth the obedience of you all, how ^ith fear and trembling ye received him. I rejoice, therefore, that I have confidence in you in all things " (vii. 15, 16). In the next chapter, the eighth, we have an instance of his contrasting his Apostolic authority with the natural influence which such a father in Christ ought to possess : — " I speak not by commandment. . . . Herein I give liiy advice " (verses 8, 10) ; but in the latter chapters he retui-ns again to the authoritative : — " Being absent, now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other, that if I come again I will not spare (xiii, 2). " It is a good thing to be zealously affected always in a 308 CHURCH DOCTRINE,— BIBLE TRUTH. good thing, and not only when I am present with yon. ... I desire to be present with yon now, and to change my voice, for I stand in doubt of you." (Gal. iv. 18, 20.) " Marcus, touching whom ye have received command- ments : if he come unto you, receive him." (Col. iv. 10.) " We have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you." (2Thess. iii. 4, also verses 6, 10, 12.) Also (verse 14), — " If any man obey not our word by this Epistle, note that man." Ending with (ver. 17), " The salutation of me Paul, with mine own hand, which is the token in every Epistle, so I write." I would first make this remark upon the foregoing, that there is not one word, in any Epistle, of any organization in any Church, which would remove that Church, for any purpose, from under his supervision, or make it indepen- dent of his authority. We have no word of any bishop, or local presbytery, or synod, or periodical conference, or chapter, possessing independent authority. Now, that there were ministers in each Church, not only for preaching the word, but also for exercising discipline, is quite certain, for the converts were told very plainly to " submit themselves " to them : but the control or ordering of all matters was kept by the Apostle in his own hands. How, whilst absent on his journeys, he kept an eye over so many Churches, we shall afterwards see. Whatever ecclesiastical organization there was in these Churches, the Apostle never recognises it as a power or estate which had authority to sit in judgment on his letters. I would now ask particular attention to another point. In most, if not in all these Churches, there must have been persons endowed with special gifts of the Spirit, such as " prophecy " and " discerning of spirits." CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 309 These gifts must have been abundant in the Corintliian Church, for St. Paul writes to them as eni'iched by Christ '•' in all knowledge, and in all utterance," so that they came behind in no gift " (1 Cor. i. 7). We should have thought that such gifts would have made any Church comparatively independent of Apostolic control. But it was not so. The Spirit so ordered His influences, that they never clashed with the Apostolic authority, by which He Himself primarily worked. The beai'ing of this will be clear from the following. At the end of the eleventh chapter, St. Paul tells the Corinthian Christians that he will set in order certain matters pertaining to the administration of Holy Com- munion " when he comes (1 Cor. xi. 34). Now, how was it, seeing that there were in the Church many persons endowed with spiritual gifts, that they could not, among themselves, settle matters of detail of this sort ? Because it was evidently the intention of Almighty God that they should receive all matters of this kind from without. The Apostle cuts short all such absurdities as that the word of God is the voice of the congregation, with the exclamation, " What ! came the word of God out from you ? or came it unto you only ?" (1 Cor. xiv. 36.) We have now to consider, by what means the Apostle was enabled to exercise control and oversight over so many Chm'ches. He must have had some special instrumentality for doing this, for he speaks of there coming daily upon him " the care of all the Churches " (2 Cor. xi. 28). We have no difficulty in ascertaining this, for the Apostle had at least twenty persons attached to him, who were not merely his companions^ but his ministers, under 310 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. his orders, like the staff of a commandiug officer (Acta xix. 22 ; XX. 4). By these he kept up constant communication with all the Churches under his jurisdiction. In his Epistles, ho continually commands his converts to receive such, and to obey them as if they were himself. The most prominent of these were, Timothy, Titus, Silas, Epaphras, Erastus, Aristarchus, and Tychicus. Let us collect the notices which we have of some of these, and we shall see that these men did not follow him about for the sake of mere companionship, or to attend to hi& personal wants, but to be strictly under his orders, to carry his messages to the Churches, and report their state to him. First, Timothy. In the first notice of this man (Acts xvi. 1 — 4), we read that Paul would have him go forth with him ; then he left him, with Silas, at Thessalonica (Acts xvii. 14). Then ho sent for him again. The words are : " Eeceiving a commandment unto Silas and Timotheus, for to come to him with all speed " (Acts xvii. 15). Then, on another occasion (chap. xix. 22), " he sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him, Timo- theus and Erastus." Then, afterwards, " he purposed to return through Macedonia," and no less than seven of these persons went with him, among whom was Timothy (Acts XX. 3, 4). Then, in the Epistle to the Corinthians, we read, " For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus . . . who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways, which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every Church " (1 Cor. iv. 17). Still more significant are the words in the last chapter (xvi. 10), "Now, if Timotheus come, see that ho may be with you without fear, fpr he worketh the work CHURCH GOVERNJIEXT. 311 of the Lord, as I also do. Let no man therefore desjnse him : but conduct him forth in peace, that he may come unto me : for I look for him with the brethren " — i.e., with those who were deputed by the Corinthian Church to bring the collection to Jerusalem. Again, St. Paul sent him to the Philij^pians, in order that he might report their state to him (Phil. ii. 19); and this, too, almost immediately after he had sent Epaphroditus, whom he styles his " brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier." Respecting Titus, the second in importance of the Apostle's companions, it is clear, from St. Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians, that between the sending of the First and the Second Epistle, Titus had brought a report of their state to the Apostle, who had sent him to them as his representative, for only as such would such a Church have received a subordinate like Titus " with fear and trembling" (2 Cor. vii. 15). And he sends Titus again to them, and desires them to consider him as his (St. Paul's) " partner and fellow- helper " (2 Cor. viii. 23), and, with him, another of his companions, whose name he does not mention, but whom he describes as " our brother, whom we have oftentimes proved diligent in many things " (viii. 22). Tychicus was another whom St. Paul actively employed in the same oversight. He despatched him to Ephesus and to Colosse, evidentl}^ to see to the state of these Chui'cLes. To the Ephesians, he writes : — " That ye may know my affairs and how I do, Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all things; whom I have sent unto you for tho same purpose," &c. (Ephes. vi. 21.) To the Colossians, " All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you, who is a beloved brother and faithful minister and fellowservant 312 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. in the Lord, whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that he might hnoio your estate.^' (Col. iv. 7.) When in prison, at Eome, the Apostle sent him to Ephesus (2 Tim. iv. 12) ; and he also intimates to Titus that he might send him (Tychicus), or Artemas, to Titus, lio bring him to the Apostle at Nicopolis (Titus iii. 12). Silas, Luke, Mark, Apollos, and Demas before his defec- tion, Erastus, Trophimus, Aristarchus, Cresccns, Artemas, and others, are all mentioned as attending upon him, as if for the same purpose. Such was the oversight or Episcopacy exercised by this Apostle over all the Churches which he had planted or founded, — all closely watched and controlled, either by himself personally, or by means of men who were his constant companions, and who consequently knew how he would act under any circumstances which might arise. One point yet remains. What provision did he make for the government of these Churches after his death ? We have full information upon this point in three Epistles, written shortly before his martyrdom — one written two or three years before that event. In these, we have his latest determinations respecting the supply of the Churches' needs. These Epistles are written to two of his most active fellow-helpers, Timothy and Titus ; and from what they contain, and from what they omit, we can entertain no doubt as to how the Apostle would have the government of the Churches carried on after his decease. They contain a solemn transmission of his Apostolic authority (so far as its governing element was concerned) to these two men, through whom, as his ministers, he had BO long acted ; and they totally omit to give any intima- tion that this authority was to cease and to be superseded by some more oligarchical, or (so called) democratic form. CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 313 They provide for its continued exercise tliroiigli indi- viduals. They make no provision for its future exercise in synods of presbyters, all officially equal, and deciding their differences by a majority of votes. First, they assume the continuance of the Apostolic authority in the persons of Timothy and Titus. Proofs are : — " I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus . . . that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doc- trine " (1 Tim. i. 3). Here is authority given to Timothy over teachers and preachers. In the third chapter the qualifications needful in candi- dates for two orders of ministers, bishops and deacons, are set forth, as if Timothy had either the sole choice of these persons or the sole power of ordaining them ; the Apostle distinctly asserting (verses 14 and 15) that in the choice or ordination of these men Timothy was to act for him. In the fifth chapter, the Apostle gives sundry directions to Timothy respecting elders and widows. Widows under sixty years of age are not to be put on the roll. The elders that rule well are to be " counted worthy of double honour," and an accusation is not to be received against an elder "except before two or three witnesses." (1 Tim. V. 9, 17, 19.) The words in chapter vi. ver. 3 : "If any man teach otherwise," taken in connexion with other intimations which we have before noticed, evidently imply that Timothy had authority over all teachers in the Ephesian Church. In 2 Tim. ii. 2, we have a very plain authority given to Timothy to look out and ordain teachers ; and in verses 14 and 25, and in chapter iv. 2 — 4, sad forebodings of impending divisions and heresies, and directions to 314 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Timothy respecting bis treatment of them, and those who fomented them. Similarly Titus was left in Crete that he might " set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city." (Titus i. 5.) The qualifications of these bishops or elders are after- wards enumerated, as if Titus alone was responsible for their appointment and ordination. St. Paul also enjoins him to " rebuke sharply " (Tit. i. 13), to " rebuke with all authority " (ii. 15), and to " reject an heretic after the first or second admonition" (iii. 10). It is clear, then, that St. Paul committed to these two men authority over these Churches and all their ministers and teachers. These three Epistles are the only Epistles in which there are any directions whatsoever respecting the govern- ment of the Churches. In no other Epistle is there one word respecting the choice, qualifications, or ordination of ministers, and these three Epistles are written to individual companions of the Apostle — not to Churches. Now, if it had been the will of God that His Church should be ruled after some Presbyterian^ or some demo- cratic model, would not directions respecting such matters ^ Presbyterianism is oligarchical rather than democratic. In the form in which we are best acquainted with it, i.e., Wesleyan- Methodism, it appears as a strict oligarchy. The supreme power in that body residing really not in the whole Conference, but in one hundred preachers, perfectly irresponsihle, and having all the pro- perty of the connection vested in them. Any vacancies in the number of this "legal hundred" being always carefully filled uj, before the annual Conference proceeds to business. The Presby- terianism of Scotland, notwithstanding some apparently popular features, is essentially oligarchical. In America, on the contraiy, Wesleyanism is combined with Episcopal features, but how far those are considered essential, I do not know. The Episcopacy of the American Episcopal Church is connected with Prcobyterian, or even democratic forms so far as this, that its CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 315 as ordination and the qualifications of ministers have been Bent to the Churches themselves ? If God had intended that the people should be the source or depository of Church power, or that the Apostolic authority should in future reside in a board of presbyters, would not Epistles especially bearing upon the exercise of Church power have been addi'essed to the people or to the presbyters of the Chui'ches ? Would they not have been told that all ecclesiastical power had been entrusted to them — i.e., to the laity — that they must religiously guard the deposit from all encroachment, and beware lest in the infancy of the Chui'ch an evil precedent should be established, if they allowed even the companion and fellow-helper of an Apostle to usurp the authority inherent in the Church itself "? But no such words are wi'itten to them ; they are never bid to watch their rights with jealousy ; they are bidden rather to obey and submit themselves. Nothing appears to me more significant of the vdll of God respecting the government of His Chui'ch than this. But, in the last place, in these latest writings of the Apostle we have no intimations whatsoever that the authority which he was conferring on Timothy and Titus was temporary and abnormal — that it was to be speedily superseded by some more popular or democratic govern- ment, when the Churches were able to exercise such. If it had been the will of God that the Chui'ch should Conventions and Diocesan Synods are composed of clergy and laity, and nc Bishop can be elected, or any change brought about, except by a majority of both clergy and laity. No question, I am informed, ever arises, or is likely to arise, on which the clergy and laity, as orders, take opposite sides. The only pure Democracies are the Congregational Churches of this country and America. In these bodies all power is vested in the Deacons as representatives of the people. 316 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. be governed by boards of presbyters, tben ample dii-ections must have been given by St. Paul to bis companions to organize the Churches on this principle, by forming Presbyteries and Synods, and by endowing them with plenary authority ; or rather, perhaps, assuring them of the authority already inherent in tliem as the representatives of the people. But no such directions are given. There is not a word to Timothy or Titus to form the elders of Ephesus and Crete into Synods or Presbyteries, with independent power to ordain and govern. On the contrary, Timothy is told to " lay hands suddenly on no man," and Titus is reminded that on him lay the responsibility of " ordaining elders in every city." There is no word to either of these men to associate others with themselves as judges of either doctrines or persons ; on the contrary, Timothy is directed not to re- ceive an accusation against an elder except before two or three v^dtnesses, as if he alone were the judge ; and Titus is enjoined to reject an heretic after the second admonition. (1 Tim. v. 19 ; Titus iii. 10.) If the office of such men as Timothy and Titus was temporary, or for a time, I can only say that, on all Presbyterian or Congregational principles, it was esta- blished just at the wrong time, for the ecclesiastical powers committed to these men in the Pastoral Epistles must have seriously interfered with, or rather rendered impossible, the due action of any Presbyterian or Congre- gational system which might have been established by the Apostle. Just at the very time when the Churches were learning to walk alone, and with firm step, in their newly- acquired Congregational or Presbyterian liberty, we have the Apostle himself binding on them the authority of iudividual rulers, and giving to these rulers not one wo^'d CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 317 resiDecting the temporary nature of the rule lie had made over to them, but actually implying that it should last till the Second Advent itself. (1 Tim. vi. 13; 2 Tim. iii. 1 ; iv. 1.) From what has been adduced from Scriptui'e in the foregoing pages, wo gather that the government of the Churches founded by St. Paul was Apostolic, merging, after the x\postle's death, into Ej^iscopal. By Episcopal government I mean government centred in one man ; not, of com-se, so that one man should govern without advice or constitutional restraint, but that one man should be its depository. So that the power of ordaining and overseeing was not derived from the people thi'ough the presbyters to a president ; or exercised by the people thi'ough deacons, or in popular assemblies; but authority flowed fi-om the Apostles through theii* delegates to overseers of Churches. In the Epistles of the other Apostles there are uo dii'cctions whatsoever respecting the government of the Church, so that the field of investigation is narrowed to the Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul. In the Book of the Revelation we have the messages or Epistles of Chi'ist to the angels of the seven Churches— these angels being, without doubt, the governing ministers of these Chm-ches — those in whom the Apostolic power, so fiir as it could be transmitted, was lodged. It is to be noted that these latest messages of God are sent, not to synods, nor to presbyteries, nor to the people, but to angels, i.e., to individuals to whom the chief over- sight was committed. So far for the testimony of the New Testament to the principles on which the Apostolic Churches were governed. It must be abundantly clear to the reader that such principles of Chm-ch rule must necessai'ily develop into 31^ CHURCH t)OCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. tlie Diocesan Episcopacy wliicli early ecclesiastical his- tory presents to us as flourishing in full vigour from one end of the earth to the other. The principles of Church rule on which St. Paul acted, and on which he bid Timothy and Titus act, could not possibly develop into the Church organization of the Congregational or Presbyterian sects. All ecclesiastical history, with one consent, presents to us the phenomenon of the huge cities of the Eoman empire— Rome itself, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Ephesus — having each but one ecclesiastical head, not elected annually or biennially, and not removable by Ine popular will. Now, seeing that, even on heathen testimony, there was an immense multitude of Christians in some of these cities, and seeing that the Christians were all this time under persecution, and so could not erect churches of any size, it is clear that there must have been in these cities a vast number of small congregations, each consisting of as many persons as a large room or court of a house would hold, and yet we read of but one supreme ecclesiastical governor, or bishop, wi'ib whom all the separate congrega- tions were in communion as the centre or heart of the Apostolic KOiVOiVLa. The Scripture principles or facts stated in the foregoing pages form the only solution, which has the least shade of probability in it, of the universal prevalence of Episcopacy in the earliest period. The scheme invented by late German writers appears to me to involve the greatest improbabilities. We are told that the first Churches were governed on a Presby- terian or on some popular model — that somehow or other, we are not told for what reasons, all these Churches, or their ministers rather, became tired of their liberty or CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 319 equality, and desired Episcopacy — that this epidemic for Episcopal rule seized the whole Church, so that (as ia universally acknowledged) by the time of Ireneeus (a.D. 180) the government of the Church was everywhere Episcopal, and had so long been so, that, according to a writer against Apostolic succession, all memory of any previous Presbyterian or other system had, by this time, utterly perished out of the Church. But surely we must ask, What was the will of God in this matter? If Presbyterian equality or Congregational Democracy was established in all the primitive Churches by the will of God, how could this be altered except by going con- trary to His will — if, that is, Ho willed such a government to be permanent ? If God willed that this supposed original Presbyterian or democratic Congregational constitution of the Churches should be merely temporary, then there is an end of the matter — then this original popular government is a thing of the past, just as the semi-Judaical state of the Church of Judfea is a thing of the past, and we have no practical concern with it. But if it w^as the will of God that this supposed original democratic constitution was to be permanent, then we are to believe that a tide of popular opinion in favour of Episcopacy— a thing contrary to God's will— set in from the earliest period, and soon became so universal that it overw^helmed the original Divinely-appointed democratic government : and yet neither St. Paul, nor any other Apostle, is inspii-ed to say a word of warning against the impending ruin. On the contrary, he is inspired, as we have seen, to say and do much which could not but help on the tide against this supposed original popular govern- ment. He rules the Churches without the smallest regard 320 CTIURCH DOCTRINE.