Part Fourth. — Institutions of Christianity.

PART FOURTH. — INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.

OUTLINE.

I. THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Ch. 1.

II. THE SACRAMENTS. Ch. 2.-4.

(I.) Number and nature of sacraments, (Ch. 2.)

(II.) Sacrament of baptism, (Ch. 3.)

(III.) Sacrament of Lord’s supper, (Ch. 4.)

I. THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Ch. 1.

THE Church of Christ, in its largest sense, consists of all who have been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ; in a stricter sense, it consists of those who are vitally united to Christ. Taken in either view, it is a visible, permanent society, bound to obey certain rules; and of course government is necessarily supposed to exist in it. We have four points to examine in this chapter: —

I. The nature of this government. It is wholly spiritual, for,

1. It is concerned only with spiritual objects.

2. Its only punitive discipline is comprised in “admonition,” “reproof,” “sharp rebukes,” and finally, “excision from the society.” II. The persons to whom this government is committed. It is necessary here to consider the composition of the primitive Church, as stated in the New Testament.

1. Enunciation of offices in the church. Ephesians 4:11.

2. Whether the words bishop and presbyter express two distinct sacred orders, has been a subject of much controversy. But it may be easily shown that there is no distinction of order, whatever distinction of office may exist.

(1.) The argument from the promiscuous use of these terms in the New Testament seems incontrovertible. Acts 20:28; Titus 1:5; Philippians 1:1; 2 John 1; &c.

(2.) A distinction between bishops and presbyters did indeed arise at a very early period; but it proves nothing for a superior order, nor for diocesan episcopacy; for it cannot be shown that the power of ordination was given to bishops to the exclusion of presbyters; and this early distinction may be easily accounted for.

a.) It became expedient, doubtless, in the meetings of presbyters, at a very early period, that one should be chosen to preside over the rest; but the practice, as testified subsequently by Jerome, was founded solely upon expediency. It is to be remembered, that the primitive churches were formed very much upon the model of the Jewish synagogues. b.) As Christianity made its way, the concerns of the districts of country surrounding cities naturally fell under the cognizance of the bishops of those cities. Thus diocesans arose; subsequently, metropolitans, primates, patriarchs; and finally the pope came in.

(3.) The doctrine of succession cannot be made out; and if it could, would only trace diocesan bishops to the bishops of parishes.

(4.) As for episcopacy itself, it may be freely allowed as a prudential regulation, wherever circumstances require it. But it may be questioned whether presbyters could lawfully surrender their rights of government and ordination into the hands of a bishop, without that security which arises from the accountability of the administrator.

3. On the subject of the church itself, very different views have been held.

(1.) The Papist view contends for its visible unity throughout the world, under a visible head.

(2.) The modern Independent view goes as far the other way. The persons appointed to feed and govern the church being, then, those who are called “pastors,” we have now to notice,

III. The share which the body of the people have in their own government.

a. General views.

1. The connexion of church and state gives rise to questions of peculiar perplexity and difficulty. We do not consider the church in this state.

2. The New Testament view of the churches is, that they are associations founded upon conviction of the truth of Christianity, and the obligatory nature of the commands of Christ; and the mutual interdependence of pastors and people, with perfect religious liberty, is everywhere recognized in it.

3. Questions of church government are often argued on the false ground that the governing power, in churches to which communion is perfectly voluntary, is of the same character as when it is connected with the civil authority. Nothing can be more fallacious.

4. In settling church government, there are pre-existing laws of Christ, which cannot be neglected or set aside. The government of the church is in its pastors, open to formal modifications; and it is to be conducted with such a concurrence of the people as shall guard against abuse, without interfering with the Scriptural exercise of pastoral duties. b. These views applied to particular cases.

(1.) As to the ordination of ministers. This power was never conveyed by the people: it was vested in the ministers alone, to be exercised on their responsibility to Christ.

(2.) As to the laws by which the church is to be governed. Those which are explicitly contained in the New Testament are to be executed by the rulers, and obeyed by the people.

(3.) Other disciplinary regulations are matters of mutual agreement; but democratic tendencies are to be shunned.

(4.) Power of admission and expulsion rests with the pastor, as also that of trying unworthy servants.

IV. The ends to which church authority is legitimately directed.

1. The preservation and publication of sound doctrine: called by systematic writers, potestas dogmatikh: which may be thus summed up: —

(1.) To declare the sense in which the church interprets the language of Scripture.

