155. Chapter 9: The Church.

Chapter 9 The Church.

I. The Church And Means Of Grace. As the Church is divinely constituted for the work of evangelization and the spiritual edification of believers, and also contains the divinely instituted means for the attainment of these ends, it may properly be treated in connection with soteriology.

1. Idea of the Church.—The word church, as we find it in the New Testament, is mostly the rendering of the Greek word έκκλησία (Acts 8:1; Acts 11:26; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 1 Corinthians 11:18; 1 Corinthians 11:22; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:2). This word is composed of έκ, from or out of, and κβόείν, to summon or call, with the idea of a convocation for the consideration or transaction of some public business. The primary idea is that of an orderly assembly, though the term is not withheld from a thoroughly disorderly one. Of this we have an instance in the following record: “Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly— έκκλησία —was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together” (Acts 19:32.). But the primary idea of an orderly assembly, lawfully convened for public business, fully appears in the words of advice which the town clerk addressed to this disorderly body: “But if ye inquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly” (Acts 19:39)—έν τή έυνόμώ έκκλησια. In like manner, Christians are called into churchly association. The idea of a divine call of believers in Christ often occurs in the New Testament. They are called unto a heavenly hope and a glorious inheritance (Ephesians 1:18); called into a brotherly fellowship, in the unity of the Spirit (Ephesians 4:1-4); called of God unto his kingdom and glory (1 Thessalonians 2:12); called with a holy calling, according to the divine purpose of grace in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 1:9). In other forms of expression there is present the same idea of a divine call: “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). While the privileges and duties of all who are thus called of God are made prominent in these texts, the idea of their organic association is ever present. In that association which springs from their heavenly calling they compose a Christian Church. There are, however, specially observable differences between a Church in the primary sense of the term and a Church in this Christian sense. In the former case the call is merely human, and the convocation for purely secular purposes; while in the latter the call is divine and the purposes truly spiritual.

Such is the deeper Christian idea of the term church, whether in its purely local application or as comprehensive of the whole body of believers. There are in the New Testament many instances of the former application. Thus we read of the church at Jerusalem (Acts 8:1); of the church in the house of Priscilla and Aquila (Romans 16:3-5); of the church in the house of Philemon (Philemon 1:2). We also read of the churches of Galatia and of Asia (1 Corinthians 16:1; 1 Corinthians 16:19). In these instances the plural term means local churches, just as the singular term in the prior instances. But in other uses it is clearly comprehensive of the whole body of Christian believers. Such is the fact in the words of our Lord: “And I say also unto thee. That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). The Church to which Christ is made head over all things; the Church by which the manifold wisdom of God is made known unto principalities and powers in heavenly places; the Church in which God is glorified throughout all ages, is the Church which comprises all true believers in Christ (Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 3:10; Ephesians 3:21). The term is now in common use with like distinctions of meaning. “We use it in the local sense when we speak of an individual church, as, for instance, of Trinity, or Calvary, or St. Paul’s; but when we speak simply of the Church, or the Church of Christ, we use it in its most comprehensive sense.

There is a present use of the term for which there was no occasion in apostolic times—a use in its denominational applications. “We now speak of the denominations severally as Churches; as, for instance, the Presbyterian, the Protestant Episcopal, or the Methodist Episcopal Church. Any Christian communion rightfully organized as a Church is entitled to such designation. The rightful organization of our leading evangelical Churches cannot be questioned, except on thoroughly prelatical ground—such ground as has no place in the New Testament. If the principles of ecclesiastical polity observable therein justify the denominational existence of the Protestant Episcopal Church, they must equally justify such existence of the Presbyterian and the Methodist Episcopal Churches. No one denomination is the Church in its comprehensive sense. No one is in this sense the visible Church, which comprises all who are in Christian communion; no one is the invisible Church, which comprises all who are truly Christian. We accept the Apostles’ Creed, and therein declare our faith “in the holy catholic Church; “but this is the general or invisible Church in its most comprehensive sense. Hence we still need a more specific idea of the Church than any which has yet appeared. Such an idea we may find in some of the confessional definitions. Perhaps the one given in our own Articles of Religion is as satisfactory as any other: “The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.”^[826] This is properly the definition of a local church, but, so far as the more vital facts are concerned, may be accepted as the definition of a denominational Church, however numerous the local churches which it comprises. The chief question in this definition, and the one most in dispute, concerns the due administration of the sacraments, but it must be passed, at least for the present.

^[826]Article xiii. The origin or historical founding of the Church is a question respecting which there are some differences of opinion. Christ spoke of his kingdom or Church as yet future, though close at hand: “From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17). Accordingly, when he sent forth the chosen twelve he thus commanded them: “And as ye go, preach, saying. The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” In the deeper ideas the kingdom of heaven, as here designated, is not other than the Church. He also speaks of his Church as yet future: “Upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). It is in the meaning of these words that his Church was not yet builded; really, not yet founded. It is also in their meaning that Christ is himself the founder and builder of his Church. There is a deep sense in which this is true. Yet it seems equally true that Christ did not in any formal manner organize a Church. On a superficial view these facts may seem discordant, but a deeper insight discovers their complete harmony. The practical forces of Christianity, to which all true Christians are subject, must unite them in social compact. Such a force is the personal influence of Christ; an influence not only over those with whom he was personally associated, but over all who love him. We see its power over the early disciples of Christ; it not only united them closely with himself, but drew them into living sympathy and loving fellowship with each other. Christianity was to them a new spiritual life, which they shared in common; and this life was a bond of union. By such forces were they drawn together in the closest fellowship (Acts 2:41-47); and their organic union in the constitution of a church was the inevitable result.^{[827] [827]} Van Oosterzee,Christian Dogmatics, vol. ii, pp. 700, 701.

2. Duty of Church Membership.—As the divinely instituted means of grace are mostly within the Church, membership therein is necessary to their full enjoyment. The duty of church membership often appears in the New Testament. It is present in the emphasis which is placed upon the public confession of Christ: “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 10:32-33). Such a confession of Christ carries with it the idea of membership in his Church. Such too is the meaning of the duty of an unyielding fidelity to him, even when subject to the severest persecutions (Revelation 2:10). There could be no liability to such persecution, nor call to such fidelity, without the public confession; nor such confession without the membership. The same ideas appear in the assurance of the divine succor of the persecuted, and the promise of a crown of life as the reward of their fidelity. The duty of church membership appears in another view. The evangelization of the world is clearly the mission of Christianity. But the fulfillment of this mission requires the Church, because the instrumental agencies for its accomplishment are not else possible. Hence membership therein is plainly a common Christian duty; for if one might omit or refuse it, so might another, and so might all. In this case there could be no Church, nor any of the instrumental agencies through which the work of evangelization is prosecuted. But without such means, and without the Church which must furnish them, Christianity could have no future; nor could it ever have attained a place in history. What if Peter and Paul, and the fathers and martyrs, and the great reformers, and the many efficient heralds of the Gospel had assumed the position of privacy in their Christian life, and refused all organic union and co-operation? In that case their evangelistic work never could have been wrought, and Christianity, instead of becoming the ruling power of the world and the salvation of mankind, would have perished in its inception.

3. Means of Grace.—We may properly reckon as means of grace all spiritual helps arising from our union with the Church. In this view they might be presented with many distinctions; but no advantage could arise from such detail in their presentation. The churchly association of living Christians is one of mutual affection and sympathy. They watch over each other in love. The more stable and mature are often a blessing to the less experienced. Many a time the kindly word of one saves or recalls another from an erring step. This is in the fulfillment of a Christian duty: “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted” (Galatians 6:1). In living churches there are officers whose special duty it is to render this service. A watchful but kindly oversight is the duty of the pastor, and a duty which the members must respect: “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give an account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you” (Hebrews 13:17). Such a service is of inestimable value to many.

