Home
  By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon


We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Systematic Theology (Volume 3 of 3)
Author: Strong, Augustus Hopkins, 1836-1921
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Systematic Theology (Volume 3 of 3)" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.



                           Systematic Theology

                    A Compendium and Commonplace‐Book

               Designed For The Use Of Theological Students

                                    By

                   Augustus Hopkins Strong, D.D., LL.D.

President and Professor of Biblical Theology in the Rochester Theological
                                 Seminary

                           Revised and Enlarged

                             In Three Volumes

                                 Volume 3

                        The Doctrine of Salvation

                       The Griffith & Rowland Press

                               Philadelphia

                                   1909



CONTENTS


Part VI. Soteriology, Or The Doctrine Of Salvation Through The Work Of
Christ And Of The Holy Spirit.
   Chapter II. The Reconciliation Of Man To God, Or The Application Of
   Redemption Through The Work Of The Holy Spirit.
      Section I.—The Application Of Christ’s Redemption In Its
      Preparation.
         I. Election.
            1. Proof of the Doctrine of Election.
            2. Objections to the Doctrine of Election.
         II. Calling.
            A. Is God’s general call sincere?
            B. Is God’s special call irresistible?
      Section II.—The Application Of Christ’s Redemption In Its Actual
      Beginning.
         I. Union with Christ.
            1. Scripture Representations of this Union.
            2. Nature of this Union.
            3. Consequences of this Union as respects the Believer.
         II. Regeneration.
            1. Scripture Representations.
            2. Necessity of Regeneration.
            3. The Efficient Cause of Regeneration.
            4. The Instrumentality used in Regeneration.
            5. The Nature of the Change wrought in Regeneration.
         III. Conversion.
            1. Repentance.
            2. Faith.
         IV. Justification.
            1. Definition of Justification.
            2. Proof of the Doctrine of Justification.
            3. Elements of Justification.
            4. Relation of Justification to God’s Law and Holiness.
            5. Relation of Justification to Union with Christ and the Work
            of the Spirit.
            6. Relation of Justification to Faith.
            7. Advice to Inquirers demanded by a Scriptural View of
            Justification.
      Section III.—The Application Of Christ’s Redemption In Its
      Continuation.
         I. Sanctification.
            1. Definition of Sanctification.
            2. Explanations and Scripture Proof.
            3. Erroneous Views refuted by these Scripture Passages.
         II. Perseverance.
            1. Proof of the Doctrine of Perseverance.
            2. Objections to the Doctrine of Perseverance.
Part VII. Ecclesiology, Or The Doctrine Of The Church.
   Chapter I. The Constitution Of The Church. Or Church Polity.
      I. Definition of the Church.
         A. The church, like the family and the state, is an institution
         of divine appointment.
         B. The church, unlike the family and the state, is a voluntary
         society.
      II. Organization of the Church.
         1. The fact of organization.
         2. The nature of this organization.
         3. The genesis of this organization.
      III. Government of the Church.
         1. Nature of this government in general.
            A. Proof that the government of the church is democratic or
            congregational.
            B. Erroneous views as to church government refuted by the
            foregoing passages.
         2. Officers of the Church.
            A. The number of offices in the church is two:—first, the
            office of bishop, presbyter, or pastor; and, secondly, the
            office of deacon.
            B. The duties belonging to these offices.
            C. Ordination of officers.
               (a) What is ordination?
               (b) Who are to ordain?
         3. Discipline of the Church.
      IV. Relation of Local Churches to one another.
         1. The general nature of this relation is that of fellowship
         between equals.
         2. This fellowship involves the duty of special consultation with
         regard to matters affecting the common interest.
         3. This fellowship may be broken by manifest departures from the
         faith or practice of the Scriptures, on the part of any church.
   Chapter II. The Ordinances Of The Church.
      I. Baptism.
         1. Baptism an Ordinance of Christ.
         2. The Mode of Baptism.
            A. The command to baptize is a command to immerse.
            B. No church has the right to modify or dispense with this
            command of Christ.
         3. The Symbolism of Baptism.
            A. Expansion of this statement as to the symbolism of baptism.
            B. Inferences from the passages referred to.
         4. The Subjects of Baptism.
            A. Proof that only persons giving evidence of being
            regenerated are proper subjects of baptism.
            B. Inferences from the fact that only persons giving evidence
            of being regenerate are proper subjects of baptism.
            C. Infant Baptism.
               (a) Infant baptism is without warrant, either express or
               implied, in the Scripture.
               (b) Infant baptism is expressly contradicted.
               (c) The rise of infant baptism in the history of the
               church.
               (d) The reasoning by which it is supported is unscriptural,
               unsound, and dangerous in its tendency.
               (e) The lack of agreement among pedobaptists.
               (f) The evil effects of infant baptism.
      II. The Lord’s Supper.
         1. The Lord’s Supper an ordinance instituted by Christ.
         2. The Mode of administering the Lord’s Supper.
         3. The Symbolism of the Lord’s Supper.
            A. Expansion of this statement.
            B. Inferences from this statement.
         4. Erroneous views of the Lord’s Supper.
            A. The Romanist view.
            B. The Lutheran and High Church view.
         5. Prerequisites to Participation in the Lord’s Supper.
            A. There are prerequisites.
            B. The prerequisites are those only which are expressly or
            implicitly laid down by Christ and his apostles.
            C. On examining the New Testament, we find that the
            prerequisites to participation in the Lord’s Supper are four.
               First,—Regeneration.
               Secondly,—Baptism.
               Thirdly,—Church membership.
               Fourthly,—An orderly walk.
            D. The local church is the judge whether these prerequisites
            are fulfilled.
            E. Special objections to open communion.
Part VIII. Eschatology, Or The Doctrine Of Final Things.
   I. Physical Death.
      1. Upon rational grounds.
      2. Upon scriptural grounds.
   II. The Intermediate State.
      1. Of the righteous.
      2. Of the wicked.
   III. The Second Coming of Christ.
      1. The nature of this coming.
      2. The time of Christ’s coming.
      3. The precursors of Christ’s coming.
      4. Relation of Christ’s second coming to the millennium.
   IV. The Resurrection.
      1. The exegetical objection.
      2. The scientific object.
   V. The Last Judgment.
      1. The nature of the final judgment.
      2. The object of the final judgment.
      3. The Judge in the final judgment.
      4. The subjects of the final judgment.
      5. The grounds of the final judgment.
   VI. The Final States of the Righteous and of the Wicked.
      1. Of the righteous.
         (a) Is heaven a place, as well as a state?
         (b) Is this earth to be the heaven of the saints?
      2. Of the wicked.
         A. The future punishment of the wicked is not annihilation.
         B. Punishment after death excludes new probation and ultimate
         restoration of the wicked.
         C. Scripture declares this future punishment of the wicked to be
         eternal.
         D. This everlasting punishment of the wicked is not inconsistent
         with God’s justice, but is rather a revelation of that justice.
         E. This everlasting punishment of the wicked is not inconsistent
         with God’s benevolence.
         F. The proper preaching of the doctrine of everlasting punishment
         is not a hindrance to the success of the gospel.
Indexes.
   Index Of Subjects.
   Index Of Authors.
   Index Of Scripture Texts.
   Index Of Apocryphal Texts.
   Index Of Greek Words.
   Index Of Hebrew Words.



                               [Cover Art]

[Transcriber’s Note: The above cover image was produced by the submitter
at Distributed Proofreaders, and is being placed into the public domain.]



“THE EYE SEES ONLY THAT WHICH IT BRINGS WITH IT THE POWER OF
SEEING.”—_Cicero._

“OPEN THOU MINE EYES, THAT I MAY BEHOLD WONDROUS THINGS OUT OF THY
LAW.”—_Psalm 119:18._

“FOR WITH THEE IS THE FOUNTAIN OF LIFE: IN THY LIGHT SHALL WE SEE
LIGHT.”—_Psalm 36:9._

“FOR WE KNOW IN PART, AND WE PROPHESY IN PART; BUT WHEN THAT WHICH IS
PERFECT IS COME, THAT WHICH IS IN PART SHALL BE DONE AWAY.”—_1 Cor. 13:9,
10._



PART VI. SOTERIOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION THROUGH THE WORK OF
CHRIST AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.


[Transcriber’s Note: This Volume begins with “Chapter II”, because
“Chapter I” of “Part VI” was printed in Volume II.]



Chapter II. The Reconciliation Of Man To God, Or The Application Of
Redemption Through The Work Of The Holy Spirit.



Section I.—The Application Of Christ’s Redemption In Its Preparation.


(_a_) In this Section we treat of Election and Calling; Section Second
being devoted to the Application of Christ’s Redemption in its Actual
Beginning,—namely, in Union with Christ, Regeneration, Conversion, and
Justification; while Section Third has for its subject the Application of
Christ’s Redemption in its Continuation,—namely, in Sanctification and
Perseverance.


    The arrangement of topics, in the treatment of the reconciliation
    of man to God, is taken from Julius Müller, Proof‐texts, 35.
    “Revelation _to_ us aims to bring about revelation _in_ us. In any
    being absolutely perfect, God’s intercourse with us by _faculty_,
    and by direct _teaching_, would absolutely coalesce, and the
    former be just as much God’s voice as the latter” (Hutton,
    Essays).


(_b_) In treating Election and Calling as applications of Christ’s
redemption, we imply that they are, in God’s decree, logically subsequent
to that redemption. In this we hold the Sublapsarian view, as
distinguished from the Supralapsarianism of Beza and other hyper‐
Calvinists, which regarded the decree of individual salvation as
preceding, in the order of thought, the decree to permit the Fall. In this
latter scheme, the order of decrees is as follows: 1. the decree to save
certain, and to reprobate others; 2. the decree to create both those who
are to be saved and those who are to be reprobated; 3. the decree to
permit both the former and the latter to fall; 4. the decree to provide
salvation only for the former, that is, for the elect.


    Richards, Theology, 302‐307, shows that Calvin, while in his early
    work, the Institutes, he avoided definite statements of his
    position with regard to the extent of the atonement, yet in his
    latter works, the Commentaries, acceded to the theory of universal
    atonement. Supralapsarianism is therefore hyper‐Calvinistic,
    rather than Calvinistic. Sublapsarianism was adopted by the Synod
    of Dort (1618, 1619). By Supralapsarian is meant that form of
    doctrine which holds the decree of individual salvation as
    preceding the decree to permit the Fall; Sublapsarian designates
    that form of doctrine which holds that the decree of individual
    salvation is subsequent to the decree to permit the Fall.

    The progress in Calvin’s thought may be seen by comparing some of
    his earlier with his later utterances. Institutes, 2:23:5—“I say,
    with Augustine, that the Lord created those who, as he certainly
    foreknew, were to go to destruction, and he did so because he so
    willed.” But even then in the Institutes, 3:23:8, he affirms that
    “the perdition of the wicked depends upon the divine
    predestination in such a manner that the cause and matter of it
    are found in themselves. Man falls by the appointment of divine
    providence, but he falls by his own fault.” God’s blinding,
    hardening, turning the sinner he describes as the consequence of
    the divine _desertion_, not the divine _causation_. The relation
    of God to the origin of sin is not efficient, but permissive. In
    later days Calvin wrote in his Commentary on _1 John 2:2_—“_he is
    the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for
    the whole world_”—as follows: “Christ suffered for the sins of the
    whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men
    without distinction, his blood being shed not for a part of the
    world only, but for the whole human race; for although in the
    world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet he holds
    out the propitiation to the whole world, since without exception
    he summons all to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than
    the door unto hope.”

    Although other passages, such as Institutes, 3:21:5, and 3:23:1,
    assert the harsher view, we must give Calvin credit for modifying
    his doctrine with maturer reflection and advancing years. Much
    that is called Calvinism would have been repudiated by Calvin
    himself even at the beginning of his career, and is really the
    exaggeration of his teaching by more scholastic and less religious
    successors. Renan calls Calvin “the most Christian man of his
    generation.” Dorner describes him as “equally great in intellect
    and character, lovely in social life, full of tender sympathy and
    faithfulness to his friends, yielding and forgiving toward
    personal offences.” The device upon his seal is a flaming heart
    from which is stretched forth a helping hand.