— -BIBLE TRUTH. to any sui^remc democratic organization which God may have given to them, and he gives no orders to his subor- dinates to establish such a form or to recognise it as established. If some original democratic constitution was ordained by the will of God, then Episcopacy in any form is a sinful usurpation, for it, of necessity, interferes with and neu- tralizes an organization adapted to express, and carry into effect, the will of the congregation. On the supposition, then, that God established some democratic form to be the permanent government of His Church, how came a consti- tution of a diametrically opposite character to be established without a protest ? Why was not some Luther raised up to make his voice heard from one end of Christendom to another against such corrupt following of Apostolic prece- dent ? How could the consent of the whole Church be got for the surrender of institutions founded on popular right, and the substitution for them of institutions founded on Apostolical succession?^ We cannot then account ^ No less tlian three writers who flourished in the latter part of the second century, i.e., within sixty or seventy years after the death of St. John, ground the then existing Episcopal government very distinctly upon Apostolic succession. First, Irenteus, a.d. 160 — 200. " We arc in a position to reckon up those who were by the Apostles instituted Bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the successions of these men to our own times. . . . For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to ' the perfect ' apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men." — Adv. Hseres. lib. iii. cap. 3. Translation in Ante- Kicene Library, p. 260. Again, Clement of Alexandria, a.d. 180—210, mentions the three ot ders in the words, — " The promotions of Bishops, of Presbyters. CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 821 for tlie universal prevalence of EiDiscopacy on the hypo- thesis of some original popular constitution becoming unpopularised. It must be remembered that the hierarchical or Episcopal principles of the second or third centuries are in one sens(? a modification of the hierarchical principles of the New Testament — a most necessary modification, but still a modi- fication, for the government exercised by Apostles, so far as it is revealed to us in the New Testament, was in and of Deacons, are imitations, as I conceive, of the angelic gloiy." Also, " The Apostle John, when he settled at Ephesus, went about the neighbouring regions, ordaining Bishops, and setting apart such persons for the clergy as were signified to him by the Holy Ghost." — Strom, lib. vi. p. 667. Quoted in Sinclair's Vindication, p. 46. Thirdly, Tertullian, a.d. 180—220. " But if there be any heresies, which venture to plant themselves in the midst of the age of the Apostles, that they may therefore he thought to have been handed down from the Apostles, because they existed under tlie Apostles, we may say, Let them then make known the originals of their Churches; let them unfold the roll of their Bishops, so coming down in succession from the beginning, that their fii'st Bishop had for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the Apostles, or of Apostolic men, so he were one that continued steadfast with the Apostles. For in this manner do the Apostolic Churches reckon their origin : as the Church of Smyrna recounteth that Polycarp was placed there by John ; as that of Kome doth that Clement was in like manner ordained by Peter. Just so can the rest also show those whom, being appointed by the Apostles to the Episcopate, they have as transmitters of the Apostolic seed." — Tertullian, De Prresciip. Hajr. xxxii. p. 465 of Oxford translation. Let the reader remember that Tertullian lived at Carthage, Irenseus in Gaul, Clement in Alexandria; so that we have the testimony of the most distant places in the Christian world of that time. Let the reader also remember that these places are not cited as proving Episcopacy merely, but Episcopacy founded upon Apostolic Succession . J 322 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. substance liierarcMcal. It was a government, no doubt, utterly without pomp or parade. It was a government entirely in tlie interests of the governed, and was alto- gether free from all self-aggrandizement in those who exercised it ; but notwithstanding this it was absolute, and it was carried on by sacred persons not designated to their office by the popular voice, or removable by the popular will, and so was in the highest sense hierarchical. The government of the Churches after the Apostles' decease, by such men as Timothy and Titus even, could not possibly have had the prestige of the purely Apos- tolical, and must necessarily have been a modification of it. Again, the Church government by Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, as it appears in the Greek copies of Ignatius, is not only a modification of that higher Episcopacy which is necessarily implied in the rule of inspired companions of Christ, but it is also a modification of that Episcopacy which must have been exercised by such men as the constant companions of St. Paul, such as St. Timothy, for " Presbyters " and " Deacons " are joined with the Bishop by St. Ignatius, as commanding, along with the Bishop, the obedience of the faithful.^ So that it is the greatest mistake to assume that the earlier wc get in Church ' Tlic three recensions ^as they ore termed) of St. Ignatius arc now accessible to every one, being collected and translated in the Ante-Nicene Library, in the volume entitled "The Apostolic Fathers." Taking any of these recensions, it seems to me absurd to speak of Ignatius as an advocate for Episcopacy, as distinguished from Presbyterianisni. He is rather to be considered an advocate for submission to Ecclesiastical rulers of every grade; for, as I have said, in almost every case — certainly in four cases out of five — where he mentions Ecclesiastical rule, he associates the Presbytera and the Deacons with the Bishop as joint governors under him. The following are instances: "And that, bring subject to the CHtTRCH GOVERNMENT. 323 history the more democratic the form of government must be. From what I have written I think the reader will per* ceive how beside the mark are all controversies respecting the names or titles of Christian ministers, since the matter in dispute is from beginning to end a matter of things, not of names. The things, or principles, with which we have to do are, fii*st, the authority exercised by the Apostles over the whole Church and its ministers of all grades. Secondly, the authority exercised over various Chui'ches, Bishop and the Presbyters, we may be in all respects sanctified." — Ephesians, p. 148. " So that ye obey the Bisliop and the Presbyters w ith an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread ' (p. loS). " But be ye united with your Bishop, and those that preside over you." "So neither do ye anything without the Bishop and Pres- byters." — Magnesians, p. 178. The reader will find at page 273 the Syriac recension, and a glance at it will serve to convince him that it is nothing more than a very short and fragmentary resume of longer writings. In fact, if the Syriac is to be regarded as the original Ignatius, and the Greek a.s a forgery, then some unknown forger writes with far more Christian eloquence, and far greater depth of piety, than the saint himself. The Syriac occupies barely ten pages, and is of the most disjointed and fragmentary character, but even this contains a re- cognition of the importance of obedience to the threefold Church rule, which is really as strong as any in the Greek. " Look ye to the Bishop, that God also may Icok upon j'ou. I will be instead of the souls of those who are subject to the Bishop and the Presbyters and the Deacons ; with them may I have a p rtion in the presence of God (p. 276). This place from the Syriac is as strong in reahty as any similar passage in either the Greek or Latin. I cannot find any trace of any advocacy of Episcopacy as dis- tinguished from Presbytery. The writer, whether in the Syiiac, Greek, or Latin, writes in utter unconsciousness of any antagonism between rival systems of Church rule. 324 CnURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. witli all their ministers of all grades, by men depntcd by the Apostles. "Wc can gather nothing from the mere name of an office what its peculiar functions are ; and this applies to every designation of ministers in the New Testament— neither Apostle, Prophet, Bishop, Presbyter, nor Deacon is applied imiformly. There was a difference of authority even amongst those to whom the name of Apostle was given. Nothing can be clearer than the distinction between " the twelve " and all others except St. Paul, for St. Paul was evidently equal in authority with " the twelve," and he was, as we have showTi, most careful to assert his full Apostleship. And yet St. Barnabas certainly, and St. James probably, were accounted Apostles, though not of " the twelve but in what respect their authority differed from that of " the twelve " we are not told. Again, Epaphroditus is called an Apostle to the Philip- pian Church (Phil. ii. 25), but evidently rather in the sense of Evangelist, not in the high sense in which " the twelve " or St. Barnabas were Apostles. Again, Andronicus and Junia (Rom. xvi. 7) are said to be " of note among the Apostles ;" and a careful consi- deration of this passage will, I think, show that the word "Apostle" here is used in its widest sense of "mes- senger." (Compare 2 Cor. viii. 7 in the original.) So far for the highest official name. Let us now con- sider the lowest, the 8taKovos, or deacon. All ecclesiastical history agrees in representing the " seven " (Acts vi.) as deacons, but yet this name is not once given to them. They are ordained to superintend the distribution of alms, an office always accounted the speciality of the deacon ; and yet we read not one word about their fulfilment of this their peculiar duty, and tho CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 325 only two of whose acts we have any account appear to exercise the higher functions of baptizing, disputing, and preaching. Again, when we read of Timotheus and Erastus minis- tering to St. Paul (Acts xix. 22), the very same word (8ia/coi'£tv) is used which is employed to describe the ful- filment of theii* office by the deacons in 1 Tim. iii. 13 (using the office of a deacon). Of coui'se it is ridiculous to suppose that we are to judge of the duties and responsibilities of Timothy, as one of St. Paul's staff, as it were, by the functions of the deacons which it was afterwards part of his duty to oversee. Then St. Paul calls Christ a deacon (Eom. xv. 8). He calls himself and Apollos " deacons " (1 Cor. iii. 5 ; see also in the Greek Eom. xvi. 1; Eph. iii. 7). And yet nothing can be more certain than that the " deacons " mentioned in 1 Tim. iii. are an order of ministers below the Episcopate or Presbyterate. Of coui'se the clue to all this seeming diversity is the idea of ministry, or service, inherent in the word StaKoyog, an Apostle being, equally with a deacon or acolyte, a •'minister," or servant (2 Cor. iv. 5) of the Chui'ch; only the Apostle was ordained to minister for the benefit of souls in some things, and the deacon in others. And so with the words Bishop (i-LaKo-os) and Elder (-TTpea-ISvTepos). The word " bishop," or " overseer," may be applied to the minister who oversees a congi-egation of twenty persons meeting in a room ; or it may be applied to an officer like Titus deputed to " oversee " all the con- gregations of the Chui'ch in a large island, with all their ministers of all grades. And the word " elder," or pres- byter," may be (as it is) applied by an Apostle to himself, q5 being much the senior of those to whom he wrqt© 326 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — ^BIBLE TRUTH. (1 Pet. V. 1) ; or it may be applied to any lay person whose years and spiritual character give him weight in the congregation, as it is in Acts ii. 17 — " your old men " (your " presbyters," as it is in the original) " shall dream dreams." Peter and John both call themselves " elders," and yet they at least v/ere in the strictest sens/ "Apostles." The " elders " mentioned in Titus i. 5 are certainly an order of Church ministers, and seem to be the same as the iirCa-KoiroL of verse 7 ; and yet the " elder " of 1 Tim. v. 1 would seem to be an elder in point of years rather than a distinct Church officer, for he is contrasted with the " younger ;" and in the next verse the " elder " and " younger" women are mentioned evidently not as office bearers. Scripture is altogether silent respecting the duties of the "elder." Apostles, Bishops, the members of the Jewish Sanhedrim, the Christian ministers who were present with St. James, and the seniors in point of mere age, are all indifferently called " elders." It is surprising that the controversy respecting Church rule has ever been made to tui*n upon any names of offices found in the New Testament. Half an hour with a concordance would convince any one that the mere names " bishop," " elder," " deacon," can decide nothing. Supposing that in every case the name " bishop " is sjmonymous with " elder," and both represent the modern parochial minister or president of a congregation, you have still the fact that these men are throughout the New Testament assumed to be under the control of the Apostle, and of his vicar or delegate. So that, besides the Episcopate, or oversight of each separate congregation, there is the oversight of the whole Church centred in the ApostlCj and by him transmitted always to individuals, CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 327 never to boards or synods ; and this to the close of the New Testament history. So that, so far as the New Testament teaches us the government of the Apostolic Churches, there was no supreme government except the Apostolic oversight or rule, and no principle for transmitting this recognised except Apostolic succession by imposition of hands. From the foregoing observations we can judge how much (or how little) truth there is in the oft-i'epeated assertion, that no form of Church government is laid down in the New Testament." It is quite true that no details are to be found there, such as the size of dioceses, the mode of election to Church offices, the order of proceeding in Church courts, the limits of the authority of presidents or bishops, or of presbyteries ; but, though we find no details of this kind, yet we find one principle of supreme rule, and one only, and this is, that Chui'ch rule centres in the Apostle, and is transmitted by him to individuals. No counter prin- ciple is to be found, such as that all Church officers have equal authority, or that all power resides in the people. So that the principles of Presbyterian parity, or Congre- gational democracy, are not to be found, and the principle of Apostolic Episcopacy is to bo found, in the New Testament. Note. — From the above, the reader will perceive how utterly unnecessary, as well as gronndless, is the idea that the government of the Christian Church was formed on the model of the Jewish Synagogue. For this notion there is not one word of authority in Scriptm-e, or in any Ecclesiastic writer. It is a mere guess, and considering the relations of the Synagogue to the Church, one very unlikely to be near the truth. I do not think that St. Paul at least would be in any haste to set forth the Synagogue as a model. The leading featm-es of the worship of the Church differed essentially from that 328 CHUBCH DOCTRINK,— BIBLE TRUTH. of the Synagogue ; the leading feature of Christian worship being the Eucharist, to which there was nothing corresponding in th*- Synagogue worship. And, even supposing that there might be some similarity between the government of separate Jewish and Christian congregations, this would not help us to determine how the whole Church of a city or district, consisting of many congrega- tions, was governed. Neither was the Christian Episcopate a copy of the Levitical gradations of high priests and priests. It is true that the Fathers, such as Clement, see typical references in the one to the other, but the fact of Episcopal rule is amply accounted for by the previous existence of Apostolic authority. All difficulties vanish if we but remember, that in New Testa- ment times Church rule had not hardened, or crystallized, as the saying is, into a fixed system. It could not do so as long as the paternal autocracy of the primitive Apostolate was in existence. Names, too, were applied loosely, and offices appear as gifts of the Spirit ; but this state of things could not continue, and can never be reproduced. I do not see how such a rule as the Apostolic could possibly crystallize into any government, except tbat which we find existing all over the world in the second and third centuries. CHUKCH GOVERNMENT. 329 SECTION II. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. Episcopacy has been held by some to be a Diviiie insti- tution, or at least one that has a Divine sanction, and yet not to be traceable to Apostolic Succession. It has been asserted to have been developed during the latter part — i.e., the last thirty years — of the fii-st century, and to owe its origin mainly to the influence of St. John. The Episcopate of the second century is thus supposed not to s^jriug from the Apostolate, but from the Presbyterate. A break is assumed between the Apostolic and the earliest Episcopal rule ; during which interval some sort of Presby- terian or Congregational system is supposed to have existed. This was found not equal to the requirements of the times, and so the surviving Apostles, and notably St. John, ele- vated deserving presbyters everywhere into Bishops, and in this way the Episcopate of the Catholic Chuix'h was founded. I believe this theory to be without historical foundation, and to be quite inadequate to account for the universal spread of Episcopal rule ; and besides this, an acquaintance in early years with the life and workings of the Presby- terian system, has impressed upon me very strongly a conviction of the moral impossibility of any primitive [i.e., Apostolically-ordaincd) Presbyterian system having been superseded without a disruption of the Church from the first. The earliest Episcopacy natui-ally arises out of the Episcopacy, i.e., the oversight, exercised by the Apostle 330 CHURCH LOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. St. Paul,^ and committecl by him during Ms absence, or at his death, to his delegates or vicars ; and this oversight or Church rule, both as the Apostle exercised it, and as he commissioned his delegates to exercise it, could not, unless by a miracle, issue in anything else except the Episcopate of the Church Catholic. What arc'the incontrovertible facts? Till about the year 70, the only ultimate authority (of course excepting that of St. James at Jerusalem) was the Apostolic. It is idle to speculate about the local government of this or that Church, when there was a power existing personally in one man, which might enable him to write to any Church such a sentence as we find in the first Epistle to the Corinthians : ^' If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the command- ments of the Lord." (1 Cor. xiv. 37.) It is idle, I say, to speculate about whether the govern ment of the Corinthian Church in St. Paul's time was Episcopal, or Presbyterian, or Congregational. If these words were well spoken, it was really under a Theocracy as direct as that of the Church in the wilderness, though the outward signs might not be so overpowering. This state of things lasted till the death of St. Paul. By the middle of the next century — i.e., about 80 years afterwards— Episcopacy was so universally established, that the very memory of any other form was unknown to such men as Irenseus and Tcrtullian ; that is, to men who must have been not only alive, but sufficiently old to observe what was going on in the middle of that century. ^ Of course this is not to be taken as exchiding the rest of the Apostles. I merely mention St, Paul because we have liis history ftnd Church rule principally mentioned in the New Testament. CIIURCH GOVERNMENT. How, then, was this universal prevalence of Episcopacy brought about ? It is impossible to conceive that a man like St. Paul would have left in a state of anarchy the Churches which he had founded. The Apostle not only taught and built up his Churches, but watched over them with the eye of a most careful and vigilant ruler. Whatever under-pastora they might have, he yet held himself to be the pastor of each Chiu'ch ; so that he could say respecting each, " I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy : for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." It is preposterous to suppose that a man who took such a view of his responsibilities would make no provision for the permanent oversight of the Churches which he had founded. What permanent provision, then, did he make ? It is impossible to suppose that he instituted anything like Presbyterian institutions (i.e., institutions involving the holding of governing powers equally by the several members of a college of presbyters), for if he had, it is quite certain that we should have had some account of it ; for be it remembered that, of all forms of Church rule, Presbyterianism, if it is intended to be permanent, is the most artificial and complicated. I say " if it is to be 25ermancnt," for it is a system which requires numerous provisions to keep it from sliding into Episcopacy on the one hand, or into mere Congrega- tional Democracy on the other. A system in which the supreme power is held in trust by a college of presbyters, if it is to be permanent, must contain checks against the ambition of those who would tm'n the office of temporary president into a permanent one. It must contain pro- visions for the election of the elders on each ruling board * 332 CHURCH DOCTRINF, — BIBLE TRUTH. and, if the system is to be general, for tlie representa- tion of these at provincial synods. When the supremo power is held by one person, the problem of government is far simpler than when it is shared by many ; for in the latter case a multiplicity of rules come in to preserve to each person his due share. In fact, something like a constitution is implied, if any such system is to work either efficiently or permanently. I need hardly say that no trace of any such system exists in any record of the early Church. We have had existing in Scotland a Presbyterian system which has stood its ground for three centuries ; but the smallest acquaintance with it will serve to show that it is a very elaborate system, requiring the most constant watchfulness on the part of those who are under it to keep its machinery in due operation. Of course the Apostle ordained no such system as a permanency; his Epistles, especially those which are occupied with Church government, recognise no inherent power in people or in presbyters. If the Apostle ordained any Presbyterian system, he must either have established a loose, unorganized system, which must in the nature of things speedily fall into anarchy, and have to be su]3cr- seded by some other mode of Church rule ; all which, I think, is exceedingly contrary to all that we know of the Apostle : or else he must have ordained a system which he intended to be permanent, in which case he must have impressed upon it the traditional principles, and formed it into the organization calculated to ensure its per- manency ; and if he had so done, all experience of Pres- byterianism is against the idea that the presbyters would ever have surrendered their rights even to such an A postle as St. John, without a struggle which would have left a very deep mark on the earliest history of Christtjndom. CHURCH GOVERTTMENT. 