Christian fellowship is a privilege of church membership, and one of large spiritual profit. We are constituted for society, and are accordingly endowed with social affections. Life would be utterly dreary without its social element. But in no sphere is there deeper need of this element than in the religious. The Christian life would be lonely and lacking in spiritual vigor without the fellowship of kindred minds. On the other hand, the communion of souls alive in Christ is a fruition of grace. Here is a means of much spiritual profit. The word of God is a means of grace. It is such as read and studied privately, and also as heard in the faithful preaching of its truths. As in the treatment of regeneration we had occasion to show that there was no immediate regenerating power in the truth, so now it should be observed that it possesses no immediate power of conferring spiritual blessings. This, however, does not affect the reality of its value as a means of grace. Its value lies in the fact that, whether read and studied privately or duly heard as faithfully preached, it brings the mind into communion with its living realities, which summon to fidelity in duty and call forth aspirations for the blessings of grace now and the blessedness of heaven hereafter.

Among all the divinely instituted means for the accomplishment of the mission of Christianity the chief place is assigned to the preaching of the Gospel. Such is the meaning of the great commission: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). While the universal propagation of Christianity is thus required, the preaching of the Gospel is the divinely prescribed means for its accomplishment. The apostles wrought accordingly in the fulfillment of the duty assigned them; and so wrought their colaborers. Such too has been the method of all their faithful successors in the ministry. And such must be the method even to the end; must be, because it is God’s way of bringing souls to Christ and building them up in the Christian life. These views have many illustrations in the history of the Church. Every age of evangelistic power and progress bears witness to the faithful preaching of the Gospel; every truly spiritual reformation has been led by such preaching; every living Church of to-day has a living ministry. The preaching of the Gospel must not lose its place as a means of grace; therefore it must not lose its efficiency; for without the latter it cannot retain the former. Ministers must so preach the Gospel that it shall accomplish the part assigned it in the divine plan. They have no more sacred duty, no profounder responsibility.

Prayer is a means of grace of very large value. It affords the privilege of close communion with God, especially when the soul is alone with him in its supplications. In this communion there often arises a deep sense of our need, of our helplessness and unworthiness; but there comes with it an assurance of the divine fullness and love, which enlarges our petitions and inspires the confidence of a gracious answer from our heavenly Father. There is spiritual benefit simply in such close communion with God; but there is a larger benefit in the blessings which he grants us in answer to our prayers. The Scriptures are replete with the promises of such blessings; replete with instances of their fulfillment.

Some requisites are so obviously necessary to the genuineness and power of prayer that they need only to be named. Prayer requires sincerity. The purpose of amendment and a good life must ever be breathed into our supplication for the forgiveness of past sins. Repentance or contrition, and the spirit of consecration, are equally necessary. Without them there can be no true prayer of the soul. There must be faith; faith in the form of confidence that our petitions will be granted.

There are certain elements of power in prayer which have a clear and sure ground in Scripture. As prayer itself is so vital to our spiritual life, and its prevalence so necessary to its best service therein, we may briefly, yet with profit, set forth these elements of its power.

Fervency of mind is one element. Here is its Scripture ground: “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (James 5:16). Our translation does not fully express the meaning of the original—έυεργουμένη—which means inwrought, inworking with force or energy. In such a prayer the mind is intensely active. The object for which we pray is grasped in all the vigor of thought and feeling. The mind wrestles, struggles for its attainment. Such a prayer is not a mere form of words upon the lips, but an intensity of thought and feeling within the soul; and such a prayer “availeth much.” Only with deep meditation upon the importance of the things for which we pray, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, which shall not be denied us, can we attain to such fervency.

Another element of power lies in the help of the Holy Spirit. There are in Scripture clear promises of his help, and statements which mean the same thing (Zechariah 12:10; Ephesians 6:18). Then we have these explicit words: “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered” (Romans 8:26). There is here a clear recognition of our own weakness, “for we know not what we should pray for as we ought.” So “the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities.” There are many ways in which he may thus help us. He may give us a deeper sense of our spiritual needs, clearer views of the fullness and freeness of the divine grace, and kindle the fervor of our supplication. But we reach a deeper meaning in the words, “But the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us.” He joins us in our prayers; pours his supplications into our own. Nothing less can be the meaning of these deep words. The same meaning is in the verse immediately following: “And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.”

Here is the source of the glowing fervor and the effectual power of prayer. There are instances which cannot else be explained. Such was the prayer of Jacob (Genesis 32:24-30); such the prayer of Moses (Exodus 32:9-14); and such the prayer of Elijah (James 5:17-18). Many such instances have been witnessed in the history of the Church; very different, indeed, in the circumstances, but verily such in their marvelous fervor and power. Praying souls have been lifted far above their own powers and wrapped in a divine fervor. Unyielding faith has grasped the blessing, and the gracious heavens have bent down to the needy earth.

Another element of this power lies in the intercession of Christ. In his high-priestly office he presents our prayers with the incense of his own blood and the intercession of his own prayers: “And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel’s hand” (Revelation 8:3-4). Thus it is that Christ presents our prayers with the incense of his redeeming grace and the prevailing pleas of his intercession. With the clear apprehension of such elements of its power, even the rarest instances of the fervor and efficacy of prayer should cause no surprise. We must think that our heavenly Father will graciously hear the supplications of his children, even of the feeblest, when in the use of their own powers they pour their souls into their petitions. Even earthly parents answer the prayers of their children: “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him” (Matthew 7:11)? But far greater powers than our own are at work in our prayers, particularly in their higher forms of fervency. The Holy Spirit helps our infirmities, lifts us up into a strength infinitely above our own, and breathes his own prayers into our supplications. Then our great High Priest receives these supplications, and through the blood of atonement presents them in his own intercession. Prayer now rises above all that is merely human and takes unto itself the efficiencies of divinity. The marvel then is, not that prayer sometimes has such power, but that we so rarely attain to its exercise.

4. The Sacraments.—We here view the sacraments as means of grace. Other important questions respecting them must be deferred for separate treatment. The term sacrament is from the Latin word sacramentum, which in its classical use meant the pledge-money deposited by the parties at issue in a lawsuit, and, at a later date, the security which they gave instead. It also meant the oath of a soldier whereby he pledged his fidelity in the military service. Finally it meant simply an oath, obligation, or bond. On the ground of such ideas the Latin fathers applied the term to baptism and the Lord’s Supper. These sacred ordinances were viewed as sacraments because the observance of them meant an assumption of the obligations of a Christian life and a pledge of fidelity to Christ. Such they are as viewed on the human side; but they have a sacramental meaning also from the divine side. They are signs and pledges of the divine grace. Such meaning is expressed in one of our own articles of faith: “Sacraments ordained of Christ are not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they are certain signs of grace, and God’s good will toward us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in him.”^[828] The two views are thus combined: “A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his Church, to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within the covenant of grace the benefits of his mediation; to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces, to oblige them to obedience.”^{[829] [828]} Article xvi.

^[829]Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 162. The sacraments have a symbolical character. Baptism represents the work of regeneration through the agency of the Holy Spirit. The Supper represents the atonement in the sacrificial death of Christ. It is also commemorative of his death. Both the emblematic and the memorial services are presented in a single text of Scripture. When, in the institution of the supper, Christ gave the bread to his disciples, he 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 ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till be come” (1 Corinthians 11:24-26).