    Calvin’s share in the burning of Servetus must be explained by his
    mistaken zeal for God’s truth and by the universal belief of his
    time that this truth was to be defended by the civil power. The
    following is the inscription on the expiatory monument which
    European Calvinists raised to Servetus: “On October 27, 1553, died
    at the stake at Champel, Michael Servetus, of Villeneuve d’Aragon,
    born September 29, 1511. Reverent and grateful sons of Calvin, our
    great Reformer, but condemning an error which was that of his age,
    and steadfastly adhering to liberty of conscience according to the
    true principles of the Reformation and of the gospel, we have
    erected this expiatory monument, on the 27th of October, 1903.”

    John DeWitt, in Princeton Theol. Rev., Jan. 1904:95—“Take John
    Calvin. That fruitful conception—more fruitful in church and state
    than any other conception which has held the English speaking
    world—of the absolute and universal sovereignty of the holy God,
    as a revolt from the conception then prevailing of the sovereignty
    of the human head of an earthly church, was historically the
    mediator and instaurator of his spiritual career.” On Calvin’s
    theological position, see Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:409, note.


(_c_) But the Scriptures teach that men as sinners, and not men
irrespective of their sins, are the objects of God’s saving grace in
Christ (John 15:9; Rom. 11:5, 7; Eph. 1:4‐6; 1 Pet. 1:2). Condemnation,
moreover, is an act, not of sovereignty, but of justice, and is grounded
in the guilt of the condemned (Rom. 2:6‐11; 2 Thess. 1:5‐10). The true
order of the decrees is therefore as follows: 1. the decree to create; 2.
the decree to permit the Fall; 3. the decree to provide a salvation in
Christ sufficient for the needs of all; 4. the decree to secure the actual
acceptance of this salvation on the part of some,—or, in other words, the
decree of Election.


    That saving grace presupposes the Fall, and that men as sinners
    are the objects of it, appears from _John 15:19_—“_If ye were of
    the world, the world would love its own: but because ye are not of
    the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world
    hateth you_”; _Rom. 11:5‐7_—“_Even so then at this present time
    also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. But if
    it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more
    grace. What then? That which Israel seeketh for, that he obtained
    not; but the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened._”
    _Eph. 1:4‐6_—“_even as he chose us in him before the foundation of
    the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him
    in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through
    Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his
    will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely
    bestowed on us in the Beloved_”; _1 Pet. 1:2_—elect, “_according
    to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the
    Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus: Grace
    to you and peace be multiplied._”

    That condemnation is not an act of sovereignty, but of justice,
    appears from _Rom. 2:6‐9_—“_who will render to every man according
    to his works ... wrath and indignation ... upon every soul of man
    that worketh evil_”; _2 Thess. 1:6‐9_—“_a righteous thing with God
    to recompense affliction to them that afflict you ... rendering
    vengeance to them that know not God and to them that obey not the
    gospel of our Lord Jesus: who shall suffer punishment._”
    Particular persons are elected, not to have Christ die for them,
    but to have special influences of the Spirit bestowed upon them.


(_d_) Those Sublapsarians who hold to the Anselmic view of a limited
Atonement, make the decrees 3. and 4., just mentioned, exchange
places,—the decree of election thus preceding the decree to provide
redemption. The Scriptural reasons for preferring the order here given
have been already indicated in our treatment of the extent of the
Atonement (pages 771‐773).


    When “3” and “4” thus change places, “3” should be made to read:
    “The decree to provide in Christ a salvation sufficient for the
    elect”; and “4” should read: “The decree that a certain number
    should be saved,—or, in other words, the decree of Election.”
    Sublapsarianism of the first sort may be found in Turretin, loc.
    4, quæs. 9; Cunningham, Hist. Theol., 416‐439. A. J. F. Behrends:
    “The divine decree is our last word in theology, not our first
    word. It represents the _terminus ad quem_, not the _terminus a
    quo_. Whatever comes about in the exercise of human freedom and of
    divine grace—that God has decreed.” Yet we must grant that
    Calvinism needs to be supplemented by a more express statement of
    God’s love for the world. Herrick Johnson: “Across the Westminster
    Confession could justly be written: ‘The Gospel for the elect
    only.’ That Confession was written under the absolute dominion of
    one idea, the doctrine of predestination. It does not contain one
    of three truths: God’s love for a lost world; Christ’s compassion
    for a lost world, and the gospel universal for a lost world.”


I. Election.


Election is that eternal act of God, by which in his sovereign pleasure,
and on account of no foreseen merit in them, he chooses certain out of the
number of sinful men to be the recipients of the special grace of his
Spirit, and so to be made voluntary partakers of Christ’s salvation.


1. Proof of the Doctrine of Election.


A. From Scripture.

We here adopt the words of Dr. Hovey: “The Scriptures forbid us to find
the reasons for election in the moral action of man before the new birth,
and refer us merely to the sovereign will and mercy of God; that is, they
teach the doctrine of personal election.” Before advancing to the proof of
the doctrine itself, we may claim Scriptural warrant for three preliminary
statements (which we also quote from Dr. Hovey), namely:

First, that “God has a sovereign right to bestow more grace upon one
subject than upon another,—grace being unmerited favor to sinners.”


    _Mat. 20:12‐15_—“_These last have spent but one hour, and thou
    hast made them equal unto us.... Friend, I do thee no wrong.... Is
    it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?_” _Rom.
    9:20, 21_—“_Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why
    didst thou make me thus? Or hath not the potter a right over the
    clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and
    another unto dishonor?_”


Secondly, that “God has been pleased to exercise this right in dealing
with men.”


    _Ps. 147:20_—“_He hath not dealt so with any nation; And as for
    his ordinances, they have not known them_”. _Rom. 3:1, 2_—“_What
    advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of
    circumcision? Much every way: first of all, that they were
    intrusted with the oracles of God_”; _John 15:16_—“_Ye did not
    choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that ye should go
    and bear fruit_”; _Acts 9:15_—“_he is a chosen vessel unto me, to
    bear my name before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of
    Israel._”


Thirdly, that “God has some other reason than that of saving as many as
possible for the way in which he distributes his grace.”


    n

    _Mat. 11:21_—Tyre and Sidon “_would have repented,_” if they had
    had the grace bestowed upon Chorazin and Bethsaida; _Rom.
    9:22‐25_—“_What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his
    power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath
    fitted unto destruction: and that he might make known the riches
    of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto
    glory?_”


The Scripture passages which directly or indirectly support the doctrine
of a particular election of individual men to salvation may be arranged as
follows:

(_a_) Direct statements of God’s purpose to save certain individuals:


    Jesus speaks of God’s elect, as for example in _Mark 13:27_—“_then
    shall he send forth the angels, and shall gather together his
    elect_”; _Luke 18:7_—“_shall not God avenge his elect, that cry to
    him day and night?_”

    _Acts 13:48_—“_as many as were ordained_ (τεταγμένοι) _to eternal
    life believed_”—here Whedon translates: “disposed unto eternal
    life,” referring to κατηρτισμένα in _verse 23_, where “_fitted_” =
    “fitted themselves.” The only instance, however, where τάσσω is
    used in a middle sense is in _1 Cor. 16:15_—“_set themselves_”;
    but there the object, ἑαυτούς, is expressed. Here we must compare
    _Rom. 13:1_—“_the powers that be are ordained_ (τεταγμέναι) _of
    God_”; see also _Acts 10:42_—“_this is he who is ordained_
    (ὡρισμένος) _of God to be the Judge of the living and the dead._”

    _Rom. 9:11‐16_—“_for the children being not yet born, neither
    having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God
    according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that
    calleth.... I will have mercy upon whom I have mercy.... So then
    it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God
    that hath mercy_”; _Eph. 1:4, 5, 9, 11_—“_chose us in him before
    the foundation of the world,_ [not _because_ we were, or were to
    be, holy, but] _that we should be holy and without blemish before
    him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through
    Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his
    will ... the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure
    ... in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained
    according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the
    counsel of his will_”; _Col. 3:12_—“_God’s elect_”; _2 Thess.
    2:13_—“_God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in
    sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth._”


(_b_) In connection with the declaration of God’s foreknowledge of these
persons, or choice to make them objects of his special attention and care;


    _Rom. 8:27‐30_—“_called according to his purpose. For whom he
    foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his
    Son_”; _1 Pet. 1:1, 2_—“_elect ... according to the foreknowledge
    of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience
    and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ._” On the passage in
    Romans, Shedd, in his Commentary, remarks that “_foreknew,_” in
    the Hebraistic use, “is more than simple prescience, and something
    more also than simply ‘to fix the eye upon,’ or to ‘select.’ It is
    this latter, but with the additional notion of a benignant and
    kindly feeling toward the object.” In _Rom. 8:27‐30_, Paul is
    emphasizing the divine sovereignty. The Christian life is
    considered from the side of the divine care and ordering, and not
    from the side of human choice and volition. Alexander, Theories of
    the Will, 87, 88—“If Paul is here advocating indeterminism, it is
    strange that in _chapter 9_ he should be at pains to answer
    objections to determinism. The apostle’s protest in _chapter 9_ is
    not against predestination and determination, but against the man
    who regards such a theory as impugning the righteousness of God.”

    That the word “_know,_” in Scripture, frequently means not merely
    to “apprehend intellectually,” but to “regard with favor,” to
    “make an object of care,” is evident from _Gen. 18:19_—“_I have
    known him, to the end that he may command his children and his
    household after him, that they may keep the way of Jehovah, to do
    righteousness and justice_”; _Ex. 2:25_—“_And God saw the children
    of Israel, and God took knowledge of them_”; _cf._ _verse
    24_—“_God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant
    with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob_”; _Ps. 1:6_—“_For
    Jehovah knoweth the way of the righteous; But the way of the
    wicked shall perish_”; _101:4,_ marg.—“_I will know no evil
    person_”; _Hosea 13:5_—“_I did know thee in the wilderness, in the
    land of great drought. According to their pasture, so were they
    filled_”; _Nahum 1:7_—“_he knoweth them that take refuge in him_”;
    _Amos 3:2_—“_You only have I known of all the families of the
    earth_”; _Mat. 7:23_—“_then will I profess unto them, I never knew
    you_”; _Rom. 7:15_—“_For that which I do I know not_”; _1 Cor.
    8:3_—“_if any man loveth God, the same is known by him_”; _Gal.
    4:9_—“_now that ye have come to know God, or rather, to be known
    by God_”; _1 Thess. 5:12, 13_—“_we beseech you, brethren, to know
    them that labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and
    admonish you; and to esteem them exceeding highly in love for
    their work’s sake._” So the word “foreknow”: _Rom. 11:2_—“_God did
    not cast off his people whom he foreknew_”; _1 Pet. 1:20_—Christ,
    “_who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world._”

    Broadus on _Mat. 7:23_—“_I never knew you_”—says; “Not in all the
    passages quoted above, nor elsewhere, is there occasion for the
    oft‐repeated arbitrary notion, derived from the Fathers, that
    ‘know’ conveys the additional idea of approve or regard. It
    denotes acquaintance, with all its pleasures and advantages;
    ‘_knew,_’ _i. e._, as mine, as my people.”

    But this last admission seems to grant what Broadus had before
    denied. See Thayer, Lex. N. T., on γινώσκω: “With acc. of person,
    to recognize as worthy of intimacy and love; so those whom God has
    judged worthy of the blessings of the gospel are said ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ
    γινώσκεσθαι (_1 Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:9_); negatively in the sentence
    of Christ: οὐδἐποτε ἔγνων ὑμᾶς, ‘_I never knew you,_’ never had
    any acquaintance with you.” On προγινώσκω, _Rom. 8:29_—οὒς
    προέγνω, “_whom he foreknew,_” see Denney, in Expositor’s Greek
    Testament, _in loco_: “Those whom he foreknew—in what sense? as
    persons who would answer his love with love? This is at least
    irrelevant, and alien to Paul’s general method of thought. That
    salvation begins with God, and begins in eternity, are fundamental
    ideas with him, which he here applies to Christians, without
    raising any of the problems involved in the relation of the human
    will to the divine. Yet we may be sure that προέγνω has the
    pregnant sense that γινώσκω often has in Scripture, _e. g._, in
    _Ps. 1:6; Amos 3:2;_ hence we may render: ‘those of whom God took
    knowledge from eternity’ (_Eph. 1:4_).”