333 To suppose that the Apostle ordained a Presbj'terian Bystem without the machinery which such a system re- quii'es to ensure its permanency, is to ascribe to him an ignorance of human nature and a carelessness about human frailty ^Yith which assuredly he of all men is not to be taxed. What, then, does the Apostle St. Paul ordain as the per- manent regimen of the Churches which he had planted '? I answer, Apostolical Succession. Not so much Episco- pacy as we now understand it, as Apostolical Succession pui"e and simple. The only Epistles giving the least account of any permanent provision which he made before his death, are the pastoral Epistles, and in these such men as Timothy and Titus appear rather as dele- gates, vicars, or successors of the Apostle, than &s diocesan bishops. In the First Epistle to Timothy, for instance, that saint is addressed as the delegate of the Apostle ; in the Second, as his successor. In these letters, St. Paul earnestly desires to assure the persons whom he addresses that they possessed as much of his own authority as possible. He makes over to them all powers of selecting subordinate ministers, of ordaining them, and of exercising discipline. There is not one word throughout these Epistles to show that the Apostolic delegates were to be controlled in the exercise of any of tlieir powers by any board of presbyters, or by delegates of particular congregations. Now besides these two men, there were at least twelve or fourteen others, occupying the same position by the side of the Apostle, as his companions and helpers— his archdeacons, in fact. In all human probability he com- mitted to each of these the same power to govern and ordain as he committed to Timothy and Titus; for the sarao reasons which would induce him to make these men 334 CHtTRCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. the chief overseers of large districts, would make him put such men as Sylvanus and Tychicus into similar positions in the Church. The continued existence in the Church of such men as Sylvanus, Timotheus, Tychicus, Trophi- mus, Luke, and others, for many years after the Apostle's death, must have rendered the due action of any Presby- terian or Congregational system, as we now understand the terms, next to impossible. Men who had been tho constant companions of the Apostle, sharers in all his dangers, cognisant of his most secret thoughts and anxieties, continually sent by him on his most delicate and difficult missions, could not upon his death subside into mere presbyters, and take their places at a board, and record, when a division was called for, a vote which would count for as much, or as little, as the vote of the merest neophyte. And, as I have said, it is futile to urge that the commission given to these Apostolic delegates was for a time only, for, if so, it was given at the wrong time. Just at the time when the presbyters, freed from the Apostolic oversight, ought to have begun the exercise of that independent action which, on Presbyterian principles, is so necessary to the preservation of Christian liberty ; just at this time, I say, the yoke was bound upon them anew by the Apostle, in the authority which he made over to his delegates ; so that Christian liberty was strangled at its very birth, by no other than Apostolic hands. Did, then, these men, at the death of the Apostle, become overseers of local Churches — i.e., diocesan bishops ? Most probably not; but they must end in being so. They would, in all probability, act at the first as they had been accustomed to do in the lifetime of the Apostle; they would exercise quasi- Apostolical authority over large and somewhat indefinite areas, but as men rose up in the Church with gifts of character equal to the task, these dttURCH GOVERNMENT. 335 Apostolical delegates would commit more definite parts ot the Church to their oversight. So that the Episcopate was formed out of the Apostolic office by localization, there being between the two the link of the Apostolic delegate.^ The idea of an Apostolically-ordained Presbyterian, or other such system, following upon the death of the Apostle and existing for any length of time, appears to me to be involved in the greatest difficulties. For Presbyterianism, if organized, as it must be to be worth anything, and with traditions to insure its permanency impressed upon it, is by no means a weak form of govern- ment, and certainly not one easily set aside. In our Western parts it has held its own with remarkable tenacity. It seems incredible that a Presbyterate ap- pointed by Knox and Melville should have lasted three hundred years, whilst a supposed corresponding system appointed by St. Paul himself hopelessly collapsed in half a century. Presbyterianism, as it exists amongst us, is anything but a weak system. It fosters powers of debate of no mean order, and trains up those who are under it in cultivating to the utmost united action and party organi- zation. The writer of these pages has, in his youth, lived amongst Presbyterians in parts where they formed the bulk of the population. He has had abundant opportuni- ties of watching the working of the system, and he freely confesses that the elements of power in it appear to him to be such that he cannot conceive of any such a system (especially if it had but one gi-ain of Apostolic prestige in its original establishment) being superseded, except at Of course the Episcopate must have been mainly recruited from the ranks of the Presbyterate, but tliis is very different from its Itciug, in its origin, a mere development of the lower office. 336 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. the cost of a disruption of the Christian Church from its commencement. Let us now briefly recapitulate. 1. We have the Lord Himself personally appointing the Apostles, and (apparently) assuring them that their ministry would last till the end of the world. 2. We have in the New Testament the history of the first thirty or forty years of the Church, during the whole of which period the one sole, supreme government is the Apostolic, with the exception of the Church in one city. 3. This exception is the mother Church of Christendom, which (if St. James be not an Apostle) is under Episcopal fts distinguished from Apostolic rule. 4. We have the great Apostle of the Gentiles ruling the Churches committed to him with an hyper-Episcopal oversight, keeping apparently all power of every sort in hiB own hands. 5. We have the Apostle at the close of his career writing letters to the men through whose means he had exercised his Episcopal control over Churches in all parts of the civilised world, in order to instruct them in the right use of the quasi-Apostolic powers he had made over to them. Then there is a gap of some seventy years at the most, and at the end of this period history presents us with the spectacle of the Christian Church everywhere officered by men possessing the governmental and ordain- ing powers of the Apostolic delegates, though (as was to be expected) with more defined and localized spheres of action. And yet apparently for the one almost avowed purpose of interposing some break, and proving a disconnection between the Apostolic and any later ministry, we aro afikcd to assume the existence of some intermediate Pres- CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 337 byterian or Congregational system, of tlie constitution of which history has not preserved to us one fragment, and which, if established, must have been established without any principles of permanency impressed upon it, so that, according to the confession of those who conjecture it, its very memory had perished out of the mind of the Church within a hundred years after its appointment. Apostolical Succession, as a principle of continuity in the Church, seems requii'cd by the ideal of the Church as set forth by Christ and by his servant St. Paul. The ideal of the Chui'ch as set forth by Chi'ist is that of a vine and its branches ; and the Apostles are the first and chief branches, which themselves spring directly from Christ, and are at once the support of the rest of the branches, and the means of their connection with the stem as one organization. The ideal of the Church as set forth by the Holy Spirit through St. Paul, is that of a head, and the members of the body, which are so joined to it as to partake of its life. "The head fi'om which all the body, by joints and bands having nourishment ministered and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God." What were these joints and bands at the fii'st but the Apostles ? They were the chief nerves, as it were, by which the life of the head flowed into the members, but the smallness of their number, and the shortness of their sojourn compels us (I think not unduly) to carry on the figure, and to assume that other nerves and bands branched out, as it were, from them, by which the life peculiar to the mystical body reaches its extremities. What is the sense of endeavouring to prove a break betwixt them and us, except we wish to get rid of the awful yet most blessed unity of the whole mystical body, existing as one body in the fii'st age and in the last ? I desire to recognise, and to thank God for, the z 3:38 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TROTH. abundant spiritual life which seems to oxist around ua external to the Apostolic stream, but this can, and must bo done without interpolating some impossible Presbyterian system, which, if once founded with any view to its permanence, never would have disappeared so utterly from early Christendom. If I am asked " on what principle I can recognise this life," I answer — On the principle con- tained in the very words of Christ, " Forbid him not, fol he that is not against us is for us " (Luke ix. 50). If this was said of one who followed not the twelve, with Jesus personally amongst them, we must surely say it with far more emphasis with respect to those who follow not the successors of the twelve. No one of the Apostolic band upheld the unity of the mystical body as St. Paul did, and he also could say, and let us say it with him, " Notwithstanding, every way, Christ is preached, and 1 therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice." CONFIRMATION. 339 CH AFTER VI 11. COXFIEMATION. In addition to Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, and Ordination, another rite of the Chui'ch was practised by the Aj^ostles. This was the " Laying of hands " upon the baptized, with a view to their receiving a fiu'ther gift of God's Holy Spirit. We read in the book of the Acts, that after Philip had converted and baptized certain Samaritans, the Apostles sent Peter and John, who laid their hands upon them that they " might receive the Holy Ghost." (Acts viii. 14-17.) It is not said that the Apostles did this in order to confer only the miraculous gifts of the Spirit; though from the fact that Simon saw that " through laying on of hands the Holy Ghost was given," we surmise that some gifts were bestowed of a more visible nature than Ihe internal strengthening of the soul. Again (Acts xix. 1 — 8), we read of St. Paul laying his hands on certain men in order to their receiving the Holy Ghost, and the sign that they had received the Spirit was that they " spake with tongues and prophesied." In Hebrews vi. 1 — 4 this "laying on of hands" is reckoned among the principles or foundations of the doctrine of Christ. As all the other five " foundations " here enumerated have to do with matters with which each individual soul in the Church is personally and immediately concerned, wc can hardly doubt but that this " laying on of hands " refers p-imarily to a means of grace which belongs to each 340 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. individual Cliristian, and so can be nothing else tlian what we call " Confirmation," which is the only " laying on of hands " in which all the baptized partake. These are all the references to it in the New Testament. It seems to have been a revival of a rite belonging to the primitive patriarchal religion, and so far resembles Justification by Faith, which St. Paul takes some pains to prove to have belonged to the religion of Abraham, to have been in abeyance under the Law, and to have been restored under the Gospel. (Gal. iii.) In the only two instances recorded, this " laying on of hands " was administered by the heads of the Church. Now the continuance of this rite in the Church depends upon, and is witness to, the perpetuity of the Apostolic fellowship and ministry. For what are the facts ? In the book of the Acts God has been pleased to give to us a history of the foundation of His Church by His Apostles, and of this only. The one inspired book of Church history breaks off very abruptly in the middle of the period of Apostolic rule, ten years before the martyrdom of the Apostles Peter and Paul. During this time the Apostles administered this rite, and God was pleased to accompany it with the gift of His Spirit. From within a hundred years after the time of the Apostles to the present time, we have the evidence of a succession of writers to its prevalence in the Church in their days.^ ^ TertuUian (a. d. 190), after describing the ceremonies in use at Baptism, proceeds to say, ** Next to this the hand is laid upon ua, calling upon and inviting the Holy Spirit through the blessing." — Translated in Lib. of Fathers, p. 264. Cyprian (a, d, 250), "Which custom lias also descended to U3, CONFIRMATION. 341 But in the ages after the Apostolic it was given with a view to conferring tbe ordinary rather than the extra- ordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit. Is the Church right in thus requiring her chief ministers to lay hands on the baptized after the example of the Apostles ? Evidently she is, if she believes in the per- petuity of the New Testament ministry, and if she takes as her guide the books of the New Testament. For we find this " laying on of hands " mentioned inci- dentally in the New Testament as if it were a rite uniformly administered to the baptized. We find it even classed amongst such first principles as Eepenta-nce, and Faith, and Judgment (Heb. vi. 2) ; and we have not one vroid intimating that it was to cease with the Apostolic age. To ascertain whether this rite was administered by the heads of the Chui'ch after the decease of the Apostles, we have to refer to ecclesiastical writers, inasmuch as New Testament history does not reach to the termination of the Apostolic Period. We have to refer to the same writers to ascertain the Canon of the New Testament. Two writers of a very early date allude to it as in constant use in their days. From all these things we cannot but assume that it was according to the will of God that this rite should continue in the Church, for if its continuance had been contrary to His will, He would have inspired His Apostles to forbid it, and so it would have fallen into disuse. Again, the TJieory of the New Testament is in its favoui-, for the Theory of the New Covenant is, that God gives grace to man, largely, freely, and according to ' Is that they who are baptized may be brought to the rulers of the Church, and by our prayer, and by the laying on of hands, may obtain the Holy Ghost, and be consummated with the Lords signature. " — Epist. Isxiii 342 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. needs. Now the grace of the Holy Spirit appears in the New Testament associated with certain miraculous powers, even faith appears in connexion with these miraculous powers ; for we read, " These signs shall follow them that believe : In my name shall they cast out devils," &c. (Mark xvi. 17, 18). These miraculous powers were soon to cease, for the early followers of Jesus were empowered to work miracles simply in order that the heathen might know that the Gospel of the despised and persecuted Christians was from God. Vvhen the need for the exercise of such gifts was over, the power to work them was withdrawn. But as we know that the obligation to believe was not withdrawn, though belief was no longer followed by supernatural signs, so the " laying on of hands " was not discontinued when its miraculous accompaniments ceased. After the deaths of the Apostles, it was left to their immediate successors either to abolish Confirmation, be- cause the extraordinary gifts with which it was first accom- panied were ceasing rapidly, or to continue the use of it in the hope (or rather in the faith) that God, Who for wise reasons was withdrawing the extraordinary gifts, would still accompany it, when faithfully and devoutly used, with gifts suited to the wants of the individual, or the times of the Church. THE ORDER FOR THE BURIAL OF THE DEAD. 343 CHAPTEB IX, THE ORDER FOR THE BURIAL OF THE DEAD. We have now to consider the Burial Service of the Church of England. Its indiscriminate use has, of late, been the subject oi much controversy. The Service, however, is allowed on all hands to be Scriptural, and a most fitting benedictory rite of the Church, when used over those of her children who " die in the Lord." We have then to distinguish between the Scriptural character of the Service itself, respecting which point there is no controversy, and whether such an indiscrhni' nate use of it as prevails amongst us is in accordance with Scriptm-e. Now, first of all, it will be well to examine in what sense this Service is really Scriptui-al ; because, if it be so, then a very large amount of our public teaching and popular religious literatm-e which touches upon the state of the departed is very unscriptural. There is a very marked difierence between the way in which death and things after death arc spoken of in tho popular literature of the day, and the way in which these same matters are treated of in the Prayer-book generally, and in the Burial Service in particular. I think I am neither misrepresenting nor exaggerating the prevailing religious ideas on these awful subjects when I describe them as follows. The moment after death the true Chi'istian is supposed 344 CHURCH DOCTHIXE, — BIBLE TRUTH. to "go to heaven." His spmt, disencumbered of his Dody, is supposed to be conveyed at once to the heaven of heavens, where he sees the throne of God, on which the Lord Jesus is now ruling over all things in His glorified Body. He enters at once into a state of unspeakable and in- conceivable bliss, to which such words as " eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him," are applied as a matter of course. He is sup- posed to be crowned — to be shining in white apparel like an angel — in a word to be " in glory." Into this state the souls of converted persons are sup- posed to be drafted as they die. Once admitted there, they for ever enjoy fulness of bliss in the presence of God. I would now direct the reader's attention to three matters connected with this view. First, it is incompatible with any realising belief in the coming of Jesus Christ to judge the quick and the dead. Secondly, it practically ignores any degrees of reward. Thirdly, it almost wholly supersedes the doctrine of the Eesurrection of the body. I do not say that they who hold this popular view deny that Christ will come ogain, and judge all men, and raise up our bodies, but I say that in proportion as they hold the popular view, in that proportion they will make the Scripture statements respecting the Second Advent, the Judgment, and the Resurrection, a dead letter. It must be so, for our Savioui' teaches us that He is the Saviour of our bodies as well as of our souls. He assures us that " they which are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth, they that have done good to tho Eesurrection of life." (John v. 28.) He says, " Whoso