Much account is made of the sacraments as seals. The view is well stated in the following citation: “They are also seals. A seal is a confirming sign, or, according to theological language, there is in a sacrament a signum significans, and a signum confirmans; the former of which is said, significare, to notify or to declare; the latter, obsignare, to set one’s seal to, to “witness. As, therefore, the sacraments, when considered as signs, contain a declaration of the same doctrines and promises which the written word of God exhibits, but addressed by a significant emblem to the senses; so also as seals, or pledges, they confirm the same promises which are assured to us by God’s own truth and faithfulness in his word (which is the main ground of all affiance in his mercy), and by his indwelling Spirit by which we are ‘sealed,’ and have in our hearts ‘the earnest’ of our heavenly inheritance. This is done by an external and visible institution ; so that God has added these ordinances to the promises of his word, not only to bring his merciful purpose toward us in Christ to mind, but constantly to assure us that those who believe in him shall be and are made partakers of his grace. These ordinances are a pledge to them that Christ and his benefits are theirs, while they are required, at the same time, by faith, as well as by the visible sign, to signify their compliance with his covenant, which may be called ‘setting to their seal.’”^{[830] [830]} Watson:Theological Institutes, vol. ii, p. 612. In considering the sacraments as means of grace we should not overlook the limitation which such designation imposes. Means to ends have no intrinsic power for their effectuation. Means of grace are not in themselves grace, nor fountains of grace, but simply aids, in the proper use of which grace is attained. All this is true of the sacraments. They are not in themselves grace, nor the immediate source of grace. There is no profit in their observance without the proper mental exercise; no benefit in any merely mechanical or magical mode. The doctrine of such benefit is a pernicious error, which has been widely and deeply harmful to the spiritual life. It is a doctrine of salvation without sanctification. The substance is lost in the ceremony; the circumcision of the heart, in the circumcision of the flesh. The error carries with it ecclesiasticism and sacerdotalism, transubstantiation and consubstantiation.

How, then, are the sacraments means of grace? In the same manner as the word of God. In the latter we have the best exemplification of the former. And we have already seen how the word of God is a means of grace. It is such as it makes duty clear to us and sets before us incentives to its fulfillment; such, as it reveals the salvation in Christ and assures us of its attainment on a compliance with its terms. In the form of signs, or in the mode of representation, the sacraments fulfill like offices. Through them such lessons are impressively given.

Baptism sets before us the need of spiritual regeneration, and points us to its divine source in the agency of the Holy Spirit. The Lord’s Supper signifies to us the atonement in his death as the only ground of our salvation. In this manner the great lesson is most impressively given. Therein Christ crucified is openly set before us (Galatians 3:1). In no service do we get nearer to the cross. Still, there is no spiritual attainment unless we grasp in thought the great truth of the atonement, and in penitence and faith appropriate the provisions of its grace. The grace we need is not in the water, but in the work of the Holy Spirit which its baptismal use represents; not in the bread and wine, but in the atonement which their sacramental use signifies. That the sacraments are seals means no other mode of spiritual benefit. It is true that they are something more than mere signs of grace; they are divine pledges of its bestowment. But the bestowment is pledged only on the proper conditions; and these lie, not in the mere observance of the sacraments, but in the proper mental exercise. Hence there is in their sealing office no new law of spiritual benefit. The promises of God are a means of grace as they warrant our faith. A divine seal or pledge is the same, with the only difference that it may be a stronger warrant. But it can be such only as viewed from the human side. On the divine side God’s pledge can add nothing to the certainty of his promise, which rests simply on his own fidelity. Hence it is in condescension to our weakness that he pledges his own good will toward us. Thus when God made promise to Abraham he ratified it by an oath, that both he and “the heirs of promise” with him might have the stronger assurance of its fulfillment (Hebrews 11:13-18). The oath of God is not without value because it could really add nothing to the certainty of his promise; it is of value because it helps the weakness on the human side and gives the stronger warrant of faith. In such a manner the sacraments, as seals of the divine covenant, are means of grace.

II. Christian Baptism.

1. Meaning of the Rite.—Baptism is the sign of spiritual regeneration. This is its central, though not its only, meaning. These statements accord with its definition in our Article of Religion: “Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not baptized; but it is also a sign of regeneration, or the new birth.”^[831] Such in substance is the doctrine of other Protestant Churches, particularly of those in the line of the Reformed.^{[832] [831]} Article xvii.

^[832]Westminster Confession, chap, xxviii. In some instances baptism seems closely related to justification; quite as closely, indeed, as to regeneration. It must be so related in the great commission; for justification is a part of the salvation therein set forth (Mark 16:15-16). There is a like meaning in the words of Ananias to Saul: “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). This washing must include the remission of sins. The most notable instance appears in the words of Peter in his sermon on the day of Pentecost: “Then Peter said unto them. Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). Yet baptism is not to be thought conditional to justification in the manner that faith is. Much less can we think it a saving ordinance. Faith is a necessary condition of justification, while baptism is not. That it is not is conceded by all who require the profession of a state of grace in order to baptism; for such a state must include justification; and it is a very plain fact that baptism cannot be the necessary condition of a state of grace which must precede its observance. The meaning of the text cited is, that baptism is a sign or profession of the faith on which justification or the remission of sins is received. It is also the rite of initiation into the Christian Church, just as circumcision was the rite of initiation into the Abrahamic covenant or the Jewish Church.

It is still true, as before stated, that baptism is specially the sign of spiritual regeneration. As water purifies our physical nature, so in its baptismal use it signifies a purification of our moral nature through the agency of the Holy Spirit. This is the meaning of the words of our Lord: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). The baptism is the sign of the moral purification which is efficaciously wrought by the Holy Spirit. Such, too, is the meaning of the words: “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5). Here the only efficacious regeneration is in the renewing power of the Holy Spirit; of which, therefore, the baptismal regeneration must be the sign.

2. Mode of Administration.—The questions respecting the mode and the subjects of baptism have been much in dispute. Both have been frequently and elaborately discussed; so that ample sources of information are easily at the command of any who would thoroughly study them. Our own treatment must be limited to brief statements. The original words specially concerned in the question of mode are βάπτω and βαπτίζω. The immersionist relies much upon them for the proof of his doctrine. His argument is based upon their meaning in classical use; but, while it may be presented with seeming strength, it is far from being conclusive. If in such use these words invariably meant immersion, the fact would not itself prove that such is the only mode of Christian baptism. It would not so prove for the reason that in many instances Greek words receive new meanings in their biblical use. We have an illustration in the words for holiness, the new meanings of which were pointed out in our treatment of sanctification. Many instances might easily be added. It will be shown that the words relating to baptism are used in Scripture without the meaning of immersion. Further, while such is the common meaning in their classical use, there are exceptions. This is the position of writers of the best scholarship)—immersionists included. Indisputable instances of such use are given.^[833] Hence it is futile to attempt to prove from the classical use of the original words that immersion is the only mode of Christian baptism. The question of mode must be studied in the biblical use of these words and in the light of the instances of baptism recorded in the New Testament. Other facts which concern the question will be noticed in the proper place.

^[833]Beecher:Baptism, pp. 9-18; Dale:Classic Baptism. In the biblical use of the original words there are instances in which the idea of immersion is inadmissible, and also instances in which it is excluded. In the ceremonial cleansing of a leper two birds were used in the following manner: “And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water. As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip—βάψει—them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water” (Leviticus 14:5-6). It is obvious that immersion is an impossible meaning of the original word in this case. The living bird could not be immersed in the blood of the slain bird; much less could the living bird, with the cedar wood and the scarlet and the hyssop, be so immersed. Boaz said to Ruth, “Dip— βάψεις —thy morsel in the vinegar” (Ruth 2:14). It is true that immersion is not an impossibility in this case, but the notion of it is surely very unnatural to the action invited. “When it is said that Jonathan dipped—έβαψεν—the end of a rod in a honeycomb, it cannot mean that the immersion of the end was a necessary part of his action (1 Samuel 14:27). ‘‘That thy foot may be dipped—βρφή—in the blood of thine enemies” (Psalms 68:23—Sept. 24). Here immersion would be an unnatural meaning; indeed, an impossibility, except in a most extraordinary case. It is said of Nebuchadnezzar that ‘‘his body was wet—έβάφη—with the dew of heaven” (Daniel 4:33—Sept. 30.). Such a baptism cannot mean immersion.