    In _Rom. 8:28‐30_, quoted above, “_foreknew_” = elected—that is,
    made certain individuals, in the future, the objects of his love
    and care; “_foreordained_” describes God’s designation of these
    same individuals to receive the special gift of salvation. In
    other words, “foreknowledge” is of persons: “foreordination” is of
    blessings to be bestowed upon them. Hooker, Eccl. Pol., appendix
    to book v. (vol. 2:751)—“ ‘_whom he did foreknow_’ (know before as
    his own, with determination to be forever merciful to them) ‘_he
    also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his
    Son_’—predestinated, not to opportunity of conformation, but to
    conformation itself.” So, for substance, Calvin, Rückert, DeWette,
    Stuart, Jowett, Vaughan. On _1 Pet. 1:1, 2,_ see Com. of Plumptre.
    The Arminian interpretation of “_whom he foreknew_” (_Rom. 8:29_)
    would require the phrase “as conformed to the image of his Son” to
    be conjoined with it. Paul, however, makes conformity to Christ to
    be the result, not the foreseen condition, of God’s
    foreordination; see Commentaries of Hodge and Lange.


(_c_) With assertions that this choice is matter of grace, or unmerited
favor, bestowed in eternity past:


    _Eph. 1:5‐8_—“_foreordained ... according to the good pleasure of
    his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely
    bestowed on us in the Beloved ... according to the riches of his
    grace_”; _2:8_—“_by grace have ye been saved through faith; and
    that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God_”—here “_and that_”
    (neuter τοῦτο, _verse 8_) refers, not to “faith” but to
    “salvation.” But faith is elsewhere represented as having its
    source in God,—see page 782, (_k_). _2 Tim. 1:9_—“_his own purpose
    and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before times
    eternal._” Election is not because of our merit. McLaren: “God’s
    own mercy, spontaneous, undeserved, condescending, moved him. God
    is his own motive. His love is not drawn out by our loveableness,
    but wells up, like an artesian spring, from the depths of his
    nature.”


(_d_) That the Father has given certain persons to the Son, to be his
peculiar possession:


    _John 6:37_—“_All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto
    me_”; _17:2_—“_that whatsoever thou hast given him, to them he
    should give eternal life_”; _6_—“_I manifested thy name unto the
    men whom thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and
    thou gavest them to me_”; _9_—“_I pray not for the world, but for
    those whom thou hast given me_”; _Eph. 1:14_—“_unto the redemption
    of God’s own possession_”; _1 Pet. 2:9_—“_a people for God’s own
    possession._”


(_e_) That the fact of believers being united thus to Christ is due wholly
to God:


    _John 6:44_—“_No man can come to me, except the Father that sent
    me draw him_”; _10:26_—“_ye believe not, because ye are not of my
    sheep_”; _1 Cor. 1:30_—“_of him_ [God] _are ye in Christ Jesus_” =
    your being, as Christians, in union with Christ, is due wholly to
    God.


(_f_) That those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life, and they
only, shall be saved:


    _Phil. 4:3_—“_the rest of my fellow‐workers, whose names are in
    the book of life_”; _Rev. 20:15_—“_And if any was not found
    written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire_”;
    _21:27_—“_there shall in no wise enter into it anything unclean
    ... but only they that are written in the Lamb’s book of life_” =
    God’s decrees of electing grace in Christ.


(_g_) That these are allotted, as disciples, to certain of God’s servants:


    _Acts 17:4_—(literally)—“_some of them were persuaded, and were
    allotted_ [by God] _to Paul and Silas_”—as disciples (so Meyer and
    Grimm); _18:9, 10_—“_Be not afraid, but speak and hold not thy
    peace: for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to harm
    thee: for I have much people in this city._”


(_h_) Are made the recipients of a special call of God:


    _Rom. 8:28, 30_—“_called according to his purpose ... whom he
    foreordained, them he also called_”; _9:23, 24_—“_vessels of
    mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he also
    called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles_”;
    _11:29_—“_for the gifts and the calling of God are not repented
    of_”; _1 Cor. 1:24‐29_—“_unto them that are called ... Christ the
    power of God, and the wisdom of God.... For behold your calling,
    brethren, ... the things that are despised, did God choose, yea
    and the things that are not, that he might bring to naught the
    things that are: that no flesh should glory before God_”; _Gal.
    1:15, 16_—“_when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated
    me, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through his grace,
    to reveal his Son in me_”; _cf._ _James 2:23_—“_and he_ [Abraham]
    _was called_ [to be] _the friend of God_.”


(_i_) Are born into God’s kingdom, not by virtue of man’s will, but of
God’s will:


    _John 1:13_—“_born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,
    nor of the will of man, but of God_”; _James 1:18_—“_Of his own
    will he brought us forth by the word of truth_”; _1 John
    4:10_—“_Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved
    us._” S. S. Times, Oct. 14, 1899—“The law of love is the
    expression of God’s loving nature, and it is only by our
    participation of the divine nature that we are enabled to render
    it obedience. ‘Loving God,’ says Bushnell, ‘is but letting God
    love us.’ So John’s great saying may be rendered in the present
    tense: ‘not that we love God, but that he loves us.’ Or, as Madame
    Guyon sings: ‘I love my God, but with no love of mine, For I have
    none to give; I love thee, Lord, but all the love is thine, For by
    thy life I live’.”


(_j_) Receiving repentance, as the gift of God:


    _Acts 5:31_—“_Him did God exalt with his right hand to be a Prince
    and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of
    sins_”; _11:18_—“_Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted
    repentance unto life_”; _2 Tim. 2:25_—“_correcting them that
    oppose themselves; if peradventure God may give them repentance
    unto the knowledge of the truth._” Of course it is true that God
    might give repentance simply by inducing man to repent by the
    agency of his word, his providence and his Spirit. But more than
    this seems to be meant when the Psalmist prays: “_Create in me a
    clean heart, O God; And renew a right spirit within me_” (_Ps.
    51:10_).


(_k_) Faith, as the gift of God:


    _John 6:65_—“_no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him
    of the Father_”; _Acts 15:8, 9_—“_God ... giving them the Holy
    Spirit ... cleansing their hearts by faith_”; _Rom.
    12:3_—“_according as God hath dealt to each man a measure of
    faith_”; _1 Cor. 12:9_—“_to another faith, in the same Spirit_”;
    _Gal. 5:22_—“_the fruit of the Spirit is ... faith_” (A. V.);
    _Phil. 2:13_—In all faith, “_it is God who worketh in you both to
    will and to work, for his good pleasure_”; _Eph. 6:23_—“_Peace be
    to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the
    Lord Jesus Christ_”; _John 3:8_—“_The Spirit breatheth where he
    wills, and thou_ [as a consequence] _hearest his voice_” (so
    Bengel); see A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 166; _1 Cor.
    12:3_—“_No man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy
    Spirit_”—but calling Jesus “_Lord_” is an essential part of
    faith,—faith therefore is the work of the Holy Spirit; _Tit.
    1:1_—“_the faith of God’s elect_”—election is not in consequence
    of faith, but faith is in consequence of election (Ellicott). If
    they get their faith of themselves, then salvation is not due to
    grace. If God gave the faith, then it was in his purpose, and this
    is election.


(_l_) Holiness and good works, as the gift of God.


    _Eph. 1:4_—“_chose us in him before the foundation of the world,
    that we should be holy_”; _2:9, 10_—“_not of works, that no man
    should glory. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus
    for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in
    them_”; _1 Pet. 1:2_—elect “_unto obedience._” On Scripture
    testimony, see Hovey, Manual of Theol. and Ethics, 258‐261; also
    art. on Predestination, by Warfield, in Hastings’ Dictionary of
    the Bible.


These passages furnish an abundant and conclusive refutation, on the one
hand, of the Lutheran view that election is simply God’s determination
from eternity to provide an objective salvation for universal humanity;
and, on the other hand, of the Arminian view that election is God’s
determination from eternity to save certain individuals upon the ground of
their foreseen faith.


    Roughly stated, we may say that Schleiermacher elects all men
    subjectively; Lutherans all men objectively; Arminians all
    believers; Augustinians all foreknown as God’s own. Schleiermacher
    held that decree logically precedes foreknowledge, and that
    election is individual, not national. But he made election to
    include all men, the only difference between them being that of
    earlier or of later conversion. Thus in his system Calvinism and
    Restorationism go hand in hand. Murray, in Hastings’ Bible
    Dictionary, seems to take this view.

    Lutheranism is the assertion that original grace preceded original
    sin, and that the _Quia Voluit_ of Tertullian and of Calvin was
    based on wisdom, in Christ. The Lutheran holds that the believer
    is simply the non‐resistant subject of common grace; while the
    Arminian holds that the believer is the coöperant subject of
    common grace. Lutheranism enters more fully than Calvinism into
    the nature of faith. It thinks more of the human agency, while
    Calvinism thinks more of the divine purpose. It thinks more of the
    church, while Calvinism thinks more of Scripture. The Arminian
    conception is that God has appointed men to salvation, just as he
    has appointed them to condemnation, in view of their dispositions
    and acts. As Justification is in view of _present_ faith, so the
    Arminian regards Election as taking place in view of _future_
    faith. Arminianism must reject the doctrine of regeneration as
    well as that of election, and must in both cases make the act of
    man precede the act of God.

    All varieties of view may be found upon this subject among
    theologians. John Milton, in his Christian Doctrine, holds that
    “there is no particular predestination or election, but only
    general.... There can be no reprobation of individuals from all
    eternity.” Archbishop Sumner: “Election is predestination of
    communities and nations to external knowledge and to the
    privileges of the gospel.” Archbishop Whately: “Election is the
    choice of individual men to membership in the external church and
    the means of grace.” Gore, in Lux Mundi, 320—“The elect represent
    not the special purpose of God for a few, but the universal
    purpose which under the circumstances can only be realized through
    a few.” R. V. Foster, a Cumberland Presbyterian, opposed to
    absolute predestination, says in his Systematic Theology that the
    divine decree “is unconditional in its origin and conditional in
    its application.”


B. From Reason.

(_a_) What God does, he has eternally purposed to do. Since he bestows
special regenerating grace on some, he must have eternally purposed to
bestow it,—in other words, must have chosen them to eternal life. Thus the
doctrine of election is only a special application of the doctrine of
decrees.


    The New Haven views are essentially Arminian. See Fitch, on
    Predestination and Election, in Christian Spectator, 3:622—“God’s
    foreknowledge of what would be the results of his present works of
    grace _preceded_ in the order of nature the purpose to pursue
    those works, and presented the _grounds_ of that purpose. Whom he
    foreknew—as the people who would be guided to his kingdom by his
    present works of grace, in which result lay the whole objective
    motive for undertaking those works—he did also, by resolving on
    those works, predestinate.” Here God is very erroneously said to
    _foreknow_ what is as yet included in a merely _possible_ plan. As
    we have seen in our discussion of Decrees, there can be no
    foreknowledge, unless there is something fixed, in the future, to
    be foreknown; and this fixity can be due only to God’s
    predetermination. So, in the present case, election must precede
    prescience.

    The New Haven views are also given in N. W. Taylor, Revealed
    Theology, 373‐444; for criticism upon them, see Tyler, Letters on
    New Haven Theology, 172‐180. If God desired the salvation of Judas
    as much as of Peter, how was Peter elected in distinction from
    Judas? To the question, “_Who made thee to differ?_” the answer
    must be, “Not God, but my own will.” See Finney, in Bib. Sac.,
    1877:711—“God must have foreknown whom he _could_ wisely save,
    prior in the order of nature to his determining to save them. But
    his knowing who _would_ be saved, must have been, in the order of
    nature, subsequent to his election or determination to save them,
    and dependent upon that determination.” Foster, Christian Life and
    Theology, 70—“The doctrine of election is the consistent
    formulation, _sub specie eternitatis_, of prevenient grace....
    86—With the doctrine of prevenient grace, the evangelical doctrine
    stands or falls.”


(_b_) This purpose cannot be conditioned upon any merit or faith of those
who are chosen, since there is no such merit,—faith itself being God’s
gift and foreordained by him. Since man’s faith is foreseen only as the
result of God’s work of grace, election proceeds rather upon foreseen
unbelief. Faith, as the effect of election, cannot at the same time be the
cause of election.