(2.) To require all its members to examine such declarations of faith with docility and humility; while their right of private judgment is not violated.

(3.) To silence within its pale all preaching contrary to its standards.

2. The power of regulation: called, technically, potestas diataktikh.

3. The power of inflicting and removing censures: potestas diakritikh.

(1.) Undoubtedly this power lies in the church: it has, however, been sadly abused.

(2.) The claims of the Romish Church, in this particular, are arrogant assumptions: e. g., views founded on the gift of the keys to St. Peter. The labour of church government, and its difficulty, will always be greatly mitigated by a steady regard, on the part of both pastors and people, to duties as well as to rights.

II. THE SACRAMENTS. Ch. 2.-4.

(I.) NUMBER AND NATURE OF THE SACRAMENTS. (Ch. 2.)

I. Number of the sacraments. Two only, baptism and the Lord’s supper, are instituted in the New Testament, and admitted by Protestants; the Romish Church added five others.

1. The word used by the Greek Fathers was musthrion; the Latin term is sacramentum, which signified (1,) a sacred ceremony, and (2,) the oath of fidelity taken by the Roman soldiers. For both these reasons, probably, the term was adopted by the Roman Christians.

2. The sacraments are to be viewed as federal acts, which view sweeps away the five superstitious additions of the Romish Church — confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction. II. Nature of the sacraments. There are three leading views.

1. That of the Church of Rome, gratia ex opere operato, that the sacraments contain the grace they signify, and confer it, by the work itself. The objections to this doctrine are,

(1.) It has no pretence of authority from Scripture, nay,

(2.) It is decidedly antiscriptural.

(3.) It debases the ordinance into a mere charm.

(4.) It tends to licentiousness.

(5.) It causes the virtue of the ordinance to depend upon the intention of the administrator.

2. The opposite view is that of the Socinians, to which some orthodox Protestants have carelessly leaned, — that the sacraments are valuable solely as emblems of the spiritual and invisible. This scheme is as defective as that of the Papists is excessive.

3. The third opinion is that of the Protestant churches: — expressed in the language (1,) of the Heidelberg Catechism, (2,) of the Church of England, (3,) of the Church of Scotland, containing the same leading views, that the sacraments are both signs and seals. (a.) Sense in which they are signs. (b.) Sense in which they are seals.

(II.) SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM. (Ch. 3.)

The obligation of baptism rests upon (1,) the example of our Lord; (2,) his command to the apostles, Matthew 28:19; (3,) upon the practice of the apostles themselves.

I. The nature of baptism.

a. The Romanists consider baptism by a priest as of itself applying the merits of Christ to the person baptized; and from this view arises their distinction between sins committed before and after baptism The Lutheran Church places the efficacy of this sacrament in regeneration; nor has the Church of England departed entirely from the terms used by the Romish Church. The Quakers reject the rite altogether; and the Socinians merely regard it as a mode of professing the religion of Christ. b. The orthodox view is, that baptism is a federal transaction. It is of great importance to establish the covenant character of this ordinance.

(1.) The covenant with Abraham, Genesis 17:7, was the general covenant of grace, and not chiefly a political and national covenant. There are five distinct stipulations, under which — though they were promises of temporal advantages — are conveyed a higher and spiritual covenant of grace.

(2.) Circumcision was its “sign and seal,” both temporally and spiritually.

(3.) As a seal of restriction, circumcision was done away by Christ.

(4.) Paul’s different views of circumcision may be explained by considering the different principles on which circumcision might be practised after it had become an obsolete ordinance — l, 2, 3, 4.

(5.) Baptism is, to the new covenant, what circumcision was to the old, and took its place by the appointment of God. This may be argued, 1. From our Lord’s commission to the apostles, Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15,

16. 2. From the words of our Lord to Nicodemus, “Except a man be born,” &c. 3. From Colossians 2:10-12, “And ye are complete in him,” &c. 4. From Galatians 3:27-29, “For as many of you as have been baptized,” &c. 5. From 1 Peter 3:20: “Which some time were disobedient,” &c. a. Baptism is here called the antitype of Noah’s salvation by the ark, because his building and entering it were the visible expression of his faith. b. The meaning of the passage will vary with the rendering of the word eperwthma; but c. However that word is rendered, the whole text shows that baptism, when an act of true faith, becomes an instrument of salvation.