THE ORDER FOR THE BURIAL OF THE DEAD. 343 eatetli my flesh and drinketh my blood hatli eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." (John vi. 54.) He says to Martha, " T am the Resurrection and the Life " (John xi. 25), and He promises by St. Paul that He will " descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the Ai'changel, and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shaU rise first." (1 Thess. iv. 16.) Nothing can be plainer than all this ; but how is it made to agi'ee with the popular notion which prevails? In some such way as this. The converted person ascends up now to heaven. There he at once enters upon the enjoyment of glory inconceivable. He sees his Saviour on His throne. He takes part in the anthems of the Seraphim. During the intervals he converses familiarly with apostles and prophets. Now what can be added to such blessedness ? Nothing which ice can possibly appreciate ; and yet something has to be added to it, for the Eesurrection of the Body has not yet taken place. So it is supposed that the saint, having, perhaps for many hundred years, enjoyed the glories of that heaven in which Christ is manifested, is brought back again to earth to go through the form of being judged, and of being welcomed to a place in which he has long been reigning ; for this can only be a fomi in his case, seeing that he has been for centui-ies enjoying bliss in the highest heaven. Then on his retui'n to earth he is reinvested with his body, which he takes back with him into heaven. We cannot help silently asking, Why tliis return to earth, and this resumption of the body ? If it be said that his happiness and glory will be increased by it, we answer that his happiness has been supposed to be akeady inconceivably gi*eat, seeing that he has long been amidst the glorious sights and sounds of the very court of God. What glory or bliss that we can conceive 34^ CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. can tlie possession of a body add to the pure spiritual deliglits which he has been long enjoying ? Not a word more need be said to show how this popular view practically supersedes the Coming of Christ for Judgment and the Rcsui*rection of the flesh. But this is not all. The popular teaching respecting death, and things after death, altogether neutralizes another truth insisted on from one end of Scripture to the other — that the saints will be rewarded according to their works. The popular idea of heaven is that of a vast hall or place of assembly, in which the saints are gathered to- gether, engaged in one occupation. Now, in an assembly all men are, so to speak, on an equality. The only difference which an assembly admits of is that one man has a place nearer to the post of honour than another ; but the Scrip- tures from beginning to end represent eternal reward as admitting of every variety of degree. The difference in the rewards of the righteous is laid down in the parable of the Pounds. (Luke xix. 16.) The servant who made ten pounds of the one lent to him was made ruler over ten cities ; the servant who had made five pounds of his one pound was made ruler over five cities. In accordance with this the future state is in Scripture most frequently designated by a name which implies every gradation of office and rank, and so scope is given in it for every degree of glory amongst those who will finally inherit it. It is called a kingdom. Now the idea of a kingdom presents us with the prospect of a sphere for the exercise of our highest powers which the mere assembly certainly does not. In fact, the reconciliation of such a doctrine, as that men will be really rewarded according to their works, with the prevailing ideas of the future, is practically impossible, and THE OTIDER FOU THE BURIAL OF THE DEAD. 347 SO tlie true doctrine has been to all intents and purpose? set aside, though no single Scripture truth is more dis- tinctly revealed, or more frequently insisted on/ The popular view finds its expression in the profane phrase that it is little matter what a man's place in heaven be, provided he gets there. Let us now briefly consider what the Scripture leads us to look for respecting the future state. First of all, the abode of the soul between death and judgment is nowhere called " heaven." It is called Abraham's bosom," "Paradise," the unseen state into •which the soul of our Lord " descended " — not ascended ; never " heaven." The soul of the penitent thief was certainly not with our Lord in heaven, because the Lord Himself did not ascend into heaven till forty days after. It is also expressly stated of one of the greatest of Old Testament saints that he is " not yet ascended into the heaverts." (Acts ii. 34.) Respecting the state of the soul between death and judgment there is very little indeed told us in Scripture. It is a state of rest. " They rest from their labours." The martyrs are in one vision represented as under the altar, crying, " How long, 0 Lord ?" and it was said to them that they " should rest yet for a little season ;" but to call this state a state of glory is not only to call it by a name w hich the Scriptures never apply to it, but to con- nect a thing with death which the Scriptui'es constantly ' The following are a few of the Scripture statements : — Matt. vi. 4 ; vii. 2, 21, 23 ; x. 42 ; xii. 3G ; xvi. 27 ; xix. 21 ; xxiv. 45, 46, 47 ; XXV. 20, 21, 30, 31—46. Luke xii. 42, 43, 44 ; xix. 12—25. John V. 29. Actsxvii. 30, 31. Rom. ii. 6, 7, 8, 9; xiv. 10, 12. 1 Cor. iii. 8; iv. 4, 5 ; xv. 58. 2 Cor. v. 10 ; ix. 6. Ephes. vi 8. Colos. iii. 24, 25. 2 Tim. iv. 1 , 8. James v. 9. 1 Pet. iv. 5, C, 17. 2 John 8. Rev. ii. 23 ; xx. 12. 348 CttURCH DOCtRlNE,— BIBLE TRUTff. and cmpliatically connect with another event — viz., with the second Coming of Christ. When St. Paul, for instance, speaks of receiving the crown laid up for him, he speaks of it as given to him at llmt day — the day of Christ's appearing. (2 Tim. iv. 1, 8.) Our liord speaks of men entering upon the kingdom prepared for them, not at death, but after the general Judgment. (Matt. xxv. 34.) In accordance with all this, the day of Judgment, or day of the Appearing of Christ, is evidently regarded by such a saint as St. Paul as, even in his case, the most tremendous reality. Thus St. Paul says, " We shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ." (Rom. xiv. 10.) Again, ho says, " He that judgeth me is the Lord ; therefore," he continues, "judge nothing before the time until the Lord come." (1 Cor. iv. 4, 5.) Again, " We must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body." (2 Cor. v. 10.) Again, St. Peter speaks of the trial of the Christian faith being " found to praise and honour and glory at the ap- pearing of Jesus Christ " (1 Pet. i. 7), and of the faithful pastors of Christ's flock receiving a crown of glory that fadeth not away — not at death, but " when the chief Shepherd shall appear." (1 Pet. v. 2, 4.) In accordance with all this, the one thing which Christ bid men look for was His second Coming — not to each one at his death, but from heaven — " Watch, therefore, for ye know neither day nor the hour wherein the Son of Man Cometh." (Matt. xxv. 13.) " Then shall they see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. . . . Take heed to yourselves lest .... that day como upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch THE ORDER FOR THE BURIAL OF THE DEAD. 349 yc therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape those things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man." (Luke xxi. 27, 34—36.) Seven times are we assured that Christ shall come again " as a thief." Repeatedly are we told to watch for His appearing. In accordance with these words of Christ the Apostles actually did watch for Christ's Coming. St. Paul says, " From heaven we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus, Who shall change our vile body, that it may be like unto His glorious body " (Phil. iii. 20) ; and he bids others " look for the glorious appearing of the great God and oiu* Saviour Jesus Christ." (Titus ii. 13.) St. James speaks of " the Judge standing at the door," and " the coming of the Lord drawing nigh." (James v. 8, 9.) Such is the universal teaching of the New Testament. Universal, I say, for there is not even any apparent counter teaching on this matter, and there is nothing to modify or qualify it. If our Service, then, is Scriptural, it must teach as Scripture teaches. It must consequently direct the eye of faith, not to death as the entrance into glory, but to the Second Coming as the one hope of the Church, It must re-echo the words of the Bride, "Even so, come, Lord Jesus." It cannot, if it be Scriptural, speak of any state previous to the great day as a state of glory, when such saints as St. Paul looked to the Coming of Chi-ist for their crown. Such a Service God has, in His wonderful providence, preserved to us. It is almost wholly silent on the state of the soul be- tween death and the day of Judgment, and would con- 350 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTTF. centrate all faith and hope on the Second Coming and the Eesurrection. It opens with the words, " I am the Resurrection." Then come those of Holy Job. " I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth ; and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." After the Psalm the minister reads in the ears of the mourners St. Paul's great argument concerning the Resurrection of the flesh. After this the body is committed to the ground, " in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life." Then we have a recognition that the dead which die in the Lord are, as the Spirit says, in a state of rest ; that the souls of those who depart hence in the Lord " live," and are not in a state of torpor, or sleep, but " in joy and felicity ;" but this is not the great object of our faith and hope, for we go on to pray that God may " shortly accomplish the number of His elect and hasten His kingdom ; that we, with all those that are departed in the faith of His holy name, may have our perfect consumma- tion and bliss both in body and soul in His eternal and everlasting glory." And we conclude with a prayer to the " Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Resurrection and the Life," to " raise us from the death of sin to the life of righteous- ness," that at death we may " rest in Him," and at the general resurrection may be found acceptable in God's sight, and receive that blessed welcome to the kingdom, of glory, which Christ has reserved to the great day of His appearing. Our Burial Service is consequently in accordance with our creeds, in which we say nothing respecting the state of the soul after death, but profess that we believe in THE ORDER FOR THE BURIAL OF THE DEAD. 351 " the Eesurrection of the body, and the life everlasting," and " look for the Eesurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come." And now a word with reference to the indiscrhninate use of this Service. Our Order for the Burial of the Dead is evidently in- tended for those, and those only, who die in the Lord. But I would ask the reader to ponder well this fact — - that it is not merely two or three sentences which are not fit to be read over the corpse of a wicked man, but it is the whole Service which is utterly unsuitable to his case. The scandal of reading this service over the remains of the wicked would not be removed by the erasure of, or alteration of, or by the option to omit, a few words, such as "sure and certain hope," or, "as our hope is this our brother doth," whilst we meet the corpse of the supposed impenitent man vdth the words, " I am the Eesurrection and the Life," and then read over it the lesson setting forth the Eesui-rection of the body. Throughout this glorious chapter there is not the most distant allusion to any Eesurrection save the Eesurrection to lile. Now, if we read such a lesson over a corpse, we must read it with implied reference to the Eesurrection of that corpse, or we should not read it at all. And since this place of Scripture refers only to one Eesurrection, it is as out of place and as great a mockery to read it over the corpse of a man of whom we are sure that he will not come forth to the only Eesurrection which the chapter recognises, as it is to commit his body to the ground " in sure and certain hope of the Eesur- rection to life," or to express a hope that he " rests in »iie Lord." However we may seek to obviate some scandal in the 352 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. eyes of our fellow-men by the removal, or alteration of two or three clauses, still, if the present indiscriminate use of this Service be an offence in the eyes of the Almighty, we equally persist in this offence if we read over the corpses of the wicked a part of God's word which treats only of the Eesurrection of life, and which is silent respecting that horrible resurrection to which the finally impenitent must come forth. One or two alterations cannot make such a Service as that which we have inherited appropriate alike to the righteous and to the wicked. And, moreover, I think that an assembly of our spiritual fathers with the avowed purpose of concocting a Service which should suit the case of the righteous and the wicked, would be a scandal in the eyes of thinking men, and an offence in the sight of God, such as has never yet been known in the history of our branch of the Church. At present our Service belongs only to those who " die in the Lord," and it is read over all the professing members of the Chui'ch, i.e., over all the baptized who die without having been excommunicated — because we cannot presume to say who are, and who are not, cut off from Christ.' * It would not be right, for instance, to make any difference in the case of tliose who happen to be cut off in the actual commission of some sin, say di-unkenness or robbery, wliilst we read our service over others who, to the time of their last illness, have lived in the commission of the same sins. We should, by so doing, be directly contravening the spirit of our Lord's declaration respecting the Galileans slain by Pilate. If it be urged that, in the case of the sinner dying quietly in his bed, his expressions of repentance are to entitle him to the use of our Service over his remains, we ask, in reply, Who is to be the jiuige of the sinceiity of his repentance? Surely not the sinner's personal friends or relations — much less THE ORDER FOR THE BURIAL OF THE DEAD. 353 It is not within the limits of my present design fo discuss the controversy wHch has Lately arisen respecting the use of this Service — how far, for instance, new rubrics, or a Service for non-communicants, or the restoration of discipline, would alleviate or remove the scandal now complained of. But one question does come within the scope of this treatise, and it is this : — Seeing that we must have an Order for Christian burial, and seeing that this order, if it is to be Scriptural, must have for its key-note the Eesurrection of the body — has God given to us any indication of His will respecting the principle on which such a Service should be put together; whether, for instance, we are, in the composition of it, to assume that the dead person will rise to the Eesm-rection of life, or whether we are to devise, if possible, a Service which \n\l suit the cases of the righteous and the wicked alike ? Now, I think that God has given us a very plain indication of what His will is with reference to this matter. He has given to us, in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles, two very striking passages on the doctrine of the Eesurrection of the body. (1 Cor. xv. ; 1 Thess. iv. 14 — 18.) One of these we have incorporated into our ovra Service, and it is a very full, precise, and dogmatic discussion of the matter. It is difficult to conceive of any Service for the Burial of the Dead, which could recognise the Eesurrection of the person buried, without embodying in itseK one or other of these Scriptures. And the incumbent of the parish. And how is discipline to be exercised on the remains of those who have dwelt in large cities where the churchyards tire closed, and the dea.d are buried by such ultc-r strangers as the chaplains of cemeteries ? 2 A 354 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. in both of them the Eesurrection of life is the only one Bet forth, the Eesurrection of damnation not being in either even remotely alluded to. The fullest of these two passages was written for the sake of a Church which contained unworthy members; for in the height of his argument for the Eesurrection, St. Paul had to check himself, and to pause, as it were and to say to them, " Awake to righteousness, and sin not ; for some have not the knowledge of God." And yet in writing to so mixed a Church — having in it unreproved fornicators and incestuous persons — the Holy Spirit withheld the Apostle from bringing in the Eesurrection of condemnation. Our Service, then, in recognising only the Eesurrection of life, is in strict harmony with this marvellous chapter, which speaks of no other. If our Service is read over those respecting whose future we can in reason entertain no hope, so the Apostle's words on the Eesurrection of life reached those who, whilst they continued as they were, could have no •/)art in it. At other times, when the sinner can hear ns, we must speak plainly enough of sin and its consequences — of Christ coming in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God ; but not when the sinner himself cannot hear us, and his kinsfolk, or weeping children, c? distracted widow, can. CHDRCH PRINCIPLES AND ANTIQUITY. 355 CHAFTEB X. CHURCH PRINCIPLES AND ANTIQUITY. Whilst the Clmrcli of England upholds the paramount authority of the Holy Scriptures, she explains these Scriptures in accordance with interi^retations which she finds in the very earliest Christian writers, rather than with interpretations struck out at any later period. Her whole Service-book is framed on a model to be traced to the remotest times. I pui'pose now to consider whether she has Scripture warrant for this. In order to ascertain this, it will be needful to direct attention to the publication of the New Testament. We have the several books of the New Testament bound together in one volume, as if it had all been pub- lished at one time : whereas nearly three-quarters of a century elapsed between the first proclamation of the Gospel and the writing of the last book of the sacred Canon. It was upwards of seventy years before any single Christian teacher or local Church could possibly possess the whole New Testament in its present form. If, in addition to this, we take into consideration the fact, that every book then had to be copied out in manu- script, and if we also remember the very imperfect state of communication in those days, we shall be compelled to admit that a century, at the least, must have elapsed befqre the volume of the New Testament formed the 356 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. text-book of Christian instruction, as it does at the present time. How, then, were the Christians of Apostolic times instructed in Divine truth ? Evidently by the oral teaching of the Apostles and subordinate ministers. The earliest in point of time of all the books of the New Testament is the First Epistle to the Thessalonians ; and in this Epistle the writer takes it for granted that the persons to whom he wrote had been instructed in all Christian truth ; for in this Epistle there is scarcely any doctrinal teaching. Similarly, in writing to the Corinthians, he speaks of them as " enriched in all knowledge ;" and yet this must have been from oral teaching, for they did not possess even one of the four Gospels. We know this, because the Apostle tells them that the account which he gave to them of the institution of the Eucharist had been received by him directly from the Lord, and so could not have been derived from any one of our present Gospels. The Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians were published not earlier than a.d. 61. The Second Epistle to Timothy was certainly not published before the year 67 ; and this Epistle, the latest of all St. Paul's writings, contains a remarkable passage, which proves that, at that date, what he had taught orally was accounted by him to form the principal part of his teaching ; for he writes to St. Timothy, giving him an express direction to adhere to, and to transmit to others, his (St. Paul's) oral teaching. " The things," he says, "which thou hast heard of me before many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." (2 Tim. ii. 2.) It is evident that the Apostle cannot refer here either to his own Epistles, or to any of the then published Gospels. CHUUCH PraNClPLES AND ANTIQUITY. 