    There is an analogy between prayer and its answer, on the one
    hand, and faith and salvation on the other. God has decreed answer
    in connection with prayer, and salvation in connection with faith.
    But he does not change his mind when men pray, or when they
    believe. As he fulfils his purpose by inspiring true prayer, so he
    fulfils his purpose by giving faith. Augustine: “He chooses us,
    not because we believe, but that we may believe: lest we should
    say that we first chose him.” (_John 15:16_—“_Ye did not choose
    me, but I chose you_”; _Rom. 9:21_—“_from the same lump_”;
    _16_—“_not of him that willeth_”.)

    Here see the valuable discussion of Wardlaw, Systematic Theol.,
    2:485‐549—“Election and salvation on the ground of works foreseen
    are not different in principle from election and salvation on the
    ground of works performed.” _Cf._ _Prov. 21:1_—“_The king’s heart
    is in the hand of Jehovah as the watercourses; He turneth it
    whithersoever he will_”—as easily as the rivulets of the eastern
    fields are turned by the slightest motion of the hand or the foot
    of the husbandman; _Ps. 110:3_—“_Thy people offer themselves
    willingly In the day of thy power._”


(_c_) The depravity of the human will is such that, without this decree to
bestow special divine influences upon some, all, without exception, would
have rejected Christ’s salvation after it was offered to them; and so all,
without exception, must have perished. Election, therefore, may be viewed
as a necessary consequence of God’s decree to provide an objective
redemption, if that redemption is to have any subjective result in human
salvation.


    Before the prodigal son seeks the father, the father must first
    seek him,—a truth brought out in the preceding parables of the
    lost money and the lost sheep (_Luke 15_). Without election, all
    are lost. Newman Smyth, Orthodox Theology of To‐day, 56—“The worst
    doctrine of election, to‐day, is taught by our natural science.
    The scientific doctrine of natural selection is the doctrine of
    election, robbed of all hope, and without a single touch of human
    pity in it.”

    Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:335—“Suppose the deistic view be true: God
    created men and left them; surely no man could complain of the
    results. But now suppose God, foreseeing these very results of
    creation, should create. Would it make any difference, if God’s
    purpose, as to the futurition of such a world, should precede it?
    Augustine supposes that God did purpose such a world as the deist
    supposes, with two exceptions: (1) he interposes to restrain evil;
    (2) he intervenes, by providence, by Christ, and by the Holy
    Spirit, to save some from destruction.” Election is simply God’s
    determination that the sufferings of Christ shall not be in vain;
    that all men shall not be lost; that some shall be led to accept
    Christ; that to this end special influences of his Spirit shall be
    given.

    At first sight it might appear that God’s appointing men to
    salvation was simply permissive, as was his appointment to
    condemnation (_1 Pet. 2:8_), and that this appointment was merely
    indirect by creating them with foresight of their faith or their
    disobedience. But the decree of salvation is not simply
    permissive,—it is efficient also. It is a decree to use special
    means for the salvation of some. A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures,
    143—“The dead man cannot spontaneously originate his own
    quickening, nor the creature his own creating, nor the infant his
    own begetting. Whatever man may do after regeneration, the first
    quickening of the dead must originate with God.”

    Hovey, Manual of Theology, 287—“Calvinism, reduced to its lowest
    terms, is election of believers, not on account of any foreseen
    conduct of theirs, either before or in the act of conversion,
    which would be spiritually better than that of others influenced
    by the same grace, but on account of their foreseen greater
    usefulness in manifesting the glory of God to moral beings and of
    their foreseen non‐commission of the sin against the Holy Spirit.”
    But even here we must attribute the greater usefulness and the
    abstention from fatal sin, not to man’s unaided powers but to the
    divine decree: see _Eph. 2:10_—“_For we are his workmanship,
    created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared
    that we should walk in them._”


(_d_) The doctrine of election becomes more acceptable to reason when we
remember: first, that God’s decree is eternal, and in a certain sense is
contemporaneous with man’s belief in Christ; secondly, that God’s decree
to create involves the decree of all that in the exercise of man’s freedom
will follow; thirdly, that God’s decree is the decree of him who is all in
all, so that our willing and doing is at the same time the working of him
who decrees our willing and doing. The whole question turns upon the
initiative in human salvation: if this belongs to God, then in spite of
difficulties we must accept the doctrine of election.


    The timeless existence of God may be the source of many of our
    difficulties with regard to election, and with a proper view of
    God’s eternity these difficulties might be removed. Mason, Faith
    of the Gospel, 349‐351—“Eternity is commonly thought of as if it
    were a state or series anterior to time and to be resumed again
    when time comes to an end. This, however, only reduces eternity to
    time again, and puts the life of God in the same line with our
    own, only coming from further back.... At present we do not see
    how time and eternity meet.”

    Royce, World and Individual, 2:374—“God does not temporally
    foreknow anything, except so far as he is expressed in us finite
    beings. The knowledge that exists in time is the knowledge that
    finite beings possess, in so far as they are finite. And no such
    foreknowledge can predict the special features of individual deeds
    precisely so far as they are unique. Foreknowledge in time is
    possible only of the general, and of the causally predetermined,
    and not of the unique and free. Hence neither God nor man can
    foreknow perfectly, at any temporal moment, what a free will agent
    is yet to do. On the other hand, the Absolute possesses a perfect
    knowledge at one glance of the whole of the temporal order, past,
    present and future. This knowledge is ill called foreknowledge. It
    is eternal knowledge. And as there is an eternal knowledge of all
    individuality and of all freedom, free acts are known as
    occurring, like the chords in the musical succession, precisely
    when and how they actually occur.” While we see much truth in the
    preceding statement, we find in it no bar to our faith that God
    can translate his eternal knowledge into finite knowledge and can
    thus put it for special purposes in possession of his creatures.

    E. H. Johnson, Theology, 2d ed., 250—“Foreknowing what his
    creatures would do, God decreed their destiny when he decreed
    their creation; and this would still be the case, although every
    man had the partial control over his destiny that Arminians aver,
    or even the complete control that Pelagians claim. The decree is
    as absolute as if there were no freedom, but it leaves them as
    free as if there were no decree.” A. H. Strong, Christ in
    Creation, 40, 42—“As the Logos or divine Reason, Christ dwells in
    humanity everywhere and constitutes the principle of its being.
    Humanity shares with Christ in the image of God. That image is
    never wholly lost. It is completely restored in sinners when the
    Spirit of Christ secures control of their wills and leads them to
    merge their life in his.... If Christ be the principle and life of
    all things, then divine sovereignty and human freedom, if they are
    not absolutely reconciled, at least lose their ancient antagonism,
    and we can rationally ‘_work out our own salvation_,’ for the very
    reason that ‘_it is God that worketh in us, both to will and to
    work, for his good pleasure_’ (_Phil. 2:12, 13_).”


2. Objections to the Doctrine of Election.


(_a_) It is unjust to those who are not included in this purpose of
salvation.—Answer: Election deals, not simply with creatures, but with
sinful, guilty, and condemned creatures. That any should be saved, is
matter of pure grace, and those who are not included in this purpose of
salvation suffer only the due reward of their deeds. There is, therefore,
no injustice in God’s election. We may better praise God that he saves
any, than charge him with injustice because he saves so few.


    God can say to all men, saved or unsaved, “_Friend, I do thee no
    wrong.... Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine
    own?_” (_Mat. 20:13, 15_). The question is not whether a father
    will treat his children alike, but whether a sovereign must treat
    condemned rebels alike. It is not true that, because the Governor
    pardons one convict from the penitentiary, he must therefore
    pardon all. When he pardons one, no injury is done to those who
    are left. But, in God’s government, there is still less reason for
    objection; for God offers pardon to all. Nothing prevents men from
    being pardoned but their unwillingness to accept his pardon.
    Election is simply God’s determination to make certain persons
    willing to accept it. Because justice cannot save all, shall it
    therefore save none?

    Augustine, De Predest. Sanct., 8—“Why does not God teach all?
    Because it is in mercy that he teaches all whom he does teach,
    while it is in judgment that he does not teach those whom he does
    not teach.” In his Manual of Theology and Ethics, 260, Hovey
    remarks that _Rom. 9:20_—“_who art thou that repliest against
    God?_”—teaches, not that might makes right, but that God is
    morally entitled to glorify either his righteousness or his mercy
    in disposing of a guilty race. It is not that he chooses to save
    only a few ship‐wrecked and drowning creatures, but that he
    chooses to save only a part of a great company who are bent on
    committing suicide. _Prov. 8:36_—“_he that sinneth against me
    wrongeth his own soul: All they that hate me love death._” It is
    best for the universe at large that some should be permitted to
    have their own way and show how dreadful a thing is opposition to
    God. See Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:455.


(_b_) It represents God as partial in his dealings and a respecter of
persons.—Answer: Since there is nothing in men that determines God’s
choice of one rather than another, the objection is invalid. It would
equally apply to God’s selection of certain nations, as Israel, and
certain individuals, as Cyrus, to be recipients of special temporal gifts.
If God is not to be regarded as partial in not providing a salvation for
fallen angels, he cannot be regarded as partial in not providing
regenerating influences of his Spirit for the whole race of fallen men.


    _Ps. 44:3_—“_For they gat not the land in possession by their own
    sword, Neither did their own arm save them; But thy right hand,
    and thine arm, and the light of thy countenance, Because thou wast
    favorable unto them_”; _Is. 45:1, 4, 5_—“_Thus saith Jehovah to
    his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue
    nations before him.... For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel my
    chosen, I have called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee,
    though thou hast not known me_”; _Luke 4:25‐27_—“_There were many
    widows in Israel ... and unto none of them was Elijah sent, but
    only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, unto a woman that was a
    widow. And there were many lepers in Israel ... and none of them
    was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian_”; _1 Cor. 4:7_—“_For who
    maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou didst not
    receive? but if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if
    thou hadst not received it?_” _2 Pet. 2:4_—“_God spared not angels
    when they sinned, but cast them down to hell_”; _Heb. 2:16_—“_For
    verily not to angels doth he give help, but he giveth help to the
    seed of Abraham._”

    Is God partial, in choosing Israel, Cyrus, Naaman? Is God partial,
    in bestowing upon some of his servants special ministerial gifts?
    Is God partial, in not providing a salvation for fallen angels? In
    God’s providence, one man is born in a Christian land, the son of
    a noble family, is endowed with beauty of person, splendid
    talents, exalted opportunities, immense wealth. Another is born at
    the Five Points, or among the Hottentots, amid the degradation and
    depravity of actual, or practical, heathenism. We feel that it is
    irreverent to complain of God’s dealings in providence. What right
    have sinners to complain of God’s dealings in the distribution of
    his grace? Hovey: “We have no reason to think that God treats all
    moral beings alike. We should be glad to hear that other races are
    treated better than we.”

    Divine election is only the ethical side and interpretation of
    natural selection. In the latter God chooses certain forms of the
    vegetable and animal kingdom without merit of theirs. They are
    preserved while others die. In the matter of individual health,
    talent, property, one is taken and the other left. If we call all
    this the result of system, the reply is that God chose the system,
    knowing precisely what would come of it. Bruce, Apologetics,
    201—“Election to distinction in philosophy or art is not
    incomprehensible, for these are not matters of vital concern; but
    election to holiness on the part of some, and to unholiness on the
    part of others, would be inconsistent with God’s own holiness.”
    But there is no such election to unholiness except on the part of
    man himself. God’s election secures only the good. See (_c_)
    below.

    J. J. Murphy, Natural Selection and Spiritual Freedom, 73—“The
    world is ordered on a basis of inequality; in the organic world,
    as Darwin has shown, it is of inequality—of favored races—that all
    progress comes; history shows the same to be true of the human and
    spiritual world. All human progress is due to elect human
    individuals, elect not only to be a blessing to themselves, but
    still more to be a blessing to multitudes of others. Any
    superiority, whether in the natural or in the mental and spiritual
    world, becomes a vantage‐ground for gaining a greater
    superiority.... It is the method of the divine government, acting
    in the provinces both of nature and of grace, that all benefit
    should come to the many through the elect few.”


(_c_) It represents God as arbitrary.—Answer: It represents God, not as
arbitrary, but as exercising the free choice of a wise and sovereign will,
in ways and for reasons which are inscrutable to us. To deny the
possibility of such a choice is to deny God’s personality. To deny that
God has reasons for his choice is to deny his wisdom. The doctrine of
election finds these reasons, not in men, but in God.