(6.) Baptism, both as a sign and seal, presents an entire correspondence to the ancient rite of circumcision.

1. As a sign. Circumcision exhibited the placability of God; held out the promise of justification; and was the sign of sanctification: so baptism exhibits the divine placability; is the initiatory rite into the covenant of pardon; and is the symbol of regeneration. But baptism as a sign, is more than circumcision, implying the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in its fulness.

2. As a seal. As in circumcision blessings were pledged on the part of God, so in baptism are all spiritual gifts pledged; and as in circumcision a holy life was promised on the part of the believer, so in baptism do we pledge ourselves to the obedience of Christ. Booth’s objection, and the reply. II. Subjects of baptism.

a. All adults who possess faith in Christ.

b. Infant children. The practice of infant baptism may be shown to rest upon the strongest basis of Scriptural authority.

(1.) Infants were circumcised: baptism takes the place of circumcision: therefore the absence of an explicit exclusion of infants is sufficient proof of their title to baptism.

(2.) The fact that the baptism of infants is nowhere prohibited in the New Testament, must have been misleading to all men, and especially to Jewish believers, if it were not proper.

1. Baptisms were common among the Jews; their proselyte baptism was a baptism of families, and comprehended their infant children.

2. The words of Peter at the Pentecost, “Repent, and be baptized; for the promise is unto you and to your children,” could not have been understood by the Jews except as calling upon them and their children to be baptized. Reasons, 1, 2, 3.

(3.) Infant children are declared by Christ to be members of his Church.

1. They were so under the old dispensation, and no change was made.

2. We have our Lord’s direct testimony to this point — in two remarkable passages: a) Luke 9:47, 48; b) Mark 10:14. Notice the Baptist evasions of the argument from this latter passage.

(4.) The argument from apostolic practice next offers itself. As to the absence of any express mention of infant baptism, instead of bearing in favour of the Baptists, it is a strong argument against them; for such an extraordinary alteration as the forbidding of infant baptism would have required particular explanation. The baptisms of whole houses, mentioned in the Acts, are sufficient proof of the apostolic practice; they were either (1) instances of apostolic action, which would cover the whole ground, or (2) peculiar cases; and even if this latter be admitted, the Baptist must still show, that neither in the family of

1. The Philippian jailer, nor in that of

2. Lydia, nor yet in that of

3. Stephanas, (1 Corinthians 1:16,) were there any infants at all, which, to say the least of it, is very improbable.

(5.) The last argument may be drawn from the antiquity of the practice of infant baptism.

1. We have strong presumptive proof of its antiquity in the fact, that if it were ever introduced as an innovation, it was introduced without controversy!

2. Tertullian (second century) was the only ancient writer who opposed infant baptism; but his very opposition proves the practice older than himself: he never speaks of its novelty.

3. Justin Martyr, Irenæus, and Origen, mention infant baptism as the practice of their times; and in A. D. 254 the question of deferring baptism to the eighth day was discussed.

4. The Anabaptists are of modern origin.

III. Benefits of baptism.

1. To the adult believer it is, (1) the sign of his admission into the covenant of grace; (2) the seal, on the part of God, of the fulfilment of all its provisions; (3) the pledge, on his own part, of steadfast faith and obedience.

2. To the infant it conveys a pledge of divine grace; the present blessing of Christ; the gift of the Holy Spirit; and the respect which God has to the believing act of the parents.

3. To the parents it is a blessing also.

IV. Mode of baptism. This is comparatively of little moment, but has been the subject of much controversy. In considering the doctrine, that the only legitimate mode of baptizing is by immersion, we notice, a. Several presumptions against it.

(1.) It is not expressly enjoined.

(2.) It is unsuitable to many climates and circumstances; nay, sometimes impossible.

(3.) It puts away the consideration of health and life in many cases.

(4.) It is likely to distract the thoughts.

(5.) It is improbable that the three thousand converts on the day of Pentecost were immersed, or that the jailer’s family were.

(6.) The practice is not a decent one.

b. The argument from antiquity.

(1.) Immersion is ancient, — so is anointing with oil, &c.

(2.) Aspersion and affusion are also ancient, — witness Tertullian, Cyprian, Gennadius, Aquinas, Erasmus.

(3.) The baptism of naked subjects was ancient, — doubtless a superstitious extension of the original rite.

c. The argument from the New Testament.

(1.) Use of the word baptizw.