Baptisms were frequent among the Jews, so that the institution of Christian baptism brought no novelty into Jewish thought. There was a baptism in the washing of hands. The Pharisee with whom our Lord dined marveled that he had not first washed—έβαπτίσϑη—before dinner (Luke 11:38). He marveled because the custom was so uniformly observed: “For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash—βαπτίσωνται—they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing—βαπτισμους—of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables” (Mark 7:3-4). The washing of hands is not by dipping; not even when they are dipped in a basin of water. In such case the dipping is simply for the purpose of taking up the water into the hands in order to the washing. Besides, it was not the custom of the Jew to use a basin in this washing, but to have the water poured upon his hands. While in the former case the idea of immersion as the mode of washing is entirely inadmissible, in the latter it is utterly excluded. It is equally inadmissible in the washing of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables. Immersion in any such case is merely a matter of convenience, and does not belong to the mode of the washing. The aim is a cleansing or purification in the use of water; and water is applied in the mode of pouring, or in a manner answering to the idea of pouring. Such a washing the Scriptures call a baptism. In the Mosaic economy there were many ceremonial services in the mode of sprinkling. The assembled people were thus sealed unto God in the covenant which he made with them (Exodus 24:8; Hebrews 9:19-20). The Levites were consecrated to their office by sprinkling: “Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them” (Numbers 8:6-7). “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood” (Hebrews 9:22). This summary follows a detailed statement of purifications or “divers washings”—διαφόροις βαπτισμοίς (Hebrews 9:10). These purifications, whether in the use of blood or water, were in the mode of washing or sprinkling. Their symbolical meaning was the same as that of Christian baptism, with the only difference of a deeper spiritual idea in the latter; and there is no apparent reason why this rite should be restricted to the mode of immersion, while so many purifications were mostly in that of sprinkling. It is plain that nothing in the mode can be necessary to the service of the rite. Baptism by pouring or sprinkling as fully signifies an inner purification as baptism by immersion. To deny this is to discredit the emblematic service of the many rites of purifying in the Mosaic economy. The apostles, in common with the Jewish people, were familiar with the meaning of these rites and the mode in which they were administered. Therefore only a specific communication or command could have conveyed to their minds the idea of immersion as the only mode of Christian baptism. But no such communication or command was given. Certainly there is no account of any. We have seen that βαπτίζω, in the use of which the observance of this rite is enjoined, has no such specific meaning. Surely, then, it could have no such meaning for the apostles, whose minds were so familiar with baptisms and purifications in the modes of washing and sprinkling. The facts presented in this paragraph are strongly against the position of the immersionist. The gracious work of the Holy Spirit is often expressed as a baptism, and not only without the idea of immersion, but in its exclusion. “So shall he sprinkle many nations.” “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean” (Isaiah 52:15; Ezekiel 36:25). The terms of the symbolical purification are here employed to express the efficacious work of the Spirit in the actual purification of the soul. The idea of immersion is thus excluded. “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me . . . shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire” (Matthew 3:11). In such baptism Christ fulfilled the prophecy of Joel: “I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh” (Joel 2:28). This fulfillment began on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:16-17). The one word of mode is pouring, not immersion. “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water” (Hebrews 10:22). In like manner, the cleansing work of the blood of Christ is symbolically expressed as in the mode of sprinkling: “But ye are come unto . . . Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling” (Hebrews 12:22-24). Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:2). The texts cited in this paragraph make it plain that the purifying work of the Spirit is expressed as a baptism, but ever m the mode of sprinkling or pouring, never in that of immersion. Why, then, should immersion be necessary to the baptism with water whereby his efficacious work is symbolized? It is plain also in the same texts, as it is in others, that baptism is symbolical of the cleansing work of the blood of atonement. Why, then, should immersion be necessary in the symbolization, when in the actual cleansing the blood is represented as applied in the mode of sprinkling ? Indeed, these terms of pouring and sprinkling, as thus applied to the work of the Holy Spirit and the blood of atonement, are quite conclusive against the theory of the immersionists.

We need only a brief consideration of the leading instances of baptism recorded in the New Testament. They will not be found in favor of the immersionist; rather, they will be found strongly against him. The baptism of John was special in its end—repentance for the remission of sins: “And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Luke 3:3). However, baptism itself was neither peculiar to his ministry nor novel to the Jewish mind. As we have seen, baptisms were frequent, and in various modes under the Mosaic law; so that they were familiar to the Jewish people. John himself was familiar with those baptisms. What, then, is the presumption respecting the mode in which he administered the rite? Certainly not that it was uniformly in that of immersion. As the baptisms with which he was familiar were mostly by sprinkling, the presumption is strongly against such uniformity. Hence, unless he was divinely commanded to observe the mode of immersion, or there is something in the account of his baptizing which must mean immersion, there is no proof of such uniform mode, and the probabilities are strongly against it. There is certainly no account of any such divine command. It may be assumed; but assumption is without logical value for the immersionist. It may be assumed that John was commanded to baptize, and then asserted that immersion is in the meaning of the word in the use of which the administration of the rite was enjoined; but as such an assertion is groundless, so the assumption on which it rests is without value for the proof of immersion.

There is nothing in the account of the baptizing of John in proof of immersion; much less of a uniformity of such mode. One proof alleged is that he baptized in the river Jordan (Matthew 3:6). The argument hinges upon the meaning of in—έν; but this word often means at, by, or with; so that immersion is no necessary meaning of baptizing in Jordan. If John brought the subject within or to the margin of the river, and then applied the water by affusion or sprinkling, he would be baptizing in Jordan in a manner agreeing with a proper meaning of the original words.

Another argument is based on his baptizing at Ænon because there was much water there (John 3:23). But the much water, or many waters—ύδατα πολλά—do not necessarily mean either one or many large bodies of water. A few springs or runs, without a capacity for the immersion of an adult person in anyone of them, would fully answer for the meaning of the original words. Further, it is groundless to assume that the requirement for immersion was the only reason, and therefore the actual reason, why John selected this place of much water. There was an entirely sufficient reason in the daily wants of the multitudes drawn to his ministry. These wants could be met only in a place well supplied with water. Hence there is really no proof of immersion in the reason given for John’s baptizing at Ænon. The number of the baptisms administered by John in the brief time of his ministry is conclusive against the theory of immersion. Ten months are a liberal estimate for the duration of that ministry.^[834] Ten months give an aggregate of three hundred and four days; but we require considerable reduction in order to a fair estimate of the actual number in which John baptized. The Sabbaths must be deducted, because the Jewish ideas and customs then in force require it. Further, the administration of baptism could not have commenced, certainly not in any considerable numbers, with the preaching of John; and some reduction must be made on this account. Again, his ministry included the winter and the rainy seasons, so that on many days the attendance of the people would be greatly hindered; and thus there would be a loss of time for baptizing. After the proper reduction on the grounds stated, not more than two hundred and fifty days, really not so many, could remain for this service.

^[834]Hibbard:Christian Baptism, pp. 20-22. The baptisms administered by John were very many. Exact numbers are not given, but the terms used warrant the estimation of a great multitude. “Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins” (Matthew 3:5-6). In other gospels the facts are stated in like terms (Mark 1:5; Luke 3:3; Luke 3:7; Luke 3:21). The places here named contained a large population, certainly not less than two or three millions. It is not to be thought that literally all were baptized by John; yet certainly a great many were. No other view could be consistent with the statements respecting the number. Let us make the low estimate of one hundred and fifty thousand. How, then, will the case stand? The figures require an average of six hundred baptisms per day, and of one per minute for ten hours per day. Here are insuperable difficulties for the immersionist. No man could immerse sixty persons in a decent and orderly manner in one hour. No man could endure the strain of such a service for many successive days. Besides, John was a preacher as well as a baptizer; and the time occupied in preaching, and in necessary or unavoidable conversations with the many people, must be deducted from the time available for baptizing. Thus, again, is it manifest that John could not possibly have baptized so many in the mode of immersion. Indeed, it is scarcely to be thought that he could baptize so many individually in any mode. Nor is there any need to assume that he did. It is quite reasonable to think that he baptized many together, as Moses did when he sprinkled the assembled people (Exodus 24:8; Hebrews 9:19).