    When a regiment is decimated for insubordination, the fact that
    every tenth man is chosen for death is for reasons; but the
    reasons are not in the men. In one case, the reason for God’s
    choice seems revealed: _1 Tim. 1:16_—“_howbeit for this cause I
    obtained mercy, that in me as chief might Jesus Christ show forth
    all his longsuffering, for an ensample of them that should
    thereafter believe on him unto eternal life_”—here Paul indicates
    that the reason why God chose him was that he was so great a
    sinner: _verse 15_—“_Christ Jesus came into the world to save
    sinners; of whom I am chief._” Hovey remarks that “the uses to
    which God can put men, as vessels of grace, may determine his
    selection of them.” But since the naturally weak are saved, as
    well as the naturally strong, we cannot draw any general
    conclusion, or discern any general rule, in God’s dealings, unless
    it be this, that in election God seeks to illustrate the greatness
    and the variety of his grace,—the reasons lying, therefore, not in
    men, but in God. We must remember that God’s _sovereignty_ is the
    sovereignty of _God_—the infinitely wise, holy and loving God, in
    whose hands the destinies of men can be left more safely than in
    the hands of the wisest, most just, and most kind of his
    creatures.

    We must believe in the grace of sovereignty as well as in the
    sovereignty of grace. Election and reprobation are not matters of
    arbitrary will. God saves all whom he can wisely save. He will
    show benevolence in the salvation of mankind just so far as he can
    without prejudice to holiness. No man can be saved without God,
    but it is also true that there is no man whom God is not willing
    to save. H. B. Smith, System, 511—“It may be that many of the
    finally impenitent resist more light than many of the saved.”
    Harris, Moral Evolution, 401 (for substance)—“Sovereignty is not
    lost in Fatherhood, but is recovered as the divine law of
    righteous love. Doubtless thou art our Father, though Augustine be
    ignorant of us, and Calvin acknowledge us not.” Hooker, Eccl.
    Polity, 1:2—“They err who think that of God’s will there is no
    reason except his will.” T. Erskine, The Brazen Serpent,
    259—Sovereignty is “just a name for what is _unrevealed_ of God.”

    We do not know _all_ of God’s reasons for saving particular men,
    but we do know _some_ of the reasons, for he has revealed them to
    us. These reasons are not men’s merits or works. We have mentioned
    the first of these reasons: (1) Men’s greater sin and need; _1
    Tim. 1:16_—“_that in me as chief might Jesus Christ show forth all
    his longsuffering._” We may add to this: (2) The fact that men
    have not sinned against the Holy Spirit and made themselves
    unreceptive to Christ’s salvation; _1 Tim. 1:13_—“_I obtained
    mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief_”—the fact that
    Paul had not sinned with full knowledge of what he did was a
    reason why God could choose him. (3) Men’s ability by the help of
    Christ to be witnesses and martyrs for their Lord; _Acts 9:15,
    16_—“_he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the
    Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel: for I will show
    him how many things he must suffer for my name’s sake._” As Paul’s
    mission to the Gentiles may have determined God’s choice, so
    Augustine’s mission to the sensual and abandoned may have had the
    same influence. But if Paul’s sins, as foreseen, constituted one
    reason why God chose to save him, why might not his ability to
    serve the kingdom have constituted another reason? We add
    therefore: (4) Men’s foreseen ability to serve Christ’s kingdom in
    bringing others to the knowledge of the truth; _John 15:16_—“_I
    chose you and appointed you, that ye should go and bear fruit._”
    Notice however that this is choice _to_ service, and not simply
    choice _on account of service_. In all these cases the reasons do
    not lie in the men themselves, for what these men are and what
    they possess is due to God’s providence and grace.


(_d_) It tends to immorality, by representing men’s salvation as
independent of their own obedience.—Answer: The objection ignores the fact
that the salvation of believers is ordained only in connection with their
regeneration and sanctification, as means; and that the certainty of final
triumph is the strongest incentive to strenuous conflict with sin.


    Plutarch: “God is the brave man’s hope, and not the coward’s
    excuse.” The purposes of God are an anchor to the storm‐tossed
    spirit. But a ship needs engine, as well as anchor. God does not
    elect to save any without repentance and faith. Some hold the
    doctrine of election, but the doctrine of election does not hold
    them. Such should ponder _1 Pet. 1:2_, in which Christians are
    said to be elect, “_in sanctification of the Spirit, unto
    obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ_.”

    Augustine: “He loved her [the church] foul, that he might make her
    fair.” Dr. John Watson (Ian McLaren): “The greatest reinforcement
    religion could have in our time would be a return to the ancient
    belief in the sovereignty of God.” This is because there is lack
    of a strong conviction of sin, guilt, and helplessness, still
    remaining pride and unwillingness to submit to God, imperfect
    faith in God’s trustworthiness and goodness. We must not exclude
    Arminians from our fellowship—there are too many good Methodists
    for that. But we may maintain that they hold but half the truth,
    and that absence of the doctrine of election from their creed
    makes preaching less serious and character less secure.


(_e_) It inspires pride in those who think themselves elect.—Answer: This
is possible only in the case of those who pervert the doctrine. On the
contrary, its proper influence is to humble men. Those who exalt
themselves above others, upon the ground that they are special favorites
of God, have reason to question their election.


    In the novel, there was great effectiveness in the lover’s plea to
    the object of his affection, that he had loved since he had first
    set his eyes upon her in her childhood. But God’s love for us is
    of longer standing than that. It dates back to a time before we
    were born,—aye, even to eternity past. It is a love which was
    fastened upon us, although God knew the worst of us. It is
    unchanging, because founded upon his infinite and eternal love to
    Christ. _Jer. 31:3_—“_Jehovah appeared of old unto me, saying,
    Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with
    lovingkindness have I drawn thee_”; _Rom. 8:31‐39_—“_If God is for
    us, who is against us?... Who shall separate us from the love of
    Christ?_” And the answer is, that nothing “_shall be able to
    separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our
    Lord_.” This eternal love subdues and humbles: _Ps. 115:1_—“_Not
    unto us, O Jehovah, not unto us, But unto thy name give glory For
    thy lovingkindness, and for thy truth’s sake._”

    Of the effect of the doctrine of election, Calvin, in his
    Institutes, 3:22:1, remarks that “when the human mind hears of it,
    its irritation breaks all restraint, and it discovers as serious
    and violent agitation as if alarmed by the sound of a martial
    trumpet.” The cause of this agitation is the apprehension of the
    fact that one is an enemy of God and yet absolutely dependent upon
    his mercy. This apprehension leads normally to submission. But the
    conquered rebel can give no thanks to himself,—all thanks are due
    to God who has chosen and renewed him. The affections elicited are
    not those of pride and self‐complacency, but of gratitude and
    love.

    Christian hymnology witnesses to these effects. Isaac Watts (†
    1748): “Why was I made to hear thy voice And enter while there’s
    room, When thousands make a wretched choice, And rather starve
    than come. ’T was the same love that spread the feast That sweetly
    forced me in; Else I had still refused to taste, And perished in
    my sin. Pity the nations, O our God! Constrain the earth to come;
    Send thy victorious word abroad, And bring the wanderers home.”
    Josiah Conder († 1855): “’Tis not that I did choose thee, For,
    Lord, that could not be; This heart would still refuse thee; But
    thou hast chosen me;—Hast, from the sin that stained me, Washed me
    and set me free, And to this end ordained me That I should live to
    thee. ’T was sovereign mercy called me, And taught my opening
    mind; The world had else enthralled me, To heavenly glories blind.
    My heart owns none above thee: For thy rich grace I thirst; This
    knowing,—if I love thee, Thou must have loved me first.”


(_f_) It discourages effort for the salvation of the impenitent, whether
on their own part or on the part of others.—Answer: Since it is a secret
decree, it cannot hinder or discourage such effort. On the other hand, it
is a ground of encouragement, and so a stimulus to effort; for, without
election, it is certain that all would be lost (_cf._ Acts 18:10). While
it humbles the sinner, so that he is willing to err for mercy, it
encourages him also by showing him that some will be saved, and (since
election and faith are inseparably connected) that he will be saved, if he
will only believe. While it makes the Christian feel entirely dependent on
God’s power, in his efforts for the impenitent, it leads him to say with
Paul that he “endures all things for the elects’ sake, that they also may
attain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Tim.
2:10).


    God’s decree that Paul’s ship’s company should be saved (_Acts
    27:24_) did not obviate the necessity of their abiding in the ship
    (_verse 31_). In marriage, man’s election does not exclude
    woman’s; so God’s election does not exclude man’s. There is just
    as much need of effort as if there were no election. Hence the
    question for the sinner is not, “Am I one of the elect?” but
    rather, “What shall I do to be saved?” Milton represents the
    spirits of hell as debating foreknowledge and free will, in
    wandering mazes lost.

    No man is saved until he ceases to debate, and begins to act. And
    yet no man will thus begin to act, unless God’s Spirit moves him.
    The Lord encouraged Paul by saying to him: “_I have much people in
    this city_” (_Acts 18:10_)—people whom I will bring in through thy
    word. “Old Adam is too strong for young Melanchthon.” If God does
    not regenerate, there is no hope of success in preaching: “God
    stands powerless before the majesty of man’s lordly will. Sinners
    have the glory of their own salvation. To pray God to convert a
    man is absurd. God elects the man, because he foresees that the
    man will elect himself” (see S. R. Mason, Truth Unfolded,
    298‐307). The doctrine of election does indeed cut off the hopes
    of those who place confidence in themselves; but it is best that
    such hopes should be destroyed, and that in place of them should
    be put a hope in the sovereign grace of God. The doctrine of
    election does teach man’s absolute dependence upon God, and the
    impossibility of any disappointment or disarrangement of the
    divine plans arising from the disobedience of the sinner, and it
    humbles human pride until it is willing to take the place of a
    suppliant for mercy.

    Rowland Hill was criticized for preaching election and yet
    exhorting sinners to repent, and was told that he should preach
    only to the elect. He replied that, if his critic would put a
    chalk‐mark on all the elect, he would preach only to them. But
    this is not the whole truth. We are not only ignorant who God’s
    elect are, but we are set to preach to both elect and non‐elect
    (_Ez. 2:7_—“_thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they
    will hear, or whether they will forbear_”), with the certainty
    that to the former our preaching will make a higher heaven, to the
    latter a deeper hell (_2 Cor. 2:15, 16_—“_For we are a sweet savor
    of Christ unto God, in them that are saved, and in them that
    perish; to the one a savor from death unto death; to the other a
    savor from life unto life_”; _cf._ _Luke 2:34_—“_this child is set
    for the falling and the rising of many in Israel_”—for the falling
    of some, and for the rising up of others).

    Jesus’ own thanksgiving in _Mat. 11:25, 26_—“_I thank thee, O
    Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these
    things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto
    babes: yea, Father, for so it was well‐pleasing in thy sight_”—is
    immediately followed by his invitation in _verse 28_—“_Come unto
    me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you
    rest._” There is no contradiction in his mind between sovereign
    grace and the free invitations of the gospel.

    G. W. Northrup, in The Standard, Sept. 19, 1889—“1. God will save
    every one of the human race whom he can save and remain God; 2.
    Every member of the race has a full and fair probation, so that
    all might be saved and would be saved were they to use aright the
    light which they already have.”... (Private letter): “Limitations
    of God in the bestowment of salvation: 1. In the power of God in
    relation to free will; 2. In the benevolence of God which requires
    the greatest good of creation, or the greatest aggregate good of
    the greatest number; 3. In the purpose of God to make the most
    perfect self‐limitation; 4. In the sovereignty of God, as a
    prerogative absolutely optional in its exercise; 5. In the
    holiness of God, which involves immutable limitations on his part
    in dealing with moral agents. Nothing but some absolute
    impossibility, metaphysical or moral, could have prevented him
    ’whose nature and whose name is love’ from decreeing and securing
    the confirmation of all moral agents in holiness and blessedness
    forever.”


(_g_) The decree of election implies a decree of reprobation.—Answer: The
decree of reprobation is not a positive decree, like that of election, but
a permissive decree to leave the sinner to his self‐chosen rebellion and
its natural consequences of punishment.