1. The verb, with its derivatives, signifies either to dip, stain, wet with dew, &c.

2. Employment of it in Scripture illustrated by various passages: — 2 Kings 3:11; Luke 7:44. Daniel 4:33; 1 Corinthians 10:2. It is used generally in the New Testament to express the act of pouring or sprinkling water.

(2.) Cases of baptism (in the New Testament) adduced commonly in proof of immersion.

1. John’s baptism, “They were baptized of him in Jordan,” therefore they were immersed, is the argument. But,

(a.) The object of this passage was to declare the place, not the mode of John’s baptism.

(b.) The “baptism with the Holy Ghost” sufficiently illustrates the mode of John’s baptism, the same form of words being used in regard to both. (c.) The character of the river, and the scarcity of water, accounts for the place of baptism, and for the language employed here to fix it. River baptism does not necessarily imply immersion. Quotation from Wolfe.

2. Our Lord’s baptism. “He went up straightway out of the water.” Matthew 3:16. This does not favour immersion more than any other mode of baptism.

3. The eunuch’s baptism. “And when they were come up out of the water,” &c. Acts 8:38. If this proves any immersion, it proves that Philip was immersed as well as the eunuch. But eiv and ek do not necessarily mean into and out of.

4. Baptism by Jesus and by John in Ænon, John 3:22. No proof of immersion.

(3.) Argument from Romans 6:3, 4: “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism,” &c. Here the Baptists suppose a comparison is instituted between the burial of Christ and immersion. But,

1. If such resemblance be intended by “buried,” why not also by “planted” and “crucified” both which terms are used in the same connexion?

2. The type of our death, burial, and resurrection as believers, in this passage, is not the clumsy one of immersion; but the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord.

We conclude, therefore, that the pouring out of water was the apostolic mode of administering the ordinance, and that washing and immersion were introduced later, along with other superstitious additions to this sacrament.

(III.) SACRAMENT OF LORD’S SUPPER. (Ch. 4.)

Agreement and difference between baptism and the Lord’s supper, as stated in the Catechism of the Church of Scotland. We notice now, I. The institution of the ordinance.

1. As baptism took the place of circumcision, so the Lord’s supper was instituted in place of the passover.

2. It was instituted by Christ, immediately after celebrating the passover for the last time with his disciples.

II. Its perpetuity and obligation. From 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, we learn,

1. That Paul received a special revelation as to this ordinance.

2. That the command of Christ, “This do in remembrance of me,” was laid by Paul upon the Corinthians.

3. That he regarded the Lord’s supper as a rite to be often celebrated. III. Its nature.

1. Various views of

(1.) The Church of Rome, which held the doctrine of transubstantiation; of an intrinsic value in the elements themselves, of the elements being proper objects of worship and homage; and of the cup being withheld from the laity.

(2.) Luther, who held that though the bread and wine remain unchanged, the body and blood of Christ are received together with them: the doctrine of consubstantiation.

(3.) Carolostadt and Zuingle, who taught that the bread and wine are the signs of the absent body and blood of Christ. This view is adopted, with some liberality, by the Socinians.

(4.) The Reformed Churches, which reject both transubstantiation and consubstantiation, but go further than the Socinians, in declaring that to all who remember Christ worthily, he is spiritually present in the sacrament.

2. Sacramental character of the ordinance.

(1.) As to Christ. The words, “This is my body,” &c., show that the Lord’s supper is a visible sign that the covenant was ratified by the sacrificial death of Christ.

(2.) As to the recipients. It is a recognition of their faith in the sacrificial death of Christ.

(3.) As a sign, it exhibits, a) the love of God, b) the love of Christ, c) the extreme nature of his sufferings, d) the vicarious character of his death, e) the benefits derived from it through faith.

(4.) As a seal, it is, a) a pledge of the continuance of God’s covenant, b) a pledge to each believer of God’s mercies, c) an exhibition of Christ as the spiritual food of the soul, d) a renewed assurance of divine grace. IV. General observations.

1. The ordinance excludes, not only open unbelievers, but all who deny the atonement.

2. All are disqualified who do not give evidence of genuine repentance and desire for salvation.

3. Every church should shut out such persons by discipline.

4. But the table of the Lord is not to be surrounded with superstitious terrors.

5. There is no rule as to the frequency of celebrating the ordinance.

6. Its habitual neglect by professing Christians is highly censurable.