357 He can only refer to wliat was not at that time committed to writing. The Gospels and Epistles of St. John were not written till the year 96. Let the reader consider for a moment what our New Testament would be without the Gospel of St. John ; and yet two generations of Christians, far beyond any succeeding generation in both knowledge ana love, were without it. It is abundcantly clear from this, that any Christian, living even so late as a hundred or a hundred and twenty years after Christ, had received but a very small pro- portion of his religious knowledge from our present New Testament. He had received the same doctrine, and from the same source, but not in the same written form, for he must have received the bulk of his religious knowledge through the oral teaching of the Apostles, or through the " faithful men " to whom they had committed their teaching. And all this through the special providence of God, for God might have ordered it far otherwise. He might have given a volume, containing nearly all the contents of the present New Testament, on the Day of Pentecost ; in which case there would have been, from the very first, no room for oral teaching or tradition ; but, instead of this, the volume which Ho has given to us is composed of twenty-seven separate documents, published in different parts of the world, during the course of above three-quarters of a century. This is the reason why we of the Church of England defer to antiquity and early Patristic teaching, without making anything except the ^Titten word our standard. If there yet exist the works of any Christian authors who lived just after the times of the Apostles, who enter at all fully into Chi'istian doctrine, and have no motive for inisrepiesenting the teaching then current amongst Chris- 358 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. tians, I cannot see liow we can help setting the highest value on their testimony to the way in which the Scriptures of the New Testament were interpreted in their day. It stands to reason that we must do this, for the Chris- tians of that day had the oral teaching of the Apostles and Apostolic men to enable them to ascertain the true mean- ing of Scripture. Writers of the second century, for instance, had access to nearly the same writings of the Apostles as we have ; they had the same Spirit of God to enlighten them, and they were familiar with that Christian doctrine which was then in existence, which was derived from the oral teaching of the Apostles before the writings of the New Testament were collected into one volume. If we did not give some weight to the testimony of such early writers, we should be wilfully, and of set purpose, putting from us a means which God has given to us of ascertaining the right interpretation of His word. If men with such advantages bear witness that the Scriptures were uniformly interpreted in one way, and not in another, it is a strong proof to us, who hold that one way of interpreting Scripture, that we are right in so doing. The following will serve as an illustration, and make my meaning clear : — • In the third chapter of the Gospel according to St. John, we have our Lord's words, " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the king- dom of God." Here our Lord apparently connects Kegeneration with Baptism. If this bad been the only place in the New Testament in which spiritual benefits were connected with the " wash- ing of water," we should, perhaps, have been tempted to explain it away ; but we have at least twelve other places in which, as I have shown, things pertaining to CHURCH PRlKaPLES Am) ANTIQUITY. 359 salvation are connected with this Sacrament. Taking tliis into account, the overwhelming probability is, that our Lord alluded to the water of Baptism when He spako of being " born of water." The Church of England has adopted this conclusion in the opening sentence of her Service for the Baptism of Infants, and she also directly asserts it in her comment on these very words of our Lord in the " Service for the Baptism of such as are of Riper Years." Now, it must be, in the nature of things, a very strong testimony to her correctness in thus interpreting John iii. 5, to find a Christian waiter who flourished within fifty years of the publication of St. John's Gospel, speaking of Baptism thus : — " Then they (the catechumens) are led by us to the water, and are regenerated by the same process of regene- ration by which we were ourselves regenerated ; for they then receive the laver in the name of God the Father and Master of the Universe, and of oui' Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost. For Christ says, ' Except ye be born again, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.' '* This well-known passage is from Justin Martyr, an author who lived in Palestine ; and the date of his martyrdom is not later than 160. Now, this place bears testimony to the fact, that when our Lord used the word " water," in the expression, " born of water," it was from the very first understood to refer to that baptismal water which God, for some good but inscrutable pui'pose, had joined with the S^jirit, as a means whereby He brings about Regeneration. In a large number of authors who have written within the last three hundred years, we have our Lord's words interpreted as if by " water " He did not mean water ; many, for instance, say that to be " born of water and of 360 CHURCH DOCTrjNE, — BIBLE TRUTH. tlie Spirit " means to be born of the Spirit acting like water. According to this view, our Lord's allusion to water was not merely superfluous, but dangerous and ensnaring, because the Holy Spirit had elsewhere con- nected grace with the application of water in Baptism, and the attentive student of Scripture could not help remem- bering this when he thought of our Lord's words here. Another writer, whose words I have now before me, lays down that by " water " we must here understand tho word of God, so that our Lord means, " Except a man be born of the Scriptures and of the Spirit." Now, these interpretations, however ingenious or seem- ingly spii'itual, are simply traditional. They are " tradi- tions " which can be traced to certain fallible men living about three hundred years ago. Let the reader notice that these traditions set aside the natural meaning of Christ's words, which certainly imply that Regeneration is a joint birth of water and of the Spirit. Men who hold these traditions hold that our Lord instituted a mere form of profession, as a sort of substitute for circumcision, when He ordained Baptism in water in the name of the Trinity. The Chm'ch rejects these traditional interpretations, traceable to certain so-called reformers, and adopts that earlier interpretation traceable to Apostolic times, which makes our Lord's words in John iii. in harmony with those other words of His Spirit which connect grace with the due reception of Baptism. Then, with respect to the other Sacrament, I have remarked that every reference to the Holy Communion in the New Testament implies that it is a means of grace in which the faithful arc, in some true but mysterious and heavenly way, made partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ. CHURCH PRINCIPLES AND ANTIQUITY. 361 Wc have a reference to the mystery of the Holy Com- mmiion in the same author I have quoted above. Justin, in his " Apology," writes thus : " For we do not receive it as common bread or as common drink, but in what way Jesus Chi-ist our Saviour, being thi-ough the Word of God incarnate, hath both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also have we been taught that the food over which thanks- giving has been made by the prayer of the word which is from Him, from which (food) our blood and flesh are by transmutation nourished, is the flesh and blood of Him, the Incarnate Jesus. For the Apostles, in their records which are called the Gospels, have delivered that Jesus so commanded them, that He, having taken bread and given thanks, said, ' Do this in remembrance of Me. This is My body;' and likewise, having taken the cup, and given thanks, He said, ' This is My blood.' " "Whatever obscui'ity there may be about some parts of this passage, it is decisively in favour of the fact that the teaching of the Primitive Church, which in Justin's time must have been mainly derived from the oral teaching of the Apostles, was in accordance with the written teaching of the Apostles in the New Testament ; and every word of theii" written teaching on the Eucharist is in favom' of the high view of the Sacrament — that there is in it a mysterious communication of our Lord's Body and Blood. If the teaching of the Primitive Chm'ch had been rationalizing on this point, Justin Martyr would never have described Eucharistic doctrine in such terms when writing to commend Christianity to the ■ heathen ; for in what he says of the nature of the Eucharist he rather creates a difficulty in the way of the heathen embracing the Gospel, whereas, by representing the Eucharist as a mere memorial, he might have made all clear. The interpretation, then, which makes oiu' Lord's words 362 CHURCH DOCTRIXE,— BIBLE TRUTH. to be mere figure or metaplior, is traditional, to be traced to Zuingle and certain other so-called reformers. It is just as much a tradition as the Invocation of Saints, and nothing like as old. In the early Christian writers (and by " early " I mean those who lived in the century or century and a half after the Apostolic age) we have a considerable literature; not very voluminous, but amply sufficient to show what was the tone and character of the theology of the times when the oral teaching of the Apostles cannot have died out.^ These writings amply prove that this theology was neither Komish, nor Rationalistic, nor Calvinistic, nor Puritan. AVe gather from it that the Christians of the earliest times took a high view of the Sacraments, without be- lieving in Transubstantiation ; that they took a high view of the official character of the Christian ministry, whilst they were altogether ignorant of the claims of the Papacy. Nothing conceived in the tone of a modern Puritan treatise has come down to us from these times. No single treatise of any early Christian wi-iter can be tortured into conformity with the Calvinistic or Methodistic systems. But it is hinted that the mystery of iniquity was then at work, and that this mystery is discernible in the un- doubtedly high tone of every single reference to the two Sacraments which we find in these writers. * Writers of all shades of theological opinions quote these early Christian authors when it serves their purpose. An orthodox Prebbyterian (Dr. Dwight) refers to every passage in them which seems to prove the doctrine of the Trinity, as if it was so much Scripture. They are universally appealed to as eridences of the early reception of the various books of the New Testament. CHURCH PRINCIPLES AND ANTIQUITY. 3G3 Has God given to us in the after history of the Church anything to guide us as to whether this be so or not? The great difference between Primitive and Puritan Theology is, beyond all doubt, the different position assigned to the two Sacraments in the one and in the other. Now let the reader mark and ponder well this fact. It took one thousand years to corrupt Primitive Chris- tianity into Popery, whereas it did not take one hundred years to corrupt Calvinism into Socinianism. It took, I repeat, one thousand years to corrupt Primi- tive Christianity, with its high view of the Church, its ministry and sacraments, into Popery ; and the Christianity so corrupted contained, even in the view of its adversaries, all the essentials of the faith. This Christianity, though incrusted with superstition, held fast to the Godhead of our Lord, and to His Incarnation, and to the truth of His Atoning Sacrifice, and could apply these truths to the consolation of the sinner with as much power as the Eeformation or Post-Pieformation Theology could possibly do. The practical works of such a writer as Anselm^ show ^ Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury in the year 1100, wrote a tract for ihe consolation of the dying who were alarmed on account of sin. The following is an extract from it : — Question. Dost thou believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for thee? Answer. I believe it. Question. Dust thou thank Him for His passion and death ? Answer. I do thauk Him. Question. Dost thou believe that thou canst not be saved except by His death ? AnsLver. I believe it. Come, then, while life remaineth in thee, in His death alone place thy whole trust : in nought else place any trust ; to Hia CHtlllCn DOCTRINK,— BIBLE TRUTH. as firm a hold on Christ by faith as the writings of any divine since Luther's time. Even on such matters as Pre- destination and Election his statements are as strong and as unqualified as those of Cn.lvin or Bradford, or any other Predestinarian writer wno is willing to believe that the Bible teaches something besides Predestination. And he was but one of the many who, shortly before and after his time, thought and taught as he did. It took one thousand years, then, to corrupt Primitive Christianity, with its sacramental teaching, into Popery,^ whereas it did not take one hundred years to corrupt Puritanism, or Ultra-Protestantism, with its anti-sacra- mental teaching, into the rankest Socinianism — a Soci- nianism utterly denying all that makes Christ and His doctrine of value to lost souls. Within half a century from the time of the Reforma- tion, the evil was fully developed, and in less than two centuries (that is, by about 1750) the evil spirit of un- belief had subdued, or all but subdued, to itself the death commit thyself wholly ; with this alone cover thyself wholly iu this enwrap thyself wholly ; and if the Lord thy God will to judge thee, say, " Lord, between Thy judgment and me I present the death of our Lord Jesus Christ ; no otherwise can I contend with Thee." And if He shall say that thou art a sinner, say thou, Lord, I interpose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between ray sins and Thee." If He say that thou hast deserved condemnation, say, "Lord, I set the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between my evil deserts and Thee ; and His merits I offer for those which I ought to have, and have not." If He say that He is wroth with thee, say, ''Lord, I oppose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between Thy wrath and me." And when thou hast completed this, say again, " Lord, I set the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between Thee and me." * Transubstantiation, for instance, was not forced upon the Church as a dogma, tiU Christianity had been above a thousand years in existence. CHURCH PRINCIPLES AND ANTIQUITY. 365 Reformed communions in Poland, in France^ in Holland, in Switzerland. By this time (1750) it had wholly subdued the descen- dants of those who seceded from the Church of this country at the time of the Eestoration, and had taken fii-m root amongst the descendants of the Pilgi'im Fathers in New England. The reader will find unimpeachable evidence of the state of Socinianism into which the Protestantism of Geneva had fallen, in the eighteenth chapter of the " Life of Eobert Haldane," a pious Scotch Congregationalist, who in 1816 undertook a joui-ney to Geneva, and spent some years in endeavom-ing to revive Calvinistic Eeligion in the city of Calvin. His efforts produced no effect whatsoever on the consistory of ministers, except to bring into stronger relief their profession of rampant Socinianism.^ The reader will also find unanswerable testimony to the state of Socinianism into which the rest of Switzerland has fallen, in a work entitled Lectures on Foreign * The crowning proof of their apostasy is to be fonnd in the fact that, twenty years before that period e., before 1777), the infidel D'Alembcrt complimented the venerable company (i. e., the Presby- terian Consistory), lq the French Encyclopaedia, in an article in which he observes, " To say all in one word, many of the Pastors of Geneva have no other religion but a perfect Socinianism, rejecting all that they call ' mysteries.' " The writer of the Life of Haldane proceeds to give another astounding testimony to this state of things from an extract of a letter of Jam- Jacques Eousseau, which is too long fox insertion here. (Fifth Edition, p. 395," It is, liowever, most melancholy to see one who truly loved hig Saviour as Haldane did, throwing all his strength into reviving a form of Christianity which had so miserably failed to keep up even the semblance of beliei in such truths as the Incarnation and Atonement of Christ. It never seems to have struck him that there must he some mdical defect in a system which so rapidly and irremediably declined from the faith once dehvered to the saints. 366 CHU£CH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. Churclies," published by Ministers of tbe Free Churcli of Scotland in 1845. From vol. i. p. 380, it appears that the two principal cantons, Zurich and Vaud, renounced publicly the Helvetic Confession, because of its testimony to the divinity of the Saviour. From pages 382 and 383 of the same book we learn that the Established Protestantism of Holland is in the same state. Eespecting the religious state of Holland, the reader will find much interesting information in an article in the *' Colonial Church Chronicle" for October, 1862 ; the writer of which informs us that " the reality of miracles, the in- spiration of the Bible, the propitiatory character of the Death on the Cross, the Personality of the Holy Ghost, the doctrines of original sin and of eternal punishment, are all denied, not only by the Unitarian, but also by the Groningen, or Liberal party, to which the great bulk of the influence and learning of the nation belongs." But by far the most rapid decline of Continental Protestantism took place in Poland. From a notice of the Racovian brethren, which I have now before me, it appears that an Italian, named George Blandrata, who became a Zuinglian or Calvinist, but who went further than his masters, and on that account was compelled to leave Geneva, went to Poland in 1555, and shortly afterwards to Transylvania, where he was active in sowing Socinian error in a soil so well prepared to receive it, that the Socinians were speedily able to hold Synods of large numbers of ministers, nobles, and com- moners ; and as early as 1585 they had attained a complete and extensive ecclesiastical organization over Poland and Lithuania. " In 1559, a nobleman of Podolia, not one of themselves, but of the Genevan communion, built the Socinians, CHURCH PRINCIPLE.^ AND ANTIQUITY. 367 Ai'ians, &c. a town at Racow, near Sandomir, which eventually became a seat of commerce and of general literatm^e, as its printing facilities were good. Its college sometimes numbered 1,000 students of all nations, creeds, and classes, including the noblest families ; and all who were there left it enemies of the doctrine of the Trinity" ^ So far for Poland. Let us now turn for a moment to the Pui-itanism which, in 1662, seceded from the Church of England mainly on Zuinglian grounds. We are told by a Dissenting authority, that, in 1832, out of 258 Pres- byterian congregations, all but twenty-thi'ee had lapsed into Socinianism.^ The same declension took place in New England. This rapid declension of anti -sacramental Christianity into Socinianism is to me the most extraordinary fact in tho history of Christian opinion. It is not a merely religious declension, to which any Church or body of men may be subject. Let it be remembered that the Protestant bodies which thus lapsed into the denial of Christ's Godhead and Atone- ment separated from the Church of Eome in order to bear witness to the all-sufficiency of the work of Christ, which they conceive that that corrupt Chui'ch obscured by the doctrine of human merit. How was it that bodies which commenced their career with setting forth Christ alone as the sinner's hope, were not preserved from so extraordinary a lapse — a lapse so apparently contrary to the principle of Christ's all- sufficiency, which was their watchword ? It is not, I think, to be accounted for by their rejection of Episcopacy, for there have existed in the Church for ages heretical bodies preserving both Episcopal regimen * From Rev. A. W. Brown's Mauual on Komanism," p. 48. " " Eclectic Review, ' Februajy, 1832. 863 CHURCH DOCTRINEj—BIBLE TIUJTH. ami Apostolical succession. As far as I see, it can only be accounted for by their rejection of that sacramental doctrine whicli is at once tlie great witness to, and safeguard of, the doctrine of the Incarnation. Their auti-sacramental principles led them to explain away, or make void, on Kationalistic grounds, certain of the strongest statements of Christ. The door was conse- quently thrown open to Rationalism. The Spirit was grieved, for the most startling words of the Saviour were made of no account. And so they who began with making void those statements of Christ, which set forth a new birth of water and the Spirit, or that we must eat His Flesh, or that as His Father sent Him, so sent He His ministers, were permitted to stumble at those sayings which set Him forth as the Only-Begotten of the Father, and the Atoning Lamb of God. THE EVANGKLICAL SYSTEM. 369 CHAPTER XI. THE EVANGELICAL STSTEil. In the preceding pages I have set forth a part of the evidence for the truth of Church principles, which wo derive from the word of God. I have brought forward direct Scripture assertions for all that I have advanced respecting the historical form of the Gospel, the grace of the Sacraments, and the functions of the Christian ministry. It is difficult to see how such statements can be set at naught, and yet they are deliberately pushed aside by a very large number of religious Englishmen. It will be needful to consider what pretext professedly enlightened men have for refusing to entertain so many direct Scripture assertions. I have read much of the popular religious literature of the day, and in it I find one ground in particular, which is tacitly rather than avowedly taken by the opponents oi Church principles, which it may be well to examine. It is assumed that we have in the Scriptures a fully, developed scheme of doctrine called the " Evangelica) system," with which system the holding of Church principles is absolutely inconsistent. It is assumed that it is a principal work of the Holy Spirit to give the truly-converted man a right perception of the several parts of this scheme, and of their relations to one another. Now, in answer to this, I say that there is not a single 2 B 370 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. book of the New Testament which could possibly have been written by one who took that view of " the Truth," which in a former generation was taken by such men as John Newton, Thomas Scott, or Eomaine, or the Haldanes, and which is taken by the popular leaders, preachers, and tract writers of the party calling itself Evangelical of tho present day. There is not a single Epistle of St. Paul, which, if it came now to light for the first time, would not be pro- nounced by these men to be the work of a very partially enlightened man. I will first examine the Epistle to the Romans. If tha popular Evangelical scheme is to be found anywhere in the Scriptures, it is to be found here. Now we have, in this Epistle, statements which no modern Evangelical would have thought of writing on such all-important matters as — first, " a saving apprehen- sion of Christ secondly, the means by which we are to be individually assured of an interest in the death of Christ ; and, thirdly, the final perseverance of those who "standby faith." 