There is no peculiar proof of immersion in the baptism of our Lord, nothing alleged as proof which does not fully appear in other instances. Only two things can be so alleged: the meaning of the original word which expresses the act of baptizing, and the statement that Christ “went up straightway out of the water” (Matthew 3:16). Respecting the first, we have already seen that immersion is not the uniform meaning of the original word; hence it is not conclusive of immersion in this case. The going up out of the water was subsequent to the baptism, and therefore no part of it. Neither do the words mean a going up from under the water. Hence this fact is without the slightest meaning in favor of immersion. Further, as the baptisms administered by John could not have been in such a mode, except in rare instances, the presumption is strongly against the immersion of Christ. The baptisms on the day of Pentecost could not have been in the mode of immersion (Acts 2:37-41). The facts clearly show this. There was no convenient place for such an administration. Neither Kidron, nor Siloam, nor Bethesda, nor all together are to be thought of as offering such a convenience. Nor can any other place even be suggested. There is no intimation of a resort to any such place. With the best place right at hand such a mode of baptism would still have been an impossibility. The necessary time was lacking. It was probably eleven o’clock before the preaching service was concluded. The necessary conversation with the converts, either with all before the baptism began or with each as it proceeded, would require much time. Each apostle must converse with and baptize two hundred and fifty persons; such must be the average. Three minutes for the conversation and immersion in each case are an unreasonably low estimate of the necessary time. But even this estimate requires twelve and a half hours for the whole service. There is not only this lack of time, but the average physical strength could not endure the strain of such a service. The baptism of a man of Ethiopia by Philip is an instance in much favor with the immersionist. With him its argumentative value lies chiefly in the facts, as stated, that “they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch,” and “they came up out of the water” (Acts 8:38-39). It is obvious that the baptism was a distinct act from both the going down into the water and the coming up out of the water, in which acts both Philip and the eunuch participated alike. Indeed, the baptizing is stated as an intervening and distinct act. Hence nothing in the manner of going down into the water, not even if taken in the extreme sense of going under the water, can determine any thing respecting the mode of the baptism; much less, that it was by immersion. However, no one can soberly interpret the going down into the water in the sense of immersing. Hence there is no need of showing, as we might easily, that going to the margin of the water would express a proper and frequent meaning of the original words. Instances of such a meaning of είς may be found in the account of several visitations to the tomb of our Lord on the morning of his resurrection (John 20:1; John 20:3-4; John 20:8). The idea of “going down” has a very natural interpretation in the descent of a declivity from the place where the chariot stood. There is really no proof of immersion in this instance of baptism.

Saul of Tarsus was baptized by sprinkling or affusion. The facts in the case clearly point to such a mode, and are inconsistent with that of immersion (Acts 9:17-18; Acts 22:12-16). Only two facts need be noted: one, that he was baptized in the house where he had been for three days; the other, that he was baptized in a standing posture. Such is the meaning of the two narratives. The first fact renders immersion most improbable; the second utterly disproves it.

Certain baptisms in the house of Cornelius and in the prison of Philippi may be passed with a brief notice (Acts 10:24-48; Acts 16:23-33). Nothing in either narrative favors the view of immersion; rather, the facts of each are quite conclusive of sprinkling or affusion. In the former account it is plain that the baptisms were administered in the house of Cornelius, and in the room in which Peter preached to the people therein assembled. The theory of immersion in such a case would require the most unwarranted assumption respecting the necessary means; while the facts are all natural and simple on that of sprinkling or affusion. The baptisms in Philippi were administered in the prison. Paul and Silas went not out of the prison any further than into the jailer’s house, which joined on to the prison. Nor did this occur until after the baptizing. Only one phrase can be opposed to this view: “He brought them out; “but this can mean only from the inner prison into the outer apartment. Here it was that Paul and Silas preached to the jailer and others and baptized them. In this case, as in the former, the theory of immersion requires the most unwarranted assumption respecting the necessary means, while the theory of sprinkling or affusion is without any perplexity.

Two phrases of Scripture are regarded by the immersionist as quite conclusive of his theory: “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death;” “Buried with him in baptism” (Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12). These phrases must be interpreted in the light of the passages to which they belong; for only in this manner can their true meaning be reached. In each passage the ruling idea is the moral change wrought in the attainment of salvation. This change is expressed as a death, a crucifixion, a burial, a resurrection. There is in these forms of expression, and for the purpose of illustration, a comparison with the crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. What, then, is the part of baptism in the expression of this moral change? Simply that of a sign; nothing else. There is then no reference to the mode of baptism. Nor is there in either phrase the slightest proof of immersion.

3. The Subjects of Baptism.—All who through faith in Jesus Christ enter into a regenerate state are proper subjects of Christian baptism. This, however, does not mean a rebaptism of any who were baptized in infancy. The fitness of the regenerate for baptism is fully recognized by Peter: “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we” (Acts 10:47)? However, there is such unanimity in Christian thought on this question that it may be passed without discussion.

There is not such unanimity respecting regeneration as an invariable requisite to fitness for baptism. Many hold that it is; but they can hardly claim the warrant of Scripture. They may be right as to the rule, but they are wrong in allowing no exceptions. The doctrine of Peter in his sermon on the day of Pentecost is against them; for he therein enjoined baptism in profession of the faith which should be unto justification and regeneration: “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” (Acts 2:38). In like manner the baptism of Paul was prior to his regeneration, as it was prior to his justification (Acts 22:16). In view of such facts the profession of a regenerate state should not be held as an invariable prerequisite to baptism. When there is satisfactory evidence of true penitence and the purpose of a Christian life in the fellowship of the Church the sacred rite may be administered as a means of grace; as a help to the faith which shall be unto salvation.^{[835] [835]} Merrill:Christian Baptism, pp. 10-12. Are infants proper subjects of Christian baptism? This is the chief question in issue respecting the subjects. If the question could be appealed to the faith of the Church as authoritative in the case the decision would be overwhelmingly in favor of such baptism: so widely has this faith prevailed. It is not a question to be thus settled; yet the very strong preponderance of this faith is not without weight on the side of the affirmative. The place of children, infant children, in the Abrahamic covenant means much in favor of infant baptism. The institution of this covenant is formally and fully given in the Scriptures (Genesis 17:1-14). Before this, however, great promises had been made to Abraham; some of them very similar to the promises immediately connected with this covenant, while that respecting the Messiah was even more specific and full in the manner of its expression (Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 15:1-7). These earlier promises were gathered into this covenant made with Abraham, and therein sealed unto him and his seed. This covenant, with its promises, was renewed with Isaac, and also with Jacob (Genesis 26:3-5; Genesis 28:10-15). It is replete with the promises of both secular and spiritual blessings. The former were fulfilled in the multiplicity of the progeny of Abraham, in their possession of the land of Canaan, and in their national greatness; the latter, in the coming of the Messiah as the promised seed of Abraham, and in the salvation which he brought to both Jews and Gentiles.^{[836] [836]} Merrill:Christian Baptism, discourse ii. That these promises included the Messiah himself, and the spiritual blessings of his kingdom, is clearly the sense of the Scriptures. Here is this definite and comprehensive promise: “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 22:18). Christ is the seed through whom this universal blessing should come. Such is the meaning of Paul when he declares that this promised seed is Christ (Galatians 3:16). This is the promise on the warrant of which, on the day of Pentecost, Peter offered to all the grace of salvation in Christ: “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:39). In the fulfillment of this promise the salvation in Christ comes to all without any distinction: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:28-29). It is in the meaning of these words that this promise infolded the rich blessing of the Gospel. Such, too, is the meaning of these words: “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed” (Galatians 3:8). That children were included in this covenant is too plain a fact to be questioned. They were initiated by the same rite whereby the promises of the covenant were sealed unto Abraham. Their initiation was not made a matter of the divine sufferance, but a matter of the divine command. Why then should they be denied the rite of baptism, which in the Christian Church occupies the place that circumcision occupied in the Abrahamic covenant? It will be no answer to ask in objection, What benefit can baptism render infants? because the same objection would lie equally against their circumcision under the Abrahamic covenant. If the reply should be that the children are not in the spiritual state which baptism signifies, the answer is that the same objection would have excluded them from the rite of circumcision. Again, if the reply should be that infants are incapable of the faith, on the condition of which the blessings of the Gospel are offered, the answer is that they were equally incapable of the mental exercises of the Abrahamic covenant. Infant circumcision under that covenant warrants the right of infants to baptism under the Christian covenant—which, indeed, is not another, but the very same in its full development. On the ground of such facts only a divine order could annul the right of infants to Christian baptism; but no such order has been given. The identity of the Christian Church with the Church instituted in the family of Abraham furnishes the ground of further proof of infant baptism. The fact of such identity is clear in the light of the Scriptures. Abraham and his family were called of God from among the nations, and separated unto himself as his people. With them he instituted his covenant, with all its promises. Here is the central promise: “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee” (Genesis 17:7). In this manner they were constituted the Church of God. This Church was perpetuated, and is in its fullness the Church of Christ. The Jews as a collective body ceased to be the Church, many of them being cast out because of unbelief, or broken off as branches of a tree, under the figure of which the Church is represented; but the tree remained, and the Gentile converts were grafted thereon among the branches that remained. Accordingly, they were charged not to boast against the branches, but to remember that they bore not the root, but the root them (Romans 11:17-21). In this one, ever-abiding Church there were ever the same spiritual blessings, with the only difference of a fuller development under the dispensation of the Gospel. In the right to beginning circumcision was the sign and seal of these blessings, while under the Gospel baptism took its place as the sign and seal of the same blessings; but all the while there is the one and the same Church. Now, as by authority of a divine command, infants were entitled to the rite of circumcision in the original institution of the Church, on what ground shall they be denied the rite of baptism in the same Church in its Christian state? As we have seen in another case, only a divine command could annul this right; but no such command has been given. The apostles of our Lord were familiar with the place of infants in the Abrahamic Church; with the manner of their initiation by the rite of circumcision, and with the continuance of this divine order to their own time. What, then, would they naturally think of the place of infants in the Church under its Christian form? Surely, that they were to be included in its membership just as they were in its Abrahamic form; and that they were entitled to Christian baptism, which replaced circumcision as the initiatory rite. Indeed, unless otherwise ordered, they must have thought themselves under obligation to administer this rite to infants. When, therefore, it is demanded that we produce the divine authorization of infant baptism, we answer, that no new command was necessary; that the old command remains in force, and must have so remained in the thought of the apostles. The substitution of circumcision by baptism under that command could affect neither its authority nor the obligation which it imposed. And now, in turn, even with far weightier reason may we demand of the opponent of infant baptism that he produce a divine order which repeals the old command or annuls its authority. There is no such order. The words of our Lord respecting the relation of children to his kingdom clearly mean their right to Christian baptism. These words are so familiar that they here need no formal citation (Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17). That these children were infants in the proper sense of the word is not to be questioned. When brought to Christ he received them graciously, and said, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven.” He also said, “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.” Such words must mean a close connection of children with the kingdom of God. Such connection must mean their right to a close relation with the Church; a right which no admissible distinction between the kingdom of God and the Church can deny. The privilege of such relationship must mean the right to Christian baptism.