    Election and sovereignty are only sources of good. Election is not
    a decree to destroy,—it is a decree only to save. When we elect a
    President, we do not need to hold a second election to determine
    that the remaining millions shall be non‐Presidents. It is
    needless to apply contrivance or force. Sinners, like water, if
    simply let alone, will run down hill to ruin. The decree of
    reprobation is simply a decree to do nothing—a decree to leave the
    sinner to himself. The natural result of this judicial forsaking,
    on the part of God, is the hardening and destruction of the
    sinner. But it must not be forgotten that this hardening and
    destruction are not due to any positive efficiency of God,—they
    are a self‐hardening and a self‐destruction,—and God’s judicial
    forsaking is only the just penalty of the sinner’s guilty
    rejection of offered mercy.

    See _Hosea 11:8_—“_How shall I give thee up, Ephraim?... my heart
    is turned within me, my compassions are kindled together_”;
    _4:17_—“_Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone_”; _Rom. 9:22,
    23_—“_What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his
    power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath
    fitted unto destruction: and that he might make known the riches
    of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto
    glory_”—here notice that “_which he afore prepared_” declares a
    positive divine efficiency, in the case of the vessels of mercy,
    while “_fitted unto destruction_” intimates no such positive
    agency of God,—the vessels of wrath fitted themselves for
    destruction; _2 Tim. 2:20_—“_vessels ... some unto honor, and some
    unto dishonor_”; _1 Pet. 2:8_—“_they stumble at the word, being
    disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed_”; _Jude 4_—“_who
    were of old set forth_ [‘_written of beforehand_’—Am. Rev.] _unto
    this condemnation_”; _Mat. 25:34, 41_—“_the kingdom prepared for
    you ... the eternal fire which is prepared_ [not for you, nor for
    men, but] _for the devil and his angels_” = there is an election
    to life, but no reprobation to death; a “_book of life_” (_Rev.
    21:27_), but no book of death.

    E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 313—“Reprobation, in the sense
    of absolute predestination to sin and eternal damnation, is
    neither a sequence of the doctrine of election, nor the teaching
    of the Scriptures.” Men are not “_appointed_” to disobedience and
    stumbling in the same way that they are “_appointed_” to
    salvation. God uses positive means to save, but not to destroy.
    Henry Ward Beecher: “The elect are whosoever will; the non‐elect
    are whosoever won’t.” George A. Gordon, New Epoch for Faith,
    44—“Election understood would have been the saving strength of
    Israel; election misunderstood was its ruin. The nation felt that
    the election of it meant the rejection of other nations.... The
    Christian church has repeated Israel’s mistake.”

    The Westminster Confession reads: “By the decree of God, for the
    manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated
    unto everlasting life, and others to everlasting death. These
    angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are
    particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so
    certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or
    diminished. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the
    unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or
    withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign
    power over his creatures, to pass by and to ordain them to
    dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious
    justice.” This reads as if both the saved and the lost were made
    originally for their respective final estates without respect to
    character. It is supralapsarianism. It is certain that the
    supralapsarians were in the majority in the Westminster Assembly,
    and that they determined the form of the statement, although there
    were many sublapsarians who objected that it was only on account
    of their foreseen wickedness that any were reprobated. In its
    later short statement of doctrine the Presbyterian body in America
    has made it plain that God’s decree of reprobation is a permissive
    decree, and that it places no barrier in the way of any man’s
    salvation.

    On the general subject of Election, see Mozley, Predestination;
    Payne, Divine Sovereignty; Ridgeley, Works, 1:261‐324, esp. 322;
    Edwards, Works, 2:527 _sq._; Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 446‐458;
    Martensen, Dogmatics, 362‐382; and especially Wardlaw, Systematic
    Theology, 485‐549; H. B. Smith, Syst. of Christian Theology,
    502‐514; Maule, Outlines of Christian Doctrine, 36‐56; Peck, in
    Bapt. Quar. Rev., Oct. 1891:689‐706. On objections to election,
    and Spurgeon’s answers to them, see Williams, Reminiscences of
    Spurgeon, 189. On the homiletical uses of the doctrine of
    election, see Bib. Sac., Jan. 1893:79‐92.


II. Calling.


Calling is that act of God by which men are invited to accept, by faith,
the salvation provided by Christ.—The Scriptures distinguish between:

(_a_) _The general, or external, call_ to all men through God’s
providence, word, and Spirit.


    _Is. 45:22_—“_Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the
    earth; for I am God, and there is none else_”; _55:6_—“_Seek ye
    Jehovah while he may be found; call ye upon him while he is
    near_”; _65:12_—“_when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake,
    ye did not hear; but ye did that which was evil in mine eyes, and
    chose that wherein I delighted not_”; _Ez. 33:11_—“_As I live,
    saith the Lord Jehovah, I have no pleasure in the death of the
    wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye,
    turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of
    Israel?_” _Mat. 11:28_—“_Come unto me, all ye that labor and are
    heavy laden, and I will give you rest_”; _22:3_—“_sent forth his
    servants to call them that were bidden to the marriage feast: and
    they would not come_”; _Mark 16:15_—“_Go ye into all the world,
    and preach the gospel to the whole creation_”; _John 12:32_—“_And
    I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto
    myself_”—draw, not drag; _Rev. 3:20_—“_Behold, I stand at the door
    and knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come
    in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me._”


(_b_) _The special, efficacious call_ of the Holy Spirit to the elect.


    _Luke 14:23_—“_Go out into the highways and hedges, and constrain
    them to come in, that my house may be filled_”; _Rom. 1:7_—“_to
    all that are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace
    to you and peace from God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ_”;
    _8:30_—“_whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he
    called, them he also justified_”; _11:29_—“_For the gifts and the
    calling of God are not repented of_”; _1 Cor. 1:23, 24_—“_but we
    preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumblingblock, and unto
    Gentiles foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and
    Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God_”;
    _26_—“_For behold your calling, brethren, that not many wise after
    the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called_”; _Phil.
    3:14_—“_I press on toward the goal unto the prize of the high_
    [marg. ‘_upward_’] _calling of God in Christ Jesus_”; _Eph.
    1:18_—“_that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, what the
    riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints_”; _1 Thess.
    2:12_—“_to the end that ye should walk worthily of God, who
    calleth you into his own kingdom and glory_”; _2 Thess.
    2:14_—“_whereunto he called you through our gospel, to the
    obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ_”; _2 Tim.
    1:9_—“_who saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not
    according to our works, but according to his own purpose and
    grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before times eternal_”;
    _Heb. 3:1_—“_holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling_”; _2
    Pet. 1:10_—“_Wherefore, brethren, give the more diligence to make
    your calling and election sure._”


Two questions only need special consideration:


A. Is God’s general call sincere?


This is denied, upon the ground that such sincerity is incompatible,
first, with the inability of the sinner to obey; and secondly, with the
design of God to bestow only upon the elect the special grace without
which they will not obey.

(_a_) To the first objection we reply that, since this inability is not a
physical but a moral inability, consisting simply in the settled
perversity of an evil will, there can be no insincerity in offering
salvation to all, especially when the offer is in itself a proper motive
to obedience.


    God’s call to all men to repent and to believe the gospel is no
    more insincere than his command to all men to love him with all
    the heart. There is no obstacle in the way of men’s obedience to
    the gospel, that does not exist to prevent their obedience to the
    law. If it is proper to publish the commands of the law, it is
    proper to publish the invitations of the gospel. A human being may
    be perfectly sincere in giving an invitation which he knows will
    be refused. He may desire to have the invitation accepted, while
    yet he may, for certain reasons of justice or personal dignity, be
    unwilling to put forth special efforts, aside from the invitation
    itself, to secure the acceptance of it on the part of those to
    whom it is offered. So God’s desires that certain men should be
    saved may not be accompanied by his will to exert special
    influences to save them.

    These desires were meant by the phrase “revealed will” in the old
    theologians; his purpose to bestow special grace, by the phrase
    “secret will.” It is of the former that Paul speaks, in _1 Tim,
    2:4_—“_who would have all men to be saved._” Here we have, not the
    active σῶσαι, but the passive σωθῆναι. The meaning is, not that
    God _purposes_ to save all men, but that he _desires_ all men to
    be saved through repenting and believing the gospel. Hence God’s
    revealed will, or desire, that all men should be saved, is
    perfectly consistent with his secret will, or purpose, to bestow
    special grace only upon a certain number (see, on _1 Tim. 2:4_,
    Fairbairn’s Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles).

    The sincerity of God’s call is shown, not only in the fact that
    the only obstacle to compliance, on the sinner’s part, is the
    sinner’s own evil will, but also in the fact that God has, at
    infinite cost, made a complete external provision, upon the ground
    of which “_he that will_” may “_come_” and “_take the water of
    life freely_” (_Rev. 22:17_); so that God can truly say: “_What
    could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in
    it?_” (_Is. 5:4_). Broadus, Com. on _Mat. 6:10_—“_Thy will be
    done_”—distinguishes between God’s will of purpose, of desire, and
    of command. H. B. Smith, Syst. Theol., 521—“Common grace passes
    over into effectual grace in proportion as the sinner yields to
    the divine influence. Effectual grace is that which effects what
    common grace tends to effect.” See also Studien und Kritiken,
    1887:7 _sq._


(_b_) To the second, we reply that the objection, if true, would equally
hold against God’s foreknowledge. The sincerity of God’s general call is
no more inconsistent with his determination that some shall be permitted
to reject it, than it is with foreknowledge that some will reject it.


    Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:643—“Predestination concerns only the
    purpose of God to render effectual, in particular cases, a call
    addressed to all. A general amnesty, on certain conditions, may be
    offered by a sovereign to rebellious subjects, although he knows
    that through pride or malice many will refuse to accept it; and
    even though, for wise reasons, he should determine not to
    constrain their assent, supposing that such influence over their
    minds were within his power. It is evident, from the nature of the
    call, that it has nothing to do with the secret purpose of God to
    grant his effectual grace to some, and not to others.... According
    to the Augustinian scheme, the non‐elect have all the advantages
    and opportunities of securing their salvation, which, according to
    any other scheme, are granted to mankind indiscriminately.... God
    designed, in its adoption, to save his own people, but he
    consistently offers its benefits to all who are willing to receive
    them.” See also H. B. Smith, System of Christian Theology,
    515‐521.


B. Is God’s special call irresistible?


We prefer to say that this special call is efficacious,—that is, that it
infallibly accomplishes its purpose of leading the sinner to the
acceptance of salvation. This implies two things:

(_a_) That the operation of God is not an outward constraint upon the
human will, but that it accords with the laws of our mental constitution.
We reject the term “irresistible,” as implying a coercion and compulsion
which is foreign to the nature of God’s working in the soul.


    _Ps. 110:3_—“_Thy people are freewill‐offerings in the day of thy
    power: in holy array, Out of the womb of the morning Thou hast the
    dew of thy youth_”—_i. e._, youthful recruits to thy standard, as
    numberless and as bright as the drops of morning dew; _Phil. 2:12,
    13_—“_Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it
    is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good
    pleasure_”—_i. e._, the result of God’s working is our own
    working. The Lutheran Formula of Concord properly condemns the
    view that, before, in, and after conversion, the will only resists
    the Holy Spirit: for this, it declares, is the very nature of
    conversion, that out of non‐willing, God makes willing, persons
    (F. C. 60, 581, 582, 673).

    _Hos. 4:16_—“_Israel hath behaved himself stubbornly, like a
    stubborn heifer,_” or “_or as a heifer that slideth back_” = when
    the sacrificial offering is brought forward to be slain, it holds
    back, settling on its haunches so that it has to be pushed and
    forced before it can be brought to the altar. These are not “_the
    sacrifices of God_” which are “_a broken spirit, a broken and a
    contrite heart_” (_Ps. 51:17_). E. H. Johnson, Theology, 2d ed.,
    250—“The N. T. nowhere declares, or even intimates, ... that the
    general call of the Holy Spirit is insufficient. And furthermore,
    it never states that the efficient call is irresistible.
    Psychologically, to speak of irresistible influence upon the
    faculty of self‐determination in man is express contradiction in
    terms. No harm can come from acknowledging that we do not know
    God’s unrevealed reasons for electing one individual rather than
    another to eternal life.” Dr. Johnson goes on to argue that if,
    without disparagement to grace, faith can be a condition of
    justification, faith might also be a condition of election, and
    that inasmuch as salvation is _received_ as a gift only on
    condition of faith exercised, it is in _purpose_ a gift, even if
    only on condition of faith foreseen. This seems to us to ignore
    the abundant Scripture testimony that faith itself is God’s gift,
    and therefore the initiative must be wholly with God.