1st. The Apostle does not write as men do now on such a matter as the very object of that faith by which the sinner is justified, for he asserts that the sinner has " righteousness imputed to him," not when he is " enabled to close in with God's offers of mercy," or v^hen he believes that Christ died for him in particular, but when he be- lieves in God the Father Who raised up God the Son. For we read : " Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but for us also to whom it shall be imputed, if wc believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." (Rom. iv. 23, 24.) Not once, but twice is this asserted in this Epistle : " If thou ehalt confess with thy mouth tho Lord Jesus, and shnlt THE EVANQELICAL SYSTEM. 371 believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, tlioii slialt be saved." (Rom. x. 9.) I have never found in any modem treatise any state ment at all like this respecting what we are to believe in order to be justified.^ In the Apostle's mind, God the Father raising up God the Son is the Supreme Object of justifying faith. So also He is in oui' Lord's words : " He that heareth My word, and helieveth on Him that sent Me, hath everlast- ing life." (John v. 24.) This place, it is to be remarked, is the Gospel in the Service of the Communion of the Sick, So also in the Epistle to the Hebrews : " He is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him" (Hob. vii. 25) ; and in St. Peter : " Who by Him do believe in God, that raised Him up from the dead, and gave Him glory, that youi' faith and hope might be in God " (1 Peter i. 21). In accordance with this, St. Paul says: " Ee- member that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead according to my Gospel." In the next place, the Apostle does not accord with the Evangelical system when he implies that we have a veritable interest in Christ's death, formally made over to us in the Sacrament of Baj)tism, for how otherwise can we understand his words, " Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death ? Therefore we are buried with Him by Baptism into death " ? Therein we are planted with Him in the likeness of ffis death, and so are bid to " reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive to God," and therefore we are not to allow sin to have dominion over us. (Rom. vi.) I have so fully shown the bearing of this place in a * There is no such statement, for instance, in so elaborate a work on Justification as that by Bp. O'Brien. 872 CHURCH DOCTRINK, — BIBLE TRUTH. former chapter (III., page 66), that I can only now refer the reader to what I have there written. In the third place, would any one who held the views now current respecting Calvinistic Election, have ever put into a treatise at all bearing on such a topic, such a passage as the following : " Thou standest by faith. Be not high- minded, but fear. For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee. Behold, therefore, the goodness and severity of God : toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in His goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off"? (Rom. xi. 21, 22.) Here the salvation of those once " standing by faith ** is assumed to be uncertain, and contingent on their "abiding in God's goodness." So that if we could imagine such a thing as this Epistle coming to light now for the first time, it would be at once pronounced by oui' Evangelical party leaders and newspapers to be "un- sound" on three such points as "justification," *' union with Christ," and " final perseverance." Again, would any Calvinist have thought of drawing such a parallel between the effect of Adam's sin as reach- ing all, and Christ's righteousness as reaching all, as we find in the latter part of the fifth chapter? Let any reader who has Thomas Scott's Commentary within his reach, just turn to this good man's remarks on verses 15 — 19, and see the difficulty he has with them. I am not here asserting that there is no difficulty about the passage, or that the solution offered by Scott is wholly beside the mark ; but what I say is this, that one who had Scott's views of " The truth " would never have penned a passage which required so much explanation and so much modification. A. man whose views were conformed to so rigidly ex- THE EVAXGELICAL SYSTEM. 373 elusive a system as tlie Calvinistic, would never have written for publication things which can with such difficulty be made to square with its exclusiveness. Let us now turn to the Epistle to the Hebrews, as the next on account of its length and doctrinal importance. Would any one who had clear views respecting " The truth," i.e., the modern Evangelical scheme, give as the first principles, or the foundations of the doctrine of Christ, the six which we find enumerated in this Epistle (chap. vi. 1 — 4), two of these being " The doctrine of I3aptisms," and of " Laying on of hands " ? We have a list of leading principles in a book ^ written by a clergyman who professed to leave the Church because of its unscriptural character, and yet his list is very dif- ferent from that given in this place by the authority of the Spirit of God — Baptism and the Laying on of hands being of course excluded. Again, would any one who held the Calvinistic scheme contemplate for a moment the irrevocable fall of those " once enlightened," and who had " tasted of the heavenly gift," and had been " made partakers of the Holy Ghost " ? Could he contemplate those who had been sanctified by the blood of the Covenant counting it an unholy thing, or those who had " come to the Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem," and the " blood of sprinkling," " refusing Him that speaketh " ? (Heb. x. 29 ; xii. 22.) Again, let us take the Epistle to the Ephesians. There is no part of God's word which has furnished so many phrases to our modern Evangelical wTiters as the first two chapters of this Epistle have ; and yet there is no part which, taken as a whole, more unequivocally con- demns them as coming short of the mind of the Spirit ; » Key. B. W. Noel's " Church and State." 374 CHURCH DOCTRmE, — BIBLE TRUTH. for tliere is no part of God's word in whicli the indi- vidualizing view of Christianity is so completely sunk in the Church view. In the first two chapters, the election — the calling — the justification — the salvation — even the access to God, are not that of the individual, as such, but of the individual as a member of the Church. It is " we," " ye," not " I," " thou," from first to last. And if the former chapters are thus irreconcilable with the mere individualizing view of God's salvation, what shall we say of the latter ? The contrast between the Apostolic and.the modern Evangelical mode of inculcating the practical duties of social and domestic life is almost ridiculous. Think of husbands being commanded to love their wives, and wives to obey their husbands, not with a view of demonstrating their justification or election, but because " Christ loved the Church," and because the " Church is the body of Christ." (Ephcs. v. 22—30.) Again, take the fii'st Epistle to Timothy. In this most important pastoral Epistle (dealing more fully than any other with the duties and obligations of the ministry), Justification by Faith, or Final Perseverance, are not mentioned ; and yet we have in it such statements as the following : — " Slie shall be saved in childbearing (rather by the childbearing), if they continue in faith and charity, and holmess, with sobriety " (ii. 15). " Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, well reported of for good works : if slie have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relievca tlie afflicted ; if she have diligently followed every good work" (V. 10). " Jvich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicato, THE EVAXGETJCAL SYSTEM. 375 laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life " (ji. 17). Again, the truly enlightened man is supposed to be guided to a right apprehension of the true place of certain docti'ines in the scheme of Evangelic truth. Fii'st, con- viction of sin ; then a saving apprehension of Christ ; after these, Sanctification. These must be expressed in their right order. Any reversal of this order so as to put Sanctification first, at once stamps the person so com- mitting himself as " unacquainted with the truth." Now, it is a fact that the Apostle of the Gentiles scarcely ever observes this order. He continually puts Sanctification or its equivalents first, i.e., before Faith or Justification, and its equivalents. The following are instances : — ^ Ye are washed, ye arc sanctified, ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God " (1 Cor. vi. 11). " We are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, because Grod hath from the beginning chosen you to salration thiough sanctification of the Spirit, and behef of the truth " 2 Thess. ii. 13). "Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned " (1 Tim. i. 5 . " Let no man despise thy youth, but be thou an example of the believers in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity " (1 Tim. iv. 12). " But thou, O man of God, flee these things, and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness " CI Tim, vi. 11). "Flee also youthful lusts, but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace with them that call on the Lord out of a pm^e heart " (2 Tim. ii. 22). Hearing of thy love and faith which thou hast towai-d the Lord Jesus " (Philemon 5). *' But speak thou the things which • become sound doctrine : that the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience " (Tit. ii. 2). 376 CHUECH DOOTRIKE, — BIBLE TRUTH. This is the covenant I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord : I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their miiuld will I write tli(;m, and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more " (Heb. x. 16, 17). Now let us turn to the Epistle of St. James. We read in it the following : — " Let every man he swift to hear, slow to speak " (i. 19). " Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotttd from the world " (i. 27). Ye see, then, how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" ;^ii. 24). " My bretliren, be not many teachers (diddo-KaXoi), knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation" (iii. 1). *' Is any sick among you ? let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pi ay over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord " (v. 14). Supposing that a document containing these things, and purporting to be written by an Apostle, were to come to light now for the first time, would it not be summarily condemned as written by a totally unenlightened man, and especially as we find in it not one reference to the Atonement ? And yet we believe that this Epistle is an integral part of that God-inspired Scripture which is profitable for doctrine. Again, let us take the General Epistle of St. John. I{ the Apostle had the same view of what constitutes a truly enlightened man which many now have, would he have ever wTitten such words as "He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light " ? Or, again, would he have given as a sign of regeneration, *' Every one that loveth is born of God " ? or, above all, would he have limited the cleansing power of the blood TIIK EVANGELICAL SYSTEM. 377 of Clii'ist in such, words as "If we walk in tlie liglit as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin " ? Again, let us notice the answer given by S't. John the Baptist to the people who asked him the question, What shall we do ? St. Luke records that he answered, " He that hath two coats let him impart to him that hath none," (Luke iii. 11.) Again, let us take the words of the angel to Cornelius, " Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God." (Acts x. 4.) Having now considered the words of the servants, let us turn to those of their Master. Among His sayings are the following : — *' Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy " (Matt. V. 7). " Love your enemies, bless them that curse you — that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven" (Matt. V. 44, 45). " Forgive us om* debts, as we forgive our debtors." "If ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive yjur trespasses" (Matt. vi. 14, 15). " Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge ye shall be judged " (Matt. vii. 1). Come, ye blessed of My Father, iuherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world — for I was an hungered and ye gave Me meat " (Matt. xxv. 34, 35). " When ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any, that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses " (Mark xi. 25). " Love yoiu- enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for notliing again, and your reward sltall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest " (Luke vi. 35). " Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven " (Luke vi. 37). " That on the good ground are they, which in an honest and 378 CIlURCn DOCTmNf';j— niBLE TRUTH. good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience " (Luke viii. 15). " Fear not, little flock ; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell that ye have, and give alms " (Luke xi. 32, 33). " Give alms of such things as ye have ; and, behold, all things are clean unto you " (Luke xi. 41). " Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteous- ness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations (Luke xvi. 9). " He that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in God " (John iii. 21). " If ye love Me, keep My commandments : and I will pray tho Father, and He shall give you anotlier Comforter." " He that bath My commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me ; and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father." " If a man love Me he will keep My words, and My Father will love him " (John xiv. 15, 16, 21, 23). "If ye keep My commandments ye shall abide in My love" (John XV. 10). The Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved Me " (John xvi. 27). He Who uttered these, and many similar words, must have been thoroughly cognisant of any system of truth on which it was His blessed will that His Spirit should enlighten His people. He surely can see the truth as it is. Would the Redeemer have ever said words like these ; or would He through His Spirit have brought these words to the remembrance of the Evangelists, so that they should insert them into the book of the New Covenant, if it had been His will that His people should take that view of Christian truth which is called the " Evangelical System ?" The thing is utterly incredible, for the system I allude to is absolutely intolerant of any counter statement. And consistently so, for if the Holy Spirit bo giTCu to THE EVANGKLICAL SYSTEM. 379 inspire Christians with clear views of the way of solva- tion, they must have those clear views, and the only test of their having them is their ability to express them clearly. So that the Holy Spirit is tacitly assumed to be given to enable Christians to select certain texts or passages out of the rest of Scripture, to join them together, quite apart from their context, in a sort of logical chain, and to wipe out of the mind, and make as thougli they had never been written, a vast number of other places of Scripture, including amongst them some of the most striking sayings of Christ Himself. Now I do not for a moment bring forward these sayings of Christ and of His Apostles, in order to loosen the reader's hold on the leading truths of the Evangelical system ; those, I mean, which it has in common with the Catliolic faith. Such truths are the life of my own soul, and my only hope. But I bring them forward for the purpose of convincing the reader that, if statements like these, all upholding in very strong language human merit, are not really inconsistent with a right apprehen- sion of Gospel truth, much less need Sacramental doctrine be inconsistent with a right apprehension of the same truth. For let the reader remember, that the idea of human desert or merit cannot possibly adhere to a right view of Sacraments. That is, it cannot be attached to the higli view, but may, and, in fact, does adhere to the low view. For the high view is, that the Sacraments are channels of gi'ace, and that God has chosen, as the outward sign of Sacraments, the meanest and commonest things possible, so tliat men cannot, if they think at all, rest in the mere channel or means, but are necessarily carried back in thought to the grace of the Saviour, Who has ordained 380 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. tliem : whereas, according to tlie low view, Sacraments are works ; for in them we are supposed to make a profession of our individual hold on Chiist — we blazon forth our faith in Him. Any grace which we hope to receive in Sacraments we can only hope to receive through the free mercy of Christ. A man may imagine that some degree of merit attaches to almsgiving, or to repentance, or to forgiveness of injuries, all which things our Lord expressly states to be needful to salvation ; but it is impossible for him to persuade himself that any such merit belongs to being washed by God's minister with a little water in the Name of the Trinity, or to receiving a morsel of consecrated bread. If such an idea has entered into his head, it is because it has been injected into it by the opponents of Sacramental grace. The true doctrine of the Sacraments is all on the side of free grace. It is a part of the free grace element of Christianity, and was so considered by the Reformers, Doth in Germany and England.^ In the preceding pages I havo given a very small part of the evidence which I might have given of the extraor- dinary contrariety between the expressions used in the word of God, and the popular statement of the Evangelical system.* ^ See particularly the extracts from Luther, Melancthon, and Cratimer, which I have given in Appendix B. of "The Second Adam and the New Birth." • I have not refeired to the Old Testament, from which I could have brought forward much to the purpose, and this not from the strictly legal books, such as Leviticus and Deuteronomy, but from the words of God respecting the acceptance of Abraham. He is cited by St. Paul as the especial type of tlie Christian, as one who is justified by faith, and yet God himself says of Abraham^ "AH THE EVANGELICAL SYSIiJi. 331 I migiit liave taken a large number of phrases from the most approved writers of this school, and have shown that nations of the earth shall be blessed in him. For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and Judgment, that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that ichich He hath spoken of him" (Gen. xviii. IS, 19). Again : — "• By Myself hare I sworn, saith the Lord : for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son : that in blessing I will bless thee, &c. ; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because ihou hasi obeyed My voice " (Gen. xxii. 16). Again, speaking to Isaac :— " In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because that Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." Xow are these words of God contrary to His words by His servant St. Paul? Assuredly not; but they certainly do bind upon us most strongly that we must not always speak in one way, and square our teaching and thinking to one rule. Again, I might have cited much from the acknowledged Evan- gelical books, such as the Psalms, Isaiah, and Daniel. See the following places: Isaiah xxxiii. 15. '* He that walketh righteously and speaketh uprightly ; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil. He shall dwell on high, his place of defence shall be the munitions of rocks. . . . Thine eyes shall seethe King in His beauty." — xlviii. IS. " O that thou hadst hearkened to My commandments ! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea." — Ivi. 1. " Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment and do justice, for 3Iy salvation is near to come, and I^Iy righteousness to be revealed." — Iviii. 7. "Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house ! when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him ; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh ? Then Bhall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily, and thy righteousness shall go before thee." Again, verse 10. If thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and 382 CflUIlCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. there are no expressions at all corresponding to them to be found in the Bible. I might have set forth a large amount of Scriptm*e lan- guage, which those who adhere to the Evangelical system eschew the use of altogether. Now, if those who adhere to this system require as the sign that the Holy Spirit has savingly enlightened a man, that he should make use of certain phrases and eschew the use of certain other phrases, and if the inspired Scripture writers avoid the use of those phrases which are looked for, and freely use the others which are regarded with suspicion, then one cannot honestly avoid the conclusion, that it is contrary to God's will that we should demand as a sign of a heart enlightened by His Spirit, conformity to that mode of arranging and expressing the doctrines of grace with which so vast a mass of Scripture is at variance. satisfy the afflicted soul ; then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noon-day." Again, let the reader refer to the following places in the book of Psalms : Psahn xviii. 20, 21, 25, 26 ; xxvi. 1, 2, 6 ; xxxiv. 12—16 (quoted 1 Peter iii. 10); xxxvii. 26—38; xli. 1 ; 1. 