Some hold that the words of our Lord, as above cited, mean a regenerate state of infants; that only on the ground of such a state could it be said that “of such is the kingdom of God.” If actually in a regenerate state their right to baptism could hardly be questioned—a fact which no doubt favors this view. However, so long as their actual regeneration is an open question, it is doubtful if in this way anything is to be gained in favor of infant baptism. Are infants in a regenerate state? Our own writers are divided on this question. While some maintain the affirmative, we cannot think it in accord with the Scriptures or the doctrines of our Church. It is not consistent with our anthropology, as set forth in our seventh article, nor with the doctrine of our ritual for the baptism of infants, particularly as expressed in the introductory part. It is inconsistent with the Scripture proofs of native depravity—the very proofs in which Methodism has ever grounded her own doctrine; particularly, with the deep words of our Lord in which he sets forth the necessity for spiritual regeneration: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh.” No words could more clearly or strongly assert the truth of native depravity. The doctrine of infant regeneration, or that all infants are born in a regenerate state, is openly contrary to this truth. The suggestion of a post-natal regeneration is without warrant, and out of harmony with the Scriptures.

“We hold that all children, by virtue of the unconditional benefits of the atonement, are members of the kingdom of God, and therefore graciously entitled to baptism.”^[837] While these words base the right of infants to baptism on their membership in the kingdom of God they omit all reference to a regenerate state as implied therein. The passage attempts no definition of the nature of that membership, but simply grounds it in the universal grace of the atonement and asserts the consequent right to baptism. We cordially accept the facts thus set forth. Of course it is easy to ask questions respecting them which may not easily be answered. On the other hand, if we assume a regenerate state of infants our position is beset with far greater difficulties. Infants are born into the covenant of redemption, and are all in some measure recipients of its grace. If they live to an accountable age this grace meets them at its threshold and, unless rejected, becomes their salvation; if they die in the infant state it unconditionally regenerates and saves them. On the ground of such facts they may properly be reckoned members of the kingdom of God and entitled to Christian baptism.

^[837]Methodist Discipline, 43, 1892 The right of infants to baptism is based on their relation to the atonement and the offices of the Holy Spirit, not on the faith of their parents or of any who may represent them. Yet is it most fitting that those who present them for baptism should be graciously qualified to train them according to all the spiritual meaning of the sacred rite, and should assume the obligation so to do. Also, as “we regard all children who have been baptized as placed in visible covenant relation to God, and under the special care and supervision of the Church,” the Church herself should be profoundly concerned for their proper religious training. No instance of the apostolic baptism of an infant is openly given in the Scriptures: so much must be conceded. That there were such is most probable, as appears in the instances of household baptisms (Acts 16:15; Acts 16:33; 1 Corinthians 1:16): of Lydia and her household; of the jailer, and all his; of the household of Stephanas. If there were infants and infant baptisms in these families no additional word nor other form of words would be needed for the expression of either fact. If there were infants the words clearly mean their baptism. That there was not one child yet in an infant state in any one of these families it is most unreasonable to think. So strong is the probability of infant baptism under apostolic administration. The historical argument, based upon very early Christian literature, is strongly confirmatory of the apostolic origin of infant baptism. However, as its full presentation would require an elaboration for which we have no room, we pass it with a brief notice. It seems quite needless to adduce any testimony from writers of the fourth century, or even of the third, as it will hardly be questioned that infant baptism was then the custom of the Church.

Tertullian was a presbyter in the second century, only a century after apostolic times. His writings make it clear that infant baptism was then uniformly practiced. If in his knowledge such was not the fact, or if he had known it to be of recent origin, or an innovation since apostolic times, the fact would have been of great service to him in support of some peculiar views which he advocated, and he certainly would have so used it; but there is no such use. The sure inference is that there was no such fact. Hence Tertullian is on record as a witness to the uniform custom of infant baptism in his time—a custom long established and of unquestioned apostolic origin. In the writings of both Justin Martyr and Irenaeus there is very clear recognition of infant baptism as common in the Church. They were Christian writers of distinction within fifty years of the death of St. John. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. It thus appears that these writers were very near to the founders of Christianity. Hence their clear recognition of infant baptism as the custom of the Church at so early a time is strongly confirmatory of its apostolic origin.

Beecher: Baptism, its Import and Modes; Hibbard: Christian Baptism; Bickersteth: A Treatise on Baptism; Merrill: Christian Baptism; Dale: Classic Baptism; Judaic Baptism; Johannic Baptism; Christian Baptism; Wall: The History of Infant Baptism; Wood: Lectures on Infant Baptism; Cook:Christianity and Childhood; Conant: Meaning and Use of the Word Baptizein; Noel: Essay on Christian Baptism; Carson: Baptism in its Mode and Subjects.