(_b_) That the operation of God is the originating cause of that new
disposition of the affections, and that new activity of the will, by which
the sinner accepts Christ. The cause is not in the response of the will to
the presentation of motives by God, nor in any mere coöperation of the
will of man with the will of God, but is an almighty act of God in the
will of man, by which its freedom to choose God as its end is restored and
rightly exercised (John 1:12, 13). For further discussion of the subject,
see, in the next section, the remarks on Regeneration, with which this
efficacious call is identical.


    _John 1:12, 13_—“_But as many as received him, to them gave he the
    right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his
    name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,
    nor of the will of man, but of God._” God’s saving grace and
    effectual calling are irresistible, not in the sense that they are
    never resisted, but in the sense that they are never successfully
    resisted. See Andrew Fuller, Works, 2:373, 513, and 3:807; Gill,
    Body of Divinity, 2:121‐130; Robert Hall, Works, 3:75.

    Matheson, Moments on the Mount, 128, 129—“Thy love to Him is to
    his love to thee what the sunlight on the sea is to the sunshine
    in the sky—a reflex, a mirror, a diffusion; thou art giving back
    the glory that has been cast upon the waters. In the attraction of
    thy life to him, in the cleaving of thy heart to him, in the
    soaring of thy spirit to him, thou art told that he is near thee,
    thou hearest the beating of his pulse for thee.”

    Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 302—“In regard to our reason and to the
    essence of our ideals, there is no real dualism between man and
    God; but in the case of the will which constitutes the essence of
    each man’s individuality, there is a real dualism, and therefore a
    possible antagonism between the will of the dependent spirit, man,
    and the will of the absolute and universal spirit, God. Such
    _real_ duality of will, and not the _appearance_ of duality, as F.
    H. Bradley put it, is the essential condition of ethics and
    religion.”



Section II.—The Application Of Christ’s Redemption In Its Actual
Beginning.


Under this head we treat of Union with Christ, Regeneration, Conversion
(embracing Repentance and Faith), and Justification. Much confusion and
error have arisen from conceiving these as occurring in chronological
order. The order is logical, not chronological. As it is only “in Christ”
that man is “a new creature” (2 Cor. 5:17) or is “justified” (Acts 13:39),
union with Christ logically precedes both regeneration and justification;
and yet, chronologically, the moment of our union with Christ is also the
moment when we are regenerated and justified. So, too, regeneration and
conversion are but the divine and human sides or aspects of the same fact,
although regeneration has logical precedence, and man turns only as God
turns him.


    Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 3:694 (Syst. Doct., 4:159), gives at this
    point an account of the work of the Holy Spirit in general. The
    Holy Spirit’s work, he says, presupposes the historical work of
    Christ, and prepares the way for Christ’s return. “As the Holy
    Spirit is the principle of union between the Father and the Son,
    so he is the principle of union between God and man. Only through
    the Holy Spirit does Christ secure for himself those who will love
    him as distinct and free personalities.” Regeneration and
    conversion are not chronologically separate. Which of the spokes
    of a wheel starts first? The ray of light and the ray of heat
    enter at the same moment. Sensation and perception are not
    separated in time, although the former is the cause of the latter.

    “Suppose a non‐elastic tube extending across the Atlantic. Suppose
    that the tube is completely filled with an incompressible fluid.
    Then there would be no interval of time between the impulse given
    to the fluid at this end of the tube, and the effect upon the
    fluid at the other end.” See Hazard, Causation and Freedom in
    Willing, 33‐38, who argues that cause and effect are always
    simultaneous; else, in the intervening time, there would be a
    cause that had no effect; that is, a cause that caused nothing;
    that is, a cause that that was not a cause. “A potential cause may
    exist for an unlimited period without producing any effect, and of
    course may precede its effect by any length of time. But actual,
    effective cause being the exercise of a sufficient power, its
    effect cannot be delayed; for, in that case, there would be the
    exercise of a sufficient power to produce the effect, without
    producing it,—involving the absurdity of its being both sufficient
    and insufficient at the same time.

    “A difficulty may here be suggested in regard to the flow or
    progress of events in time, if they are all simultaneous with
    their causes. This difficulty cannot arise as to intelligent
    effort; for, in regard to it, periods of non‐action may
    continually intervene; but if there are series of events and
    material phenomena, each of which is in turn effect and cause, it
    may be difficult to see how any time could elapse between the
    first and the last of the series.... If, however, as I suppose,
    these series of events, or material changes, are always effected
    through the medium of motion, it need not trouble us, for there is
    precisely the same difficulty in regard to our conception of the
    motion of matter from point to point, there being no space or
    length between any two consecutive points, and yet the body in
    motion gets from one end of a long line to the other, and in this
    case this difficulty just neutralizes the other.... So, even if we
    cannot conceive how motion involves the idea of time, we may
    perceive that, if it does so, it may be a means of conveying
    events, which depend upon it, through time also.”

    Martineau, Study, 1:148‐150—“Simultaneity does not exclude
    duration,”—since each cause has duration and each effect has
    duration also. Bowne, Metaphysics, 106—“In the system, the
    complete ground of an event never lies in any one thing, but only
    in a complex of things. If a single thing were the sufficient
    ground of an effect, the effect would coëxist with the thing, and
    all effects would be instantaneously given. Hence all events in
    the system must be viewed as the result of the interaction of two
    or more things.”

    The first manifestation of life in an infant may be in the lungs
    or heart or brain, but that which makes any and all of these
    manifestations possible is the antecedent life. We may not be able
    to tell which comes first, but having the life we have all the
    rest. When the wheel goes, all the spokes will go. The soul that
    is born again will show it in faith and hope and love and holy
    living. Regeneration will involve repentance and faith and
    justification and sanctification. But the one life which makes
    regeneration and all these consequent blessings possible is the
    life of Christ who joins himself to us in order that we may join
    ourselves to him. Anne Reeve Aldrich, The Meaning: “I lost my life
    in losing love. This blurred my spring and killed its dove. Along
    my path the dying roses Fell, and disclosed the thorns thereof. I
    found my life in finding God. In ecstasy I kiss the rod; For who
    that wins the goal, but lightly Thinks of the thorns whereon he
    trod?”

    See A. A. Hodge, on the Ordo Salutis, in Princeton Rev., March,
    1888:304‐321. Union with Christ, says Dr. Hodge, “is effected by
    the Holy Ghost in effectual calling. Of this calling the parts are
    two: (_a_) the offering of Christ to the sinner, _externally_ by
    the gospel, and _internally_ by the illumination of the Holy
    Ghost; (_b_) the reception of Christ, which on our part is both
    passive and active. The passive reception is that whereby a
    spiritual principle is ingenerated into the human will, whence
    issues the active reception, which is an act of faith with which
    repentance is always conjoined. The communion of benefits which
    results from this union involves: (_a_) a change of state or
    relation, called justification; and (_b_) a change of subjective
    moral character, commenced in regeneration and completed through
    sanctification.” See also Dr. Hodge’s Popular Lectures on
    Theological Themes, 340, and Outlines of Theology, 333‐429.

    H. B. Smith, however, in his System of Christian Theology, is more
    clear in the putting of Union with Christ before Regeneration. On
    page 502, he begins his treatment of the Application of Redemption
    with the title: “The Union between Christ and the individual
    believer as effected by the Holy Spirit. This embraces the
    subjects of Justification, Regeneration, and Sanctification, with
    the underlying topic which comes first to be considered,
    Election.” He therefore treats Union with Christ (531‐539) before
    Regeneration (553‐569). He says Calvin defines regeneration as
    coming to us by participation in Christ, and apparently agrees
    with this view (559).

    “This union [with Christ] is at the ground of regeneration and
    justification” (534). “The great difference of theological systems
    comes out here. Since Christianity is redemption through Christ,
    our mode of conceiving that will determine the character of our
    whole theological system” (536). “The union with Christ is
    mediated by his Spirit, whence we are both renewed and justified.
    The great fact of objective Christianity is incarnation in order
    to atonement; the great fact of subjective Christianity is union
    with Christ, whereby we receive the atonement” (537). We may add
    that this union with Christ, in view of which God elects and to
    which God calls the sinner, is begun in regeneration, completed in
    conversion, declared in justification, and proved in
    sanctification and perseverance.


I. Union with Christ.


The Scriptures declare that, through the operation of God, there is
constituted a union of the soul with Christ different in kind from God’s
natural and providential concursus with all spirits, as well as from all
unions of mere association or sympathy, moral likeness, or moral
influence,—a union of life, in which the human spirit, while then most
truly possessing its own individuality and personal distinctness, is
interpenetrated and energized by the Spirit of Christ, is made inscrutably
but indissolubly one with him, and so becomes a member and partaker of
that regenerated, believing, and justified humanity of which he is the
head.


    Union with Christ is not union with a system of doctrine, nor with
    external religious influences, nor with an organized church, nor
    with an ideal man,—but rather, with a personal, risen, living,
    omnipresent Lord (J. W. A. Stewart). Dr. J. W. Alexander well
    calls this doctrine of the Union of the Believer with Christ “the
    central truth of all theology and of all religion.” Yet it
    receives little of formal recognition, either in dogmatic
    treatises or in common religious experience. Quenstedt, 886‐912,
    has devoted a section to it; A. A. Hodge gives to it a chapter, in
    his Outlines of Theology, 369 sq., to which we are indebted for
    valuable suggestions; H. B. Smith treats of it, not however as a
    separate topic, but under the head of Justification (System,
    531‐539).

    The majority of printed systems of doctrine, however, contain no
    chapter or section on Union with Christ, and the majority of
    Christians much more frequently think of Christ as a Savior
    outside of them, than as a Savior who dwells within. This
    comparative neglect of the doctrine is doubtless a reaction from
    the exaggerations of a false mysticism. But there is great need of
    rescuing the doctrine from neglect. For this we rely wholly upon
    Scripture. Doctrines which reason can neither discover nor prove
    need large support from the Bible. It is a mark of divine wisdom
    that the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, is so inwoven with
    the whole fabric of the New Testament, that the rejection of the
    former is the virtual rejection of the latter. The doctrine of
    Union with Christ, in like manner, is taught so variously and
    abundantly, that to deny it is to deny inspiration itself. See
    Kahnis, Luth. Dogmatik, 3:447‐450.


1. Scripture Representations of this Union.


A. Figurative teaching. It is illustrated:

(_a_) From the union of a building and its foundation.


    _Eph. 2:20‐22_—“_being built upon the foundation of the apostles
    and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone;
    in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into
    a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together
    for a habitation of God in the Spirit_”; _Col. 2:7_—“_builded up
    in him_”—grounded in Christ as our foundation; _1 Pet. 2:4,
    5_—“_unto whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but
    with God elect, precious, ye also, as living stones, are built up
    a spiritual house_”—each living stone in the Christian temple is
    kept in proper relation to every other, and is made to do its part
    in furnishing a habitation for God, only by being built upon and
    permanently connected with Christ, the chief corner‐stone. _Cf._
    _Ps. 118:22_—“_The stone which the builders rejected Is become the
    head of the corner_”; _Is. 28:16_—“_Behold, I lay in Zion for a
    foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner‐stone of sure
    foundation: he that believeth shall not be in haste._”


(_b_) From the union between husband and wife.


    _Rom. 7:4_—“_ye also were made dead to the law through the body of
    Christ; that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was
    raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto
    God_”—here union with Christ is illustrated by the indissoluble
    bond that connects husband and wife, and makes them legally and
    organically one; _2 Cor. 11:2_—“_I am jealous over you with a
    godly jealousy: for I espoused you to one husband, that I might
    present you as a pure virgin to Christ_”; _Eph. 5:31, 32_—“_For
    this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall
    cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. This
    mystery is great: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the
    church_”—Meyer refers _verse 31_ wholly to Christ, and says that
    Christ leaves father and mother (the right hand of God) and is
    joined to the church as his wife, the two constituting thenceforth
    one moral person. He makes the union future, however,—“_For this
    cause shall a man leave his father and mother_”—the consummation
    is at Christ’s second coming. But the Fathers, as Chrysostom,
    Theodoret, and Jerome, referred it more properly to the
    incarnation.