23; ci. 2; cvi. 3, 4 ; cxii. (especially verse 9, quoted 2 Cor. ix. 9) ; cxix. 1, 2, 6, 22, 31 ; cxxv. 4. If it be God's will that His ministers should bind upon men the strict enunciation of the Evangelical system, then the use of the book of Psalms containing such places as the foregoing, is abso- lutely dangerous ; for no after explanation of the places can remove the effect of the first impression we receive from them. See also Daniel iv. 27. " "SVTierefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity." I remember that some years ago Lord Shaftesbury, then Lord Ashley, was reproved by the "Kecord" newspaper, for having cited these words of God's Holy Spirit in a speech of his upon the state of the poor. PEliACUlNG AND SACRAMENTS. 383 CHAPTER XII PBEACHING AND SACBAMENTS. It may be well here to notice an objection to tbe view of the Christian ministry and Sacraments wliich is set forth in the preceding chapters. We are reminded that the Apostles, and St. Paul in particular, especially designate themselves as teachers and preachers, and not as priests or administrators of Sacra- ments ; and it is assumed that there is some antagonism between '"preaching" and "administering Sacraments," or, at least, that the importance ascribed to preaching necessarily takes from the importance of Sacraments. Now, unquestionably, preaching or teaching is the first thing in the Kingdom of God, for without it we cannot apprehend that the Kingdom of God is His kingdom, or that Jesus Christ is His Son, or that the Blood of Christ is oui* Atonement, or indeed any tnith of God whatsoever. But the matter at issue is, do we " preach " as an end or as a means ? Do we preach for mere preaching's sake, or do we preach to lead men to something fui'ther? ^Ye shall be able to ascertain the respective places of preach- ing and Sacraments, and the folly of instituting any comparison between them, by considering the great Pentecostal sermon and its effects. This sermon, preached by St. Peter, was followed by the conversion of a large number of persons. It led to those persons asking what they were to do to be saved ; 884 CHURCH DOCTRINE,— BIBLE TRUTH. and this led tlie Apostle to bid them "repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins." So that the first Christians learnt through the preacJiing of the Apostles that on their repentance they must be grafted into Christ's n^ystical body. In telling them this, the Apostle acted strictly on the commission which he had received from his Master, which ran thus : — " Preach the Gospel to every creature. He that belie veth and is baptized shall be saved." Again, we read that these converts continued steadfastly in the fellowship of the Apostles (Acts ii. 42). How is it that they did this ? Evidently because of the " preaching " of the Apostles. The Apostles, no doubt, taught their converts what their Master had taught them, about His Church or Kingdom ; that it was the vine of which He was the stem — that He had prayed most earnestly for its unity on His way to the Garden of Gethsemane, and 8uch-like things ; and this teaching or preaching led to the continuance of the converts in the " fellowship of the Apostles," i.e., in the unity of the Church, and in all that continuance in such unity involves ; and this fact, because of its importance, is duly chronicled by the sacred writer. Again, these converts are said to have continued stead- fastly in the " breaking of bread." This they never would have thought of doing, unless the Apostles had preached to them that Jesus was the " bread from heaven " — that the bread which He gives is His Flesh; and that on the night of His betrayal He had blessed and broken bread, saying, " Take, eat, this is My body." Their steadfast continuance in the reception of the Eucharist was the consequence of their attending to the " preaching " of the Apostles. "We turn to St. Paul. He was appointed a " preacher, and an Apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles " (2 Tim. i. 2). PREACHING AND SACILAMliNTS. 385 But what truth does He assure us that, above all other truths, he was specially commissioned to teach ? He declares that a special dispensation of grace was committed to him to make known a certain mystery, and that this mystery is, that " the Gentiles should be fellow- heirs and of the same body;" i.e., the mystical body of Christ (Ephes. iii. 6). From this we learn that, in the eyes of St. Paul, the " truth as it is in Jesus " compre- hends all " Chui'ch," or " body of Christ " truth : and so the particular Epistle in which the Apostle thus states the natm'e of the revelation vouchsafed to him is pervaded with Chui'ch truth, or the Church aspect of union with Christ. Now let us turn to his other teaching. If we have his teaching, or the substance of his teach- ing, in the Epistle to the Romans, then the doctrine that Baptism is a means of union in Christ's death, in order that we may " walk in newness of life," is a part of St. Paul's teaching and preaching. If we have his teaching in his first letter to the Corinthians, then, to be consistent, he must have preached that the " bread which we break " in the Eucharist is the " communion of the body of Christ," and that it is the pledge to the believer of his continued incorporation in Christ (1 Cor. x. 16, 17). His preaching or oral teaching can hardly have differed from his teaching by letter, and that it did not we have a proof in the effect which it produced upon the jailer. In answer to his question, " What shall I do to be saved ?" it was said to him by the Apostle, " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house :" and then (it is said) the Apostle and Silas " spake to him the word of the Lord," which " word of the Lord " must have comprehended something to the purpose respecting 2 c 386 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH, Sacraments ; for it is immediately added that " he was baptized, he and all his straightway." This could not have taken place so quickly, unless he had been taught that some great benefit from Christ depended upon baptism. But we are reminded that St. Paul was sent by Christ " not to baptize but to preach the Gospel ;" and that he thanked God that he had " baptized none of the Corinthians save Crispus and Gains." This place is gravely cited, as if St. Paul meant to dis- parage his Master's ordinance, and to set himself above the other Apostles, for whereas Christ gave to them a commission to preach aud baptize, St. Paul, it is assumed, considered himself called to preach only, i.e., to perform the higher act and not the lower.^ There is no need to adopt an interpretation so inconsis- tent with St. Paul's regard to the words of his Divine Master, for he himself tells us why he thanked God that he had baptized so few of the Corinthians, which was, " lest any should say that he had baptized in his own name;" lest, that is, he should be thought to have given the least occasion of division in the Corinthian Church. St. Paul's words and acts are really a testimony to the importance of Baptism, for they teach ns that it is the same, and conveys the same benefits, by whomsoever it is administered. He thanks God that he had not baptized simply because the Baptism of any minister produced exactly the same effect as his. Baptism being an act of God rather than of men, and so its effect is independent of the Ecclesiastical position of the administrator. St. Paul unquestionably looked upon teaching as his * This is actually the inference drawn in Mr. Kyle's tract on ** Kegeneration." PREACHING AND SACRAMENTS. 387 special province (if I may be allowed to use siich a term), because God had given him special gifts to proclaim to the world the mystery respecting the Gentiles being of the same body in Christ (Ephes. iii. 6), and he did not so regard his power to administer Sacraments, because there was nothing in it special to him, for the most obscure administrator of the Holy Communion offered to the faithful all that an Apostle could communicate to them in that Sacrament. Even supposing that Sacraments are, in some respects, secondary, yet a sacondary matter may become of primary consideration if it involves submission to God : and Sacra- ments involve a twofold act of submission — submission of the whole man to receive the ordinance, and submission of the heart and mind to receive the mystery. If there be danger fi*om abuse of Sacraments, there is danger also from abuse of preaching. So, at least, the Apostle thinks, when he speaks of the time when men " will, after their own lusts, heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears " (2 Tim. iv. 3). I should not however have endeavoured, at such length, to show the absurdity of any comparison between preach- ing and Sacraments, were it not that I desire to prepare the way for the following question and its answer. How is it that such a comparison has ever been instituted ? It is because preaching has been regarded as an end, not as a means. They who impugn Sacramental truth do it because they believe that preaching produces the effect which the Apostles ascribe to Sacraments. IThey suppose that if a man, under the influence of the preacher, is enabled to exercise an act of faith in the 388 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. and then so cemented that no Sacraments can add anything to it, and so they are only means of proclaiming it. Such teaching is at direct issue with Apostolic teaching, especially with St. Paul's. For the Apostles do not teach that a man is saved as soon as he believes, even though he exercises the most lively act of faith. His salvation, if he be a heathen, is in some sense suspended till he receive the " bath of New Birth." (Titus iii. 5 ; 1 Peter iii. 21.) He has to " eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and to drink His blood," if he desires to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him (John vi. 56). He must partake of the " one bread " — the " communion of the body of Christ," if he is to have assurance of his continuance in the one body (1 Cor. X. 16, 17). He must keep Christ's commandments if he would abide in Christ's love (John xv. 10). If he bears malice or hatred in his heart, then he has not ' eternal life abiding in him " (1 John iii. 15). He must walk in the light as Christ is in the light, if the blood of Christ is to cleanse him from all sin (1 John i. 7) ; and he is " made partaker of Christ, if he hold the beginning of his confidence steadfast unto the end" (Heb. iii. 14), So that the question really is, not whether the ministers of Christ are preachers, and not priests, but what, as preachers, have they to preach and teach about such things as the Church and the Sacraments. If the ministers of Christ will but preach and teach what Christ and the Apostles taught about the Chui'ch, and the means of grace, there will be little room (amongst true believers, at least) for instituting comparisons between their various functions, and little inclination to dispute about the name of their office. CHURCH PRINCIPLES AXD FREE TirOUGHT. 389 CHAPTEJR XIIJ. CHURCH PEIXCIPLES AND FREE THOUGHT. We shall now briefly consider how far such matters as " free thought," the " higher criticism," and •'• progress " affect Chui-ch principles. Chm*ch pi'inciples are founded upon those statements of Christ and His Apostles which set forth the grace with which God is pleased to accompany the right adminis- tration and reception of the Sacraments, the ministerial commission and functions of the Apostles and subordinate ministers, and the spiritual status and privileges of the members of the mystical body. Now I assert that all the results of modern criticism pat together do not in the least degree affect the inter- pretation of these statements. Of course, if the " higher criticism " were to affect the trustworthiness of the whole Bible as a reliable record of what Jesus and His Apostles said and did, it necessarily would take from the value of particular statements found in the Bible. But beyond this, I cannot see that the proof of Chiu-ch principles which we derive from Scripture is at all affected, or likely to be affected, by the results of modern criticism. For instance, the Church, to a great extent, rests her doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration on our Lord's well- kno^Ti words in His discoui'se with Nicodemiis. If the progi-ess of enlightened criticism " tends to throw doubts Qn the historical accuracy of St. John's Gospel as a whole, 390 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. then, of course, this saying of Christ shares in the general uncertainty. The same criticism which would lead us to question the authority of John iii. 5, equally tends to shake our faith in every other matter which this Gosj^el reveals ; as, for instance, the Incarnation, the Eesurrection of the body, and the General Judgment. But, if it be granted that the third chapter of this Gospel contains an accurate account of what our Saviour actually said, then no modern criticism can in the least degree affect the interpretation of John iii. 5, or wsaken its force on the side of the Church view of Baptism. No manuscript gives any other reading. No ancient version gives any other rendering. No difference of translation can be honestly suggested. It is quoted as referring to Eegeneration in Baptism by writers as old as Hermas and Justin Martyr. When Faustus Socinus, three hundred years ago, said that the word " water " should be under stood to mean repentance, he went as far as a man can well go on the side of rationalism or " free handling." If the Evangelist gives a faithful report of the words which Christ used, then nothing can be made of them except what the Church has made, for on the Church theory you have every word in its natural meaning taken into full account. Eationalistic, or Puritan principles of interpretation can give no reason why our Lord, by introducing an allusion to the material element, should have set forth a less spiritual and less intellectual interpretation of the term New Birth, when, on rationalistic grounds, He ought to have given a more spiritual one. Modern criticism or " free thought " is powerless against this statement of Christ's. It can contemptuously push aside the Church view; but, taking the words as they stand, it can suggest nothing new — nothing which older CHURCH PRINCIPLES AND FREE THOUGHT. 391 unbelief has not long ago suggested, and which the Church has long ago rejected. And so with the Eucharist. All that can possibly be said in favour of the merely memorial or figui'ative view, was said three hundred years ago ; and after all has been said, the fact remains, that on this view Chiist's words are an exaggeration, for they are suggestive of some unspeakable blessing attached to the reception of His fiesli and hlood, when all that He really is suppo-sed to mean is the ordinary blessing of illumina- tion, which is derived, not from His flesli, but from His S;pirit. These Eucharistic words ai'e far above the reach of criticism. Manuscripts, ancient versions, accounts of Jewish cus- toms at the celebration of the Passover, Hebrew and Syriac philology — all these, as far as I can see, thi'ow not one ray of light upon the mystery. The Eationalism of the nineteenth centuiy can say nothing which the Socinianism of Poland did not say three hundi-ed years ago — nothing, I mean, to the point ; and THE point is, that Christ chooses words which seem to attach certain benefits to the communion of His lower natui'e of flesh and blood, when words attaching the same benefits to the communion of His higher natm-e of mind and Spirit would have been more intelligible, would have obviated every difficulty, and saved the Church fi-om eighteen hundred years of misconception. So with absolution. Such words as " Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them " seem too plain for criticism. You might as well apply criticism to the Ten Commandments or to the Beatitudes. But the plain signification of these words is unpopular, and so the line taken is to put forward 392 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. somctliing about them whicli sounds evangelical, or broad, or liberal; wliicli, in the present state of feeling, is pretty sure to be accepted, but which evades the whole difficulty. For, after every possible limitation has been taken into account, the fact remains, that the persons to whom these words were spoken had power given to them to remit or retain the sins of their brethren. Now exactly the same objections stand against an Apostle remitting sins in the first century, as stand against any ordinary minister remitting sins in the nineteenth. If God remits sins now altogether independently of the action of any ministry which He has ordained, so He would have done then. If God then chose to convey forgiveness wholly or in part through human agency, so He will now. These statements of Christ respecting Absolution and Sacraments, have to do with the conveyance of grace from God to man, and so they must be unalterable in their application. However outward circumstances may change, the things which relate to forgiveness, and the conveyance of grace from God to sinners, cannot change. All the progress of mankind since the Cr-dcifixion of Christ has in nowiso altered the state of matters betwixt God and man.* * *• It is plain, therefore, that in divinity there cannot be & progress analogous to that which is constantly taking place in pharmacy, geology, and navigation. A Christian of the fifth century with a Bible, is neither better nor worse situated than a Christian of the nineteenth with a Bible; candour and natural acuteness being, of course, supposed equal. It matters not at all that the compass, printing, gunpowder, steam, gas, vaccination, and a thousand other discoveries and inventions which were unknown in the fifth centuiy, are familiar to the nineteenth. None of these discoveries and inventions has the smallest bearing on the question CHURCH PRINCIPLES AND FREE THOUGHT. 393 In whatever way tlie death of Christ was efficacious eighteen centuries ago in procuring forgiveness, so it is now. Whatever terms respecting the recejDtion of forgiveness God made then, He will assuredly hold to now, unless He has inaugurated some thii'd dispensation with credentials equal in power to those with which He commended to men's notice the fii'st and second covenants. If men had then to be justified by faith, so they must be now. If Baptism was joined with faith as needful, so it must be now. If Baptism was the " bath of new birth " then, so it is now. If it " saved" men in some sense then, it will save them in that sense now. If men had then to " eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and to drink His blood," in order to have eternal life, so they must now. If eating Christ's flesh and drinking Christ's blood were then the fittest terms in which to express the great hidden reality, so they are now. If God established a ministry of reconciliation then by saying, " As my Father sent Me, so send I you. Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them," then that ministry is in existence now, and these words set forth its commission and functions. I cannot see that the Church has outgrown the Scrip- ture doctrine of the Sacraments, either in knowledge or in holiness. Certainly not in knowledge, for in the days when these Sacramental truths were first enunciated, it was said to Christians, " Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." Certainly not in love or holiness, for it was said to whether man is justified by faith alone, or whether the invocation of saints is an orthodox practice." — From Lord "Macaulay's " Review ot Ranke's History of the Pope?." 894 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. primitive Christians by an inspired Apostle, " I am per- suaded of yoUj my brethren, that ye are full of goodness." I cannot, for my part, find in the works of the leaders of the " free thought " movement, any progress towards a higher or deeper theology than that of fifteen hundred years ago, but rather the reverse. This progress appears to me, not to take as its starting-point the first fact in the New Testament, and not to set before itself as its goal the one hope of the Apostles and Primitive Saints. It does not start from the Incarnation, and does not reach forth towards the Second Coming of Christ, and the Resurrec- tion of the Body. One raised up by God more than fourteen hundred years ago, to defend the truth of His Son's Incarnation, wrote thus : — " Christ is shown to be the bond of imity between us and the Divine Nature, binding us to Himself as man, but as God, being by nature in God His own Father. For in no other way could the nature, subject to corruption, rise aloft to incorruption, unless the nature, superior to all cor- ruption and change, had descended to it, lightening in a manner that which ever sunk downwards, and raising it to its own excellences, and by communion and commingling with itself, all but uplifting it from the conditions CONFORMABLE TO CREATED NATURE, and reforming, accord- ing to itself, that which is not so of itself. "We are perfected into unity with God the Father thi'ough Christ the Mediator. For, having received into ourselves, bodily and spiritually, Him who is by nature and truly the Son, who hath an essential oneness with Him [the Father], we, becoming partakers of the nature which is above all, are glorified." ^ • Cyril of Alexaudria, quoted in notes to Pusey's Sermon on " Real Presence," p. 644. CHURCH PRINCIPLES AND FREE THOUGHT. 