III. The Lord’s Supper.

1. Institution of the Supper.—Words of Scripture furnish the best statement of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake 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 testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:26-28). As other statements in the gospels are in meaning the same their citation may be omitted (Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20). We add the words of St. Paul: “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said. Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying. This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Corinthians 11:23-26).

2. Nature of the Supper.—The true doctrine of the supper lies in the meaning of the words of institution, as above cited. That meaning must be found in their true interpretation. It is well known that interpretations widely differ; and a glance at such differences may clear the way to the truth of the question. With the omission of slighter differences, “ there are but three expositions made of ‘this is my body:’ the first, this is in itself before participation really and truly the natural substance of my body, by reason of the coexistence which my omnipotent body hath with the sanctified element of bread, which is the Lutherans’ interpretation; the second, this is in itself and before participation the very true and natural substance of my body, by force of that Deity which with the words of consecration abolisheth the substance of bread, and substituteth in the place thereof my body, which is the Popish construction; the last, this hallowed food, through concurrence of divine power, is in verity and truth, unto faithful receivers, instrumentally a cause of that mystical participation whereby as I make myself wholly theirs, so I give them in hand an actual possession of all such saving grace as my sacrificed body can yield, and as their souls do presently need, this is to them, and in them, my body.”^[838] The last interpretation is substantially that of the Reformed Churches and other evangelical Protestants. The first two, while widely different in some things, are really one in the deeper principle—that of an actual partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the supper. Both are grounded in a literal sense of the words of institution: ‘this is my body,’ ‘this is my blood.’ The real difference concerns the manner in which the body and blood of Christ are so present in the supper as to be really, literally partaken of by the communicant.

^[838]Hooker:Ecclesiastical Polity, book v, 167. In the Lutheran view there is no transubstantiation of the bread and wine, no change of their own constitution, but the body and blood of Christ are so present in, with, or under these elements as to be really, literally partaken of in the communion of the supper. Such participation is in no wise dependent upon the spiritual state of the communicant. The doctrine is that the ungodly, as really as the most devout, eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ. It must be so from the literal interpretation of the words of institution, “this is my body,” “this is my blood;” must be so from the very nature of the real presence maintained.

There is no such real presence of the flesh and blood of Christ in the supper as this doctrine maintains. It is not possible that there should be. The impossibility was pointed out in our review of the Lutheran Christology. The doctrine requires the omnipresence, or at least multipresence, of the body of Christ; and here is the impossibility which we allege. It cannot be overcome by the assumption of a communication of divine attributes to the human nature of Christ, on the ground of its union with the divine in his personality. That union no more lifts his human nature into the infinitude of the divine than it lowers his divine nature into the finiteness of the human. The doctrine is grounded on a literal meaning of the words of institution, “this is my body,” “this is my blood;” but this meaning is unnatural and false; quite as unnatural and false as would be the interpretation of the words, “Washed us from our sins in his own blood,” in the sense of a literal washing in the blood of Christ. And the doctrine itself must widely depart from a literal sense before it can reach the meaning of the real presence in the words of institution. When, with bread and cup in hand, Christ says, “this is my body,” “this is my blood,” the only literal sense is, this bread is my body, this cup is my blood. The words of St. Paul, as before cited, place this view beyond question (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). Hence in a strictly literal interpretation the words of institution must mean that the bread and wine are the body and the blood of Christ. This, however, is contrary to the Lutheran doctrine, according to which these elements suffer no change in their consecration, but remain bread and wine. How, then, after all the insistence upon a literal sense of the words of institution, do Lutherans construct their doctrine? They first invest the body of Christ with the necessary ubiquity, and then assert his bodily presence in, with, or under the bread and wine. We could hardly think of a doctrine of the supper more remote from the literal meaning of the words of our Lord in its institution. In the Papistical doctrine of the supper Christ is held to be literally present in his flesh and blood, through the mode of transubstantiation. By virtue of the words of consecration the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ; so that literally, orally, or by the mouth we eat his flesh and drink his blood in the communion of the supper. The doctrine further is, that Christ is present in the supper not only in body, but also in his soul and divinity. It follows that he may be worshiped in the eucharist, and the eucharist itself be presented to the people for their adoration. The only ground of such a doctrine lies in the assumption of a literal sense of the words, “this is my body,” “this is my blood.” Transubstantiation itself is a mere inference from this assumption. The bread and wine must be changed into the flesh and blood of Christ if they are really present in the supper, because there is no other way of accounting for their presence. This is the manner in which the doctrine is constructed. Without a literal sense of the words of institution it has not the slightest ground in Scripture. The words of institution are easily interpreted without the literal sense. By a very common figure of speech we give to an emblem or sign the name of that which it represents. This is often done in Scripture. Thus circumcision is called the covenant of God, of which it was simply the sign or seal (Genesis 17:10; Genesis 17:13). The supper of the passover is called “the Lord’s passover” (Exodus 12:11); but it could not be literally the Lord’s passover, which was his own personal act; but it could be properly so named as it was the memorial of such act. As the sacramental rites of circumcision and the passover received the names of the things which they represented, so the bread and wine, as the divinely appointed symbols of the body and blood of Christ, were properly so named. This interpretation is simple and natural, and free from the insuperable difficulties of a literal sense. The bread and wine are not changed into the form of flesh and blood. After the words of consecration they are still bread and wine, just as they were before. For sense-perception and the tests of chemistry they are the very same. Against such proof it is idle to appeal to an opposing authority of the divine word, because there is no such contrary word in the case. The transubstantiation maintained involves an absolute impossibility. Granted, that God could change the bread and wine into flesh and blood; but this is only a part of the doctrine. The whole doctrine is that they are changed into the flesh and blood of Christ. Herein lies the impossibility. That which never has incorporation into the body of Christ never can be his flesh and blood. There is no power even in God to make it such. Indeed, the very notion of it implies a contradiction, and, therefore, an absolute impossibility. And, surely, it will not be pretended that the bread and wine consecrated in the sacrament are actually incorporated into the body of Christ. We need no further refutation of such a doctrine. The true nature of the supper is given in our own article of Religion: “The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the means whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper is faith.”^{[839] [839]} Article xviii.

3. Factitious Sacraments.—Only the divine agency can institute a truly religious sacrament. There are only two such in the Christian Church: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The additional five of Romanism are without divine authority, and therefore are purely factitious. They are formally repudiated in one of our articles: “Those five commonly called sacraments, that is to say, confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction, are not to be counted for sacraments of the Gospel; being such as have partly grown out of the corrupt following of the apostles, and partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not the like nature of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, because they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.”^{[840] [840]} Article xvi.

Augsburg Confession, part i, article x; Formula of Concord, Epitome, article vii; Krauth: The Conservative Reformation and its Theology, The Lord’s Supper; Schmid: Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, part iv, chap, ii; Nevin: The Mystical Union; Council of Trent, 13th. Session, canons i-xi; Moehler: Symbolism, book i, part i, chap, iv; Capel: The Faith of Catholics, vol. ii, pp. 375-499; Vogan: True Doctrine of the Eucharist; Bickersteth: The Lord’s Supper; Calvin: Institutes, book iv, chaps. xvii-xix; Dorner: System of Christian Doctrine, vol. iv, pp. 305-333; Armstrong: The Sacraments of the New Testament; Luckey: The Lord’s Supper; Clarke: The Eucharist; Elliott: Roman Catholicism, book ii.

IV. Constitution Of The Church.

1. Laity and Ministry.—There is in Christianity a priesthood of the people. Such is the clear sense of the Scriptures; and the fact is commonly recognized by the Protestant Churches. The meaning of this priesthood is, not that Christian people are priests in any strict sense of the term, but that they have the privilege of access to God, and of receiving his blessing without the mediation of any human priest. This fact, however, does not supersede the requirement of a ministerial class in the Church. There are many religious services which cannot be rendered in an orderly and profitable manner without such a class. Every religion has a ministry. In Judaism there was a divinely appointed order for conducting the religious services. In the founding of Christianity our Lord instituted a ministry, and clearly with the purpose of its perpetuation in the Church. “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11-12). The functions of the ministry must ever constitute it a distinct class in the Christian Church. The divine vocation of those who are properly admitted to this sacred office must itself determine such distinction.