395 In these words of St. Cyril I recognise " free thought," but then it is thought " free " to mount up. It takes hold of Scriptiue truths, not to pull them down to its own level, but to rise, by their help, to the top of that ladder which reaches from earth to heaven ; and that ladder is tlie human nature of Christ, in us, and upon the very throne of the Most High God. If the Church has progressed beyond these thoughts and words of Cyril, that progress is assui*edly not to be discovered in the leading writers of our present " free- thought " school. Their higher criticism has led them, I doubt not, to avoid certain mistakes about types and prophecies, into which Cyril may have fallen, but they have it not in them to say what he says about the exaltation of human nature in that Second Adam, in Whom all His brethi-en who adhere to Him by a living faith are raised up and made to sit together in heavenly places. Their " free thought " may bring out well the touches of human nature with which God's word abounds — sweet these touches are, and unaccountably have they been missed by those who have professed to di'aw out the fulness of Scripture truth — but to reveal these is not the great purpose of God in Scrip- ture ; and our free thought does not take to, and is not at home in, the revelation of Divine nature, to reveal which is the purpose of God in the inspiration of Holy Scriptui'e. In writers of this school I find, as a rule, an unac- countable reticence respecting the essential Deity and Incarnation of the Son of God. Now, "free thought" employing itscK upon the things contained in God's word, and not taking the Incarnation into account at every turn, seems to me to be as absurd as it would be for " free thought " to busy itself upon the system of 896 CHURCH DOCTRINE, — BIBLE TRUTH. the universe, and not to take into account the attraction of gravitation If the Humiliation of the Eternal Son of God, in the way in which it is revealed to us in the first chapters of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, be a fact, if it actually took place under the circumstances there recorded, then the whole economy of which it is the beginning and root is raised up from earth to heaven. It seems to me drivelling folly to rationalize on, and insist upon giving some commonplace meaning to Church or Sacramental doctrine, whilst you accept the Incarnation as stated in the creeds. For if the manhood be actually taken into the Godhead in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, and if this Jesus founded a Church, then it is only in harmony with such a beginning that this Church shculd have some mysterious relationship to its Divine Head. If Christ were a mere man, full of God's grace, but not the Second Person of the Eternal Trinity, then such statements as " I am the Vine, ye are the branches," " Ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular," " We are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones," would seem highly coloured, and so not to be taken as setting forth any supernatural or mystical union. They would be, in point of fact, exaggerations. They must bo diluted, if they are to accord with the prosaic reality that Christ is a divinely-gifted Socrates, and that, after all, our relationship to Him can be only that of scholars to a teacher, or of subjects to a king. But if Christ be, in very deed, God's Only-Begotten Son in our nature, then, with reverence be it spoken, no grace towards man can be too great after such a channel of grace is opened. If the Only-Begotten Son took our nature that, through that nature, He might convey grace to us, CHURCH PRrN'CIPLES AND FREE THOUGHT. 397 then sucli grace cannot well be small, soon told, and its fulness easily apprehended. Then, in all reason, that Church which Christ has so closely associated with Him- self in icord, must in very deed be mystically joined to Him ; and those statements which imply some extraordi- nary union with Him, must be understood as if they set forth high realities which human reason cannot grasp, and human speech cannot utter, rather than commonplace matters which our reason is not only well able to grasp, but also to embody in more intelligible terms. And as with the Church, so with the Sacraments by which the mystical union of the whole body with the Eedeemer is inaugurated or cemented. It seems to me in the highest degi'ee irrational to tone down the words in which Chi'ist or His Spirit set forth the mysterious functions of Sacraments, whilst we hold the infinite mystery of the Person of Him Who ordained them, and whilst we are forced to admit that His words, on the face of them, seem to set before us some strange and unearthly bonds betwixt us and Him. Those words of His which have to do with His Church, and His Ministry and His Sacraments, mysterious and startling though they seem, are yet in harmony with the first fact of His economy, and with the last. The first fact — that when the King of Glory took upon Him to deliver man He did not abhor the Yii'gin's womb ; and the last — that when He shall appear we shall be like Him, for we shaU see Him as He is. THE END. LOXBOX: PRINTED BT WILLIAil CLOVTES AKD SON'S, LIMITED, STAJIFOED STREET AND CHAUraG CROSS. i York Street, Covext Garden, Janiiaiy 1888. SELECTED LIST OF THEOLOGICAL WORKS published by GEORGE BELL & SONS. ALFORD (Dean). The Greek Testament. With a critically revised Text ; a Digest of various Readings ; Marginal References to Verbal and Idiomatic Usage ; Prolegomena ; and a Critical and Exegetical Commentary. For the Use of Theo- logical Students and Ministers. By the late Henry Alford, D.D., Dean of Canterbury. 4 vols. 8vo. 5/. 2s. Sold separately. The New Testament for English Readers. Con- taining the Authorised Version, with additional Corrections of Readings and Renderings, ^larginal References, and a Critical and Explanatory Commentary. In 4 Parts. ll. 14^. ()d. Sold separately. BARRETT (A. C.) Companion to the Greek Tes lament. For the Use of Theological Students and the Upper Forms in Schools. By A. C. Barrett, M.A., Caius College. ^th edition, revised. Fcap. 8vo. ^s. BARRY (Dr.) Notes on the Catechism. For the Use of Schools. By the Rev. Canon Barry, D.D,, Principal of King's College, London. 8/// edition. Fcap. 2s. BLEEK (F.) An Introduction to the Old Testament ByF. Bleek. 2 vols. los. See Bohn' s Libraries. {Catalogues free on application.) BLENCOWE (E.) Plain Sermons by the Rev. E. Blencowe. Vol. I. dth edition. Fcap, 8vo. 6s. BLUNT (J. S.) Readings on the Morning and Evening Prayer and the Litany. By J. S. Blunt, yd edition. Fcap. 8vo. 3i-. dd. Life after Confirmation. Revised editioii. iSmo. is. BURBIDGE (Rev. E.) Liturgies and Offices of the Church for the use of English Readers, in illustration of the Growth and Devotional value of the Book of Common Prayer, with a Catalogue of the remains of the Library of Archbishop Cranmer. By Edward Burbidge, M.A. (late Scholar of Em- manuel College, Cambridge), Rector of Backwell, Somerset. Crown 8vo. 9^. 2 George Bell and Soni CARTER (T. T.) The Devout Christian's Help to Meditation on the Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Containing Meditations and Prayers for every day in the year. Edited by the Rev. T. T. Carter, Rector of Clewer. 2 vols. Fcap. 8vo. I2J. Or in five Parts. Part 1. 2s. 6d. ; Part IL 2s. ; Part III. 2s. ; Part IV. 2s. 6d, ; Part V. 2s. 6d. COLERIDGE. Aids to Reflection; Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit ; and Essays on Faith and the Common Prayer-book. New Edition, revised, small post 8vo, 35-. 6d. ' Few books in literature furnish food for so much thought as the "Aids to Reflection." No reader who has the power to generate an idea can rise from its perusal without the sense of having taken an in\ igorating draught.' . i cadeiiiy. COWLEY-BROWN (G. J.) Daily Lessons on the Life of our Lord on Earth, being the Gospel Narrative in the Words of the Evangelists. With a short Exposition ar- ranged for Daily Reading in the Household. By the Rev. G. J. Cowley-Brown, Incumbent of St. John's, Edinburgh. Two vols, demy 8vo. 2\s. DAVIES (T. L. O.) Bible-English. Chapters on Words and Phrases in the Authorized Version and the Book of Common Prayer, no longer in common use. By the Rev. T. Lewis O. Davies, M.A., Vicar of St. Mary-extra, South- ampton. Small crown 8vo. 5^. ' We can heartily commend this book.' — Saturday Review. DENTON (W.) A Commentary on the Gospels and Epistles for the Sundays and other Holy Days of the Christian Year, and on the Acts of the Apostles. By the Rev. W. Denton, M.A., Worcester College, Oxford, and Incumbent mi St. Bartholomew's, Cripplegate. In 7 vols. iSj'. each, except the Acts, Vol. II. 14-.V. Thes* Commentaries originated in Notes collected by the compiler to aid in the composition of expository sermons. They are derived from ali available sources, and especially from the wide but little known field of theological comment found in the * Schoolmen ' of the Middle Ages. They are recommended to the notice of all young Clergymen, who frequently, while inex- perienced, are called upon to preach to educated and intelligent congregations. The special nature of the sources from which they have been derived ought to make them indispensable to all who wish to expound the Holy Scriptures with the same under- standing as may be obtained by extraneous help. EUSEBIUS. Ecclesiastical History. 5^. See Bo hn' 5 Libraries. i^Catalo^ics free on application.) List of TJieological Woi-ks. 3 GARNIER (T. P.) . Church or Dissent? An Appeal to Holy Scripture, addressed to Dissenters. By T. P. Gamier, late Fellow of All Souls' College, Oxford. 2nd edition. Crown 8vo. 2s. ; in stiff paper cover for distribution, is, GOODWIN (Bp.) A Guide to the Parish Chureh. By the Right Rev. Harvey Goodwin, Bishop of Carlisle. 9//* edition^ revised, Fcap. 8vo. is. 6d. Plain Sermons on Ordination and the Ministry of the Church. Preached on divers occasions. Crown 8vo. 6s. Parish Sermons. First Series. T^rd edition. i2mo. 6s. Second Series {out of print). Third Series, '^rd edition. i2mo. 7j. Fourth Series. i2mo. 7^-. Fifth Series, with Preface on Sermons and Sermon-writing. 7^. Sermons Preached before the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Crown Svo. 6s. Plain Thoughts concerning the Meaning of Holy Baptism. 2nd edition. 2d., or 25 for "^s. 6d. Confirmation Day. A Book of Instruction for Young Persons how to spend that day. 2>th thousand. 2d., or 25 for T,s. 6d. — The Worthy Communicant ; or, * Who may come to the Supper of the Lord?' gth thousand. 2d., or 25 for 35-. 6d. HARDWICK (C. H.) History of the Articles of Religion, ^s. See Bohn s Libraries. {Catalogues free on ap- plication J) HAWKIN S (Canon). Family Prayers :— Containing Psalms, Lessons, and Prayers, for every Morning and Evening in the Week. By the late Rev. Ernest Hawkins, B.D., Pre- bendary of St. Paul's. 19M edition. Fcap. Svo. is. HOOK (W. F.) Short Meditations for Every Day in the Year. Edited by the late Yery Rev. W. F. Hook, D.D., Dean of Chichester. Revised edition. 2 vols. Fcap. Svo. Large type. 14^'. Also 2 vols. 32mo. Cloth, 5^. j calf, gilt edges, 9^. ■ The Christian Taught by the Church's Services. Rexised edition, to accord luith the New Lectionary. i vol. Fcap. Svo. Large type. 6s. 6d. Also I vol. Royal 32mo. Cloth, 2s. 6d. \ calf, gilt edges, 4?. 6d. 4 George Bell and Sons' HOOK ( W. F.) Holy Thoughts and Prayers, arranged for Daily Use on each Day of the Week, according . to the stated Hours of Prayer. $th edition, with additions. i6mo. Cloth, red edges, 2s. ; calf, gilt edges, 3^-. Cheap edition, 3(/. HUMPHRY (W. G.) An Historical and Explana- tory Treatise on the Book of Common Prayer. By W. G. Humphry, B.D., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, Prebendary of St. Paul's, and Vicar of St. Martin-in-the- Fields. 6th edition. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. Cheap Edition for Sunday-school Teachers, li'. JOHNSTONE (R.) Parochial Addresses and Les- sons. A Series of Readings for such as are tried by Sickness, Infirmity, and Age. By Richard Johnstone, M.A., Assistant Curate of Moreton Say. Fcap. 8vo. limp cloth, for the pocket, y. LEWIN (T.) - Fasti Sacri; or, a Key to the Chro- nology of the New Testament. 4to. 21s. LiLOYD (J.) Sermons on Old Testament Characters. By the Rev. Julius Lloyd, M.A., Honorary Canon of Man- chester, Author of 'Christian Politics,' 'The North African Church,' &c. Fcap. 8vo. 5^. LUMBY (J. R.) History of the Creeds. By J. Rawson Lumby, D.D., Nortisian Professor of Divinity, and late Fellow of Magdalene College, Cambridge, yd edition, revised. Crown 8vo. 7^-. 6d. MILL (Dr.) Observations on the attempted Application of Pantheistic Principles to the Theory and Historic Criticism of the Gospels. By W. H. Mill, D.D. 2nd edition, with the . Ajithor's latest notes and additions. Edited by his Son-in-law, the Rev. B. Webb, M.A. 8vo. 14-y. MILLER (E.) Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. By Rev. E. Miller, M.A., Oxon, Rector of Bucknell, Bicester. Crown 8vo. 4^. MONSELL (Dr.) Simon the Cyrenian, and other Poems. By the late Rev. J. S. B. Monsell, LL.D., Vicar of St. Nicholas, Guildford. 2nd thousand. 32mo. ^s. Watches by the Cross. Short Meditations, Hymns, and Litanies on the Last Seven Words of our Lord. \tii editiojz. Cloth, red edges, is. Near Home at Last. A Poem. 8//: tJionsand. Cloth, red edges. Imp. 32mo. 2s. 6d. List of Theological Works. 5 MONSELL (Dr.) Hymns of Love and Praise for the Church's Year. 27id thousand. Fcap. 8vo. 3j. 6j. Our New Vicar ; or, Plain Words about Ritual and Parish Work. Fcap. Svo. \oth cditioji, ^s. The Winton Church Catechism. Questions and Answers on the Teaching of the Church Catechism. 4/A edition. 32mo. cloth, 3^-. Also in Four Parts. Part I. dd. ; Parts II. III. and IV. gd. each. PEROWNE (Dean). The Book of Psalms: a New Translation, with Introductions and Notes, Critical and Explanator}-. By the Veiy Rev. J. J. Stewart Perowne, D.D., Dean of Peterborough. Svo. Vol.1. dtJi edition., revised. \%s. \o\. II. 6ih edition, revised. i6j. The Book of Psalms. An abridged Edition for Schools and Private Students. Crown Svo. 6th edition, \os.6d. PEARSON (Bp.) The Creed. 51. See BoJm's Lii'-rarics. {^Catalogues free on application.) PHILO-JUDAEUS. Works. 4 vols. 55. each. See Bohn^s Libraries. {Catalogues free on application.) SADLER (M. F.) The Gospel of St. Matthew. By the Rev. M. F. Sadler, Rector of Honiton and Prebendar}- of Wells. With Notes, Critical and Practical, and Two Maps. yd edition, revised. Crown Svo. 7^-. 6d. ' It is far the best practical commentary we know, being plain-spoken, fearless, and definite, and containing matter verj- unlike the milk and water ■w hich is often serv ed up in (so-called) practical commentaries Throughout the whole book the writer is ever on the watch for general principles and teaching, applicable to the wants of our own daj-, which may legitimately be deducted from the Gospel narrative.' — Chnrch Qiiartcrly Rezfezv. The Gospel of St. Mark. 27id edition^ revised. Crown Svo. Is. 6d. ' The Notes are, like all Mr. Sadler's works, straightforward and to the point. The difficulties are not shirked, but are fairly grappled with, so that the volume forms a welcome addition to the literature of the Second Gospel.' — C'naxh Qitarterly Rez'iezu. The Gospel of St. Luke. Crown Svo. 95. ' It is no slight distinction for a writer, after having made his repu- tation by what is confessedly the best popular work on Church doctrine to have produced what we hold to be the best popular commentarj' on the Gospel narrative.' — Cii:'.r:h Qnaj-tcrly RlI'icik:. 6 George Bell and Sons^ SADLER (M. F.) The Gospel of St. John, zrd edit, revised. Crown 8vo. Is. dd. ' There is a vigour, a freshness, an originality about his treatment of the sacred words, which are interesting and attractive, and which always make his Commentary well worth consulting.' — Guardian. 'This is admirably done, being exactly what is wanted for that large and increasing class of readers, who need the results of genuine scholarship and sound, vigorous thought ; but who are repelled by any surface display of erudition, and still more by dryness of treatment.' — Church Times. The Acts of the Apostles. 7^. dd. ' Mr. Sadler's Commentary is one of the most unhackneyed and origin.-;! of any we have. It will often be found to give help where others quite fa. I to do ?,o.'— Guardian. St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Crown 8vo. Ts. 6d, Church Doctrine — Bible Truth. 36//J tJiousand. • Fcap. 8vo. y. 6d. ' Mr. Sadler takes Church Doctrine, specifically so called, subject by subject, and elaborately shows its specially marked Scripturalness. The objective nature of the faith, the Athanasian Creed, the Baptismal Services, the Holy Eucharist, Absolution and the Priesthood, Church Government and Confirmation, are some of the more prominent subjects treated. And Mr. Sadler handles each with a marked degree of sound sense, and with a thorough mastery of his subject.' — Guardian. * We know of no recent work professing to cover the same ground in which the agreement of our Church Services with the Scriptures is more amply vindicated.' — From an adverse review in the Christ/an Obserzcr. — The Church Teacher's Manual of Christian In- struction. Being the Church Catechism expanded and explained in Question and Answer, for the use of Clergymen, Parents, and Teachers, yjth thousand. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. ' Far the best book of the kind we have ever seen. It is arranged in two portions ; a longer and more thorough Catechism, and then, along with each section thereof, a shorter and more elementary set of questions on the same subject, suited for less advanced pupils. ... Its thoroughness, its careful explanation of words, its citation and exposition of Scripture passages and their full meaning, in cases where that full meaning is so often explained away, make it a most valuable handbook.' — Literary Churchtnau. Emmanuel; or, The Incarnation of the Son of God, the Foundation of Immutable Truth. Revised and Cheaper edition. Fcap. 8vo. 5^-. The One Offering. A Treatise on tlie Sacrificial Nature of the Eucharist. Fcap. 9M thousand. 2s. 6d. ' There caimot be a more grave and religious objection to the doctrine of an Eucharistic Sacrifice than the belief that it in some way militates against the completeness of the sublime satisfaction once for all made upon !Mount Calvary. . . . Mr. Sadler points out with force and discrimination how mistaken an accusation it is when it is brought against the teaching of the Fathers and of Anglican divines, or even against the more moderate school of Roman Catholics. Its quotations are most apt and pertinent.' — Church Quaiieiiy. List of Theological Works. 7 SADLER (M. F.) The Second Adam and the New Birth ; or, the Doctrine of Baptism as contained in Holy Scripture. lit h edition. Fcap. 8vo. ^.dd. 'The most striking peculiarity of this useful little work Is that its author argues almost exclusively from the Bible. We commend it most earnestly to clergj' and laity, as containing in a small compass, and at a trifling cost, a body of sound and Scriptural doctrine respecting the New Birth, which cannot be too widely circulated.' — Giiardian. The Sacrament of Responsibility ; or, Testimony of the Scripture to the Teaching of the Church on Holy Baptism, with especial reference to the Cases of Infants ; and Answers to Objections. ^th thousajid. 6d. With an Introduction and an Appendix. On fine paper, bound in cloth. 4/// edition. 2S. 6d. Sermons. Plain Speaking on Deep Truths. 6//t edition, ds. Abundant Life, and other Sermons. 6^. Scripture Truths. A Series of Ten Tracts on Holy Baptism, The Holy Communion, Ordination, &c. ^d. per set. Sold separately. The Communicant's Manual; being a Book of Self-examination, Prayer, Praise, and Thanksgiving. Royal 32'mo. 95M thousand. Roan, 2.s. ; cloth, \s. 6d. In best morocco, 7^-. *^.* A Cheap Edition in limp cloth. 8t/. A Larger Edition on fine paper, red rubrics. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. ; roan, $s. 6d. ; morocco, "js. SCRIVENER (Dr.) Novum Testamentum Graece Textus Stephanici, a.d. 1550. Accedunt vari?e lectiones editionum Bezse, Elzeviri, Lachmanni, Tischendorfii, Tregellesii, curante F. H. Scrivener, A.M.,, D.C.L., LL.D. i6mo. ^.6d. An Edition with wide Margin for Notes. 4to. half bound, 12s. Editio Major. Small post 8vo. yj. 6d. This is an enlarged edition of Dr. Scrivener's well-known Greek Testament. It contains the readings approved by Messrs. Westcott and Hort, and also those adopted by the Revisers — the Eusebian Canons, and the Capitula (majora et minora) are included. An enlarged and revised series of References is also added, so that the volume affords a sufficient apparatus for the critical study of the text. 8 List of Theological Wor/cs. SCRIVENER (Dr.) Codex Bezag Cantabrigiensis. Edited, with Prologomena, Notes and Facsimiles, by F. II. Scrivener, M.A., LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter. 4to. 26s. A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. With Forty Facsimiles from Ancient iSIanuscripts. Containing also an Account of the Egyptian Versions by Canon Lightfoot, D.D. For the Use of Biblical Students. T/iird editio7i^ thoroughly revised. Demy 8vo. i8j". Six Lectures on the Text of the New Testament and the ancient Manuscripts which contain it. Chiefly addressed to those who do not read Greek. With Facsimiles from MSS. &c. Crown 8vo. ds. SOCRATES' and SOZOMEN'S Ecclesiastical Histories. Si', each. See Bohii' s Libraries. {Catalogues free on application.) STEERE (E.) Notes of Sermons, arranged in Accord- ance with the Church's Year. Edited by Rev. R. M. Heanley, B.A., Oxon. With Introduction by the Bishop of Lincoln. Crown 8vo. 2 Series, each ^s. 6d. ' There is a certain vigorous directness and sober logic about them which entitle them to high praise.' — Guardian. ' We are inclined to think that many young preachers will find great assistance in the composition of their discourses by recourse to these notes.' Clnirch Times , THOMAS A KEMPIS. On the Imitation of Christ. A New Translation. By the Rt. Rev. H. Goodwin, D.D. '^rd edition. With fine Steel Engraving after Guido, 3^5-. dd. ; without the Engraving, 2s. 6d. Cheap edition, is. cloth ; 6d. sewed. WIESELER. Chronological Synopsis of the Gospels. 55. See Bohn^s Libraries. {Catalogues free.) YOUNG (Rev. P.) Daily Readings for a Year on the Life of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. By the Rev. Peter Young, M.A. 6//z edition. 2 vols. 8vo. i/. is. Lessons on Confirmation. Revised edition. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. London : Printed by Straxgewavs and Sons, Tower Street, Cambridge Circus. Date Due 1 1