2. Divine Vocation of the Ministry.—Mental gifts and acquirements, refinements of culture, and the power of persuasive speech are of great value in the work of the ministry, but cannot in themselves warrant the assumption of its sacred duties. Neither is deep and earnest piety such a warrant, though indispensable to the best ministerial service. A glowing zeal for the cause of Christ and the salvation of souls should always possess the mind of a minister of the Gospel; yet such a zeal is possible, and often actual, without this special divine vocation; so that, while the lack of such zeal should discredit the profession of such a call, its possession should not in itself be accepted as the proof thereof. The idea of a divine call to the office of the ministry is most reasonable. The preaching of the Gospel, with the pastoral care which belongs to the office of the ministry, is the divinely instituted means for the conversion of sinners and the spiritual edification of believers. It is, therefore, most reasonable that God should select his own agents, and specially call them into his service. It is not a case in which the securing of the necessary service could be wisely left either to the option of individuals or to the selection of the Church. The divine call means a far better service than could otherwise be obtained. God knows best who will best serve him in this ministry. Further, the fact of a divine call is itself an element of value in this service. Whoever ascends the pulpit with the conscious obligation and sanction of such a call ascends it with far greater strength than could else be possible to him. The recognition of such a call of the minister on the part of the people elicits a peculiar interest and secures for his words a weight of influence not otherwise practicable.

There is such a call. Under the Jewish economy a particular family and tribe were divinely set apart to the priestly office. The prophets were individually called of God into the office which they fulfilled—an office more definitely representative of the Christian ministry than that of the priesthood. Our Lord selected his own apostles and divinely commissioned them to their great work. When the vacancy caused by the apostasy of Judas was to be filled the apostles prayed and cast lots that they might know whom the Lord chose in his place (Acts 1:23-26). Again, when the vast harvests, already ripe for the sickle, spread out before the few reapers, what was our Lord’s instruction to them? “Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth laborers into his harvest” (Matthew 9:38). The divine vocation of the ministry is the one specially divine fact in its constitution, and the one which the Church should most tenaciously hold. No question of orders or ordination has any such concern.

3. Ecclesiastical Polity.—The questions of ecclesiastical polity have been largely discussed. The actual forms of such polity, as representing the different theories, run through the whole scale from the simplest Congregationalism up to the Papacy. Theories are often maintained on the assumption of a divinely ordered polity; but there is no such polity; consequently such discussions are groundless. The question of chief importance is the adaptation of the polity to the attainment of the spiritual ends for which the Church is constituted. This should always be a determining principle. The principle means that the construction of a polity is left to the discretion of the Church; but it also means that the construction must be made in the light of her mission, and with a view to its very best accomplishment. The polity which answers to such end is easily vindicated. The discretionary power of the Church, as above stated, appears in the light of three facts: the Church must have a polity; there is no divinely ordered polity; consequently it is left to the Church, and to each Church rightfully existing as such, to determine her own polity. A brief presentation of these points will comprise about all that we need further say.

Any society formed for the accomplishment of certain purposes requires some provisions of government, without which it could not even subsist, much less attain the ends of its formation. “It seems to belong to the very essence of a community, that it should have: (1) officers of some kind; (2) rules enforced by some kind of penalties; and (3) some power of admitting and excluding persons as members.”^[841] So much is necessary to the existence of any community or society constituted for the accomplishment of definite ends; and so much is necessary to the existence of a Church. Hence, after a lucid presentation of the three points named, Whately concludes: “Since, therefore, this point, and also those others above mentioned, seem, naturally and necessarily, to belong to every regular community ; since it must, in short, consist of regularly constituted members, subject to certain rules, and having certain offices it follows that whoever directs or sanctions the establishment of a community (as our Lord certainly did in respect of Christian Churches) must be understood as thereby sanctioning those institutions which belong to the essence of a community. To recognize a community as actually having a legitimate existence, or as allowably to be formed, is to recognize it as having officers, as having regulations enforced by certain penalties, and as admitting or refusing to admit members.”^[842] The points thus made comprise only a minimum of what is necessary to the existence of even a local church. Much more is required when many such are united under a common government. In such case there must be constitutional provisions whereby the stability of the Church may be secured and the rights of its ministers and members protected. Also there must be provided the legislative, judicial, and executive offices necessary to the proper government of a Church so constituted.

^[841]Whately:The Kingdom of Christ, pp. 63, 64.

^[842]Ibid., pp. 66, 67.

There is no divinely ordered polity. No existing Church can show the original of its own form of government in the New Testament. It does not appear that there was any organic union of the local churches in apostolic times; yet the superintendency of the apostles was both a governing power over them and a bond of union between them; so that they were neither Congregational in polity, nor yet organized and governed in such manner as, for instance, the Presbyterian, Protestant Episcopal, or Methodist Episcopal Church. It would be utterly vain for any one of these Churches, as it would be for any other, to assume that its own government was fashioned after a divine pattern. The fact that no discovery of a divinely ordered polity has ever been made proves beyond question that there is none. The truth of our third point is clearly consequent to the truth of the first two. If a polity is necessary to the constitution and work of the Church, and none is divinely ordered, then it must be the right of the Church, and of every Church having a legitimate existence, to determine the form of her own government; but ever with a view to the best accomplishment of her divine mission.

Certain facts which have special significance for this question are clearly observable upon the face of the New Testament. “It is plainly recorded that they—the apostles—did establish churches wherever they introduced the Gospel; that they ‘ordained elders in every city;’ and that the apostles again delegated that office to others; that they did administer the rite of baptism to their converts; and that they celebrated the communion of the Lord’s Supper. And, besides the general principles of Christian faith and morality which they sedulously set forth, they have recorded the most earnest exhortations to avoid ‘confusion’ in their public worship; to do ‘all things decently and in order;’ to ‘let all things be done to edifying,’ and not for vainglorious display; they inculcate the duty of Christians ‘assembling themselves together’ for joint worship; they record distinctly the solemn sanction given to a Christian community; they inculcate due reverence and obedience to those that ‘bear rule’ in such a community, with censure of such as ‘walk disorderly’ and ‘cause divisions;’ and they dwell earnestly on the care with which Christian ministers, both male and female, should be selected, and on the zeal, and discretion, and blameless life required in them, and on their solemn obligation to ‘exhort, rebuke, and admonish;’ yet with all this they do not record even the number of distinct orders of them, or the functions appropriated to each, or the degree, and kind, and mode of control they exercised in the churches. While the principles, in short, are clearly recognized, and strongly inculcated, which Christian communities and individual members of them are to keep in mind and act upon, with a view to the great objects for which these communities were established, the precise modes in which these objects are, in each case, to be promoted, are left—one can hardly doubt, studiously left—undefined.”^[843] In view of such facts, and others like them, the same author elsewhere concludes: “Thus a further confirmation is furnished of the view that has been taken; namely, that it was the plan of the sacred, writers to lay down clearly the principles on which Christian Churches were to be formed and governed, leaving the mode of application of those principles undetermined and discretionary.”^{[844] [843]} Whately:The Kingdom of Christ, pp. 89-91 ^[844]Ibid., p. 98. On the ground of the unquestionable facts and principles above set forth the organization of our Methodist Societies, of 1784, into the Methodist Episcopal Church, the form of her polity, and the institution of her ministerial orders are easily vindicated.

Bannerman: The Church of Christ; Cunningham: Discussion of Church Principles; Palmer: Treatise on the Church of Christ; Whately: The Kingdom of Christ; Binnie: The Church; Hodge: Church Polity; Morris: Ecclesiology; Emory: Defence of Our Fathers; Bangs: An Original Church of Christ; Stevens:Church Polity; Perrine: Principles of Church Government; Neely: Evolution of Episcopacy and Organic Methodism; Harrison: The High Churchman Disarmed: A Defence of Our Methodist Fathers.