    _Rev. 19:7_—“_the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath
    made herself ready_”; _22:17_—“_And the Spirit and the bride say,
    Come_”; _cf._ _Is. 54:5_—“_For thy Maker is thine husband_”; _Jer.
    3:20_—“_Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband,
    so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith
    Jehovah_”; _Hos. 2:2‐5_—“_for their mother hath played the
    harlot_”—departure from God is adultery; the _Song of Solomon_, as
    Jewish interpreters have always maintained, is an allegorical poem
    describing, under the figure of marriage, the union between
    Jehovah and his people: Paul only adopts the Old Testament figure,
    and applies it more precisely to the union of God with the church
    in Jesus Christ.


(_c_) From the union between the vine and its branches.


    _John 15:1‐10_—“_I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that
    abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for
    apart from me ye can do nothing_”—as God’s natural life is in the
    vine, that it may give life to its natural branches, so God’s
    spiritual life is in the vine, Christ, that he may give life to
    his spiritual branches. The roots of this new vine are planted in
    heaven, not on earth; and into it the half‐withered branches of
    the old humanity are to be grafted, that they may have life
    divine. Yet our Lord does not say “I am the root.” The branch is
    not something _outside_, which has to get nourishment _out of_ the
    root,—it is rather a _part_ of the vine. _Rom. 6:5_—“_if we have
    become united with him_ [σύμφυτοι—‘grown together’—used of the man
    and horse in the Centaur, Xen., Cyrop., 4:3:18], _in the likeness
    of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his
    resurrection_”; _11:24_—“_thou wast cut out of that which is by
    nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into
    a good olive tree_”; _Col. 2:6, 7_—“_As therefore ye received
    Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and builded up in
    him_”—not only grounded in Christ as our foundation, but thrusting
    down roots into him as the deep, rich, all‐sustaining soil. This
    union with Christ is consistent with individuality: for the graft
    brings forth fruit after its kind, though modified by the tree
    into which it is grafted.

    Bishop H. W. Warren, in S. S. Times, Oct. 17, 1891—“The lessons of
    the vine are intimacy, likeness of nature, continuous impartation
    of life, fruit. Between friends there is intimacy by means of
    media, such as food, presents, care, words, soul looking from the
    eyes. The mother gives her liquid flesh to the babe, but such
    intimacy soon ceases. The mother is not rich enough in life
    continuously to feed the ever‐enlarging nature of the growing man.
    Not so with the vine. It continuously feeds. Its rivers crowd all
    the banks. They burst out in leaf, blossom, clinging tendrils, and
    fruit, everywhere. In nature a thorn grafted on a pear tree bears
    only thorn. There is not pear‐life enough to compel change of its
    nature. But a wild olive, typical of depraved nature, grafted on a
    good olive tree finds, contrary to nature, that there is force
    enough in the growing stock to change the nature of the wild
    scion.”


(_d_) From the union between the members and the head of the body.


    _1 Cor. 6:15, 19_—“_Know ye not that your bodies are members of
    Christ?... know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy
    Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God?_” _12:12_—“_For as
    the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the
    body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ_”—here Christ is
    identified with the church of which he is the head; _Eph. 1:22,
    23_—“_he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him
    to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the
    fulness of him that filleth all in all_”—as the members of the
    human body are united to the head, the source of their activity
    and the power that controls their movements, so all believers are
    members of an invisible body whose head is Christ. Shall we tie a
    string round the finger to keep for it its own blood? No, for all
    the blood of the body is needed to nourish one finger. So Christ
    is “_head over all things to_ [for the benefit of] _the church_”
    (Tyler, Theol. Greek Poets, preface, ii). “The church is the
    fulness (πλήρωμα) of Christ; as it was not good for the first man,
    Adam, to be alone, no more was it good for the second man, Christ”
    (C. H. M.). _Eph. 4:15, 16_—“_grow up in all things into him, who
    is the head, even Christ; from whom all the body ... maketh the
    increase of the body unto the building up of itself in love_”;
    _5:29, 30_—“_for no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth
    and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the church; because we are
    members of his body._”


(_e_) From the union of the race with the source of its life in Adam.


    _Rom. 5:12, 21_—“_as through one man sin entered into the world,
    and death through sin.... that, as sin reigned in death, even so
    might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life through
    Jesus Christ our Lord_”; _1 Cor. 15:22, 45, 49_—“_as in Adam all
    die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.... The first man
    Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life‐giving
    Spirit.... as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also
    bear the image of the heavenly_”—as the whole race is one with the
    first man Adam, in whom it fell and from whom it has derived a
    corrupted and guilty nature, so the whole race of believers
    constitutes a new and restored humanity, whose justified and
    purified nature is derived from Christ, the second Adam. _Cf._
    _Gen. 2:23_—“_This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:
    she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man_”—here
    C. H. M. remarks that, as man is first created and then woman is
    viewed in and formed out of him, so it is with Christ and the
    church. “We are members of Christ’s body, because in Christ we
    have the principle of our origin; from him our life arose, just as
    the life of Eve was derived from Adam.... The church is Christ’s
    helpmeet, formed out of Christ in his deep sleep of death, as Eve
    out of Adam.... The church will be nearest to Christ, as Eve was
    to Adam.” Because Christ is the source of all spiritual life for
    his people, he is called, in _Is. 9:6_, “_Everlasting Father,_”
    and it is said, in _Is. 53:10_, that “_he shall see his seed_”
    (see page 680).


B. Direct statements.

(_a_) The believer is said to be in Christ.


    Lest we should regard the figures mentioned above as merely
    Oriental metaphors, the fact of the believer’s union with Christ
    is asserted in the most direct and prosaic manner. _John
    14:20_—“_ye in me_”; _Rom. 6:11_—“_alive unto God in Christ
    Jesus_”; _8:1_—“_no condemnation to them that are in Christ
    Jesus_”; _2 Cor. 5:17_—“_if any man is in Christ, he is a new
    creature_”; _Eph. 1:4_—“_chose us in him before the foundation of
    the world_”; _2:13_—“_now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far
    off are made nigh in the blood of Christ._” Thus the believer is
    said to be “_in Christ_,” as the element or atmosphere which
    surrounds him with its perpetual presence and which constitutes
    his vital breath; in fact, this phrase “_in Christ_,” always
    meaning “in union with Christ,” is the very key to Paul’s
    epistles, and to the whole New Testament. The fact that the
    believer is in Christ is symbolized in baptism: we are “_baptized
    into Christ_” (_Gal. 3:27_).


(_b_) Christ is said to be in the believer.


    _John 14:20_—“_I in you_”; _Rom. 8:9_—“_ye are not in the flesh
    but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in
    you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of
    his_”—that this Spirit of Christ is Christ himself, is shown from
    _verse 10_—“_And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of
    sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness_”; _Gal.
    2:20_—“_I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I
    that live, but Christ liveth in me_”—here Christ is said to be in
    the believer, and so to live his life within the believer, that
    the latter can point to this as the dominating fact of his
    experience,—it is not so much he that lives, as it is Christ that
    lives in him. The fact that Christ is in the believer is
    symbolized in the Lord’s supper: “_The bread which we break, is it
    not a participation in the body of Christ?_” (_1 Cor. 10:16_).


(_c_) The Father and the Son dwell in the believer.


    _John 14:23_—“_If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my
    Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our
    abode with him_”; _cf._ _10_—“_Believest thou not that I am in the
    Father, and the Father in me? the words that I say unto you I
    speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth his
    works_”—the Father and the Son dwell in the believer; for where
    the Son is, there always the Father must be also. If the union
    between the believer and Christ in _John 14:23_ is to be
    interpreted as one of mere moral influence, then the union of
    Christ and the Father in _John 14:10_ must also be interpreted as
    a union of mere moral influence. _Eph. 3:17_—“_that Christ may
    dwell in your hearts through faith_”; _1 John 4:16_—“_he that
    abideth in love abideth in God, and God abideth in him._”


(_d_) The believer has life by partaking of Christ, as Christ has life by
partaking of the Father.


    _John 6:53, 56, 57_—“_Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man
    and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves .... He that
    eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him.
    As the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so
    he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me_”—the believer
    has life by partaking of Christ in a way that may not
    inappropriately be compared with Christ’s having life by partaking
    of the Father. _1 Cor. 10:16, 17_—“_the cup of blessing which we
    bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread
    which we break, is it not a communion of the body of
    Christ?_”—here it is intimated that the Lord’s Supper sets forth,
    in the language of symbol, the soul’s actual participation in the
    life of Christ; and the margin properly translates the word
    κοινωνία, not “communion,” but “_participation_.” _Cf._ _1 John
    1:3_—“_our fellowship (κοινωνία) is with the Father, and with his
    Son Jesus Christ._” Foster, Christian Life and Theology, 216—“In
    _John 6_, the phrases call to mind the ancient form of sacrifice,
    and the participation therein by the offerer at the sacrificial
    meal,—as at the Passover.”


(_e_) All believers are one in Christ.


    _John 17:21‐23_—“_that they may all be one; even as thou, Father,
    art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the
    world may believe that thou didst send me. And the glory which
    thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one,
    even as we are one; I in them, and thou in me, that they may be
    perfected into one_”—all believers are one in Christ, to whom they
    are severally and collectively united, as Christ himself is one
    with God.


(_f_) The believer is made partaker of the divine nature.


    _2 Pet. 1:4_—“_that through these_ [promises] _ye may become
    partakers of the divine nature_”—not by having the essence of your
    humanity changed into the essence of divinity, but by having
    Christ the divine Savior continually dwelling within, and
    indissolubly joined to, your human souls.


(_g_) The believer is made one spirit with the Lord.


    _1 Cor. 6:17_—“_he that is joined unto the Lord is one
    spirit_”—human nature is so interpenetrated and energized by the
    divine, that the two move and act as one; _cf._ _19_—“_know ye not
    that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you,
    which ye have from God?_” _Rom. 8:26_—“_the Spirit also helpeth
    our infirmity: for we know not how to pray as we ought; but the
    Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which
    cannot be uttered_”—the Spirit is so near to us, and so one with
    us, that our prayer is called his, or rather, his prayer becomes
    ours. Weiss, in his Life of Jesus, says that, in the view of
    Scripture, human greatness does not consist in a man’s producing
    everything in a natural way out of himself, but in possessing
    perfect receptivity for God’s greatest gift. Therefore God’s Son
    receives the Spirit without measure; and we may add that the
    believer in like manner receives Christ.


2. Nature of this Union.


We have here to do not only with a fact of life, but with a unique
relation between the finite and the infinite. Our descriptions must
therefore be inadequate. Yet in many respects we know what this union is
not; in certain respects we can positively characterize it.


    It should not surprise us if we find it far more difficult to give
    a scientific definition of this union, than to determine the fact
    of its existence. It is a fact of life with which we have to deal;
    and the secret of life, even in its lowest forms, no philosopher
    has ever yet discovered. The tiniest flower witnesses to two
    facts: first, that of its own relative independence, as an
    individual organism; and secondly, that of its ultimate dependence
    upon a life and power not its own. So every human soul has its
    proper powers of intellect, affection, and will; yet it lives,
    moves, and has its being in God (_Acts 17:28_).

    Starting out from the truth of God’s omnipresence, it might seem
    as if God’s indwelling in the granite boulder was the last limit
    of his union with the finite. But we see the divine intelligence
    and goodness drawing nearer to us, by successive stages, in
    vegetable life, in the animal creation, and in the moral nature of
    man. And yet there are two stages beyond all these: first, in
    Christ’s union with the believer; and secondly, in God’s union
    with Christ. If this union of God with the believer be only one of
    several approximations of God to his finite creation, the fact
    that it is, equally with the others, not wholly comprehensible to
    reason, should not blind us either to its truth or to its
    importance.

    It is easier to‐day than at any other previous period of history
    to believe in the union of the believer with Christ. That God is
    immanent in the universe, and that there is a divine element in
    man, is familiar to our generation. All men are naturally one with
    Christ, the immanent God, and this natural union prepares the way
    for that spiritual union in which Christ joins himself to our
    faith. Campbell, The Indwelling Christ, 131—“In the immanence of
    Christ in nature we find the ground of his immanence in human
    nature.... A man may be out of Christ, but Christ is never out of
    him. Those who banish him he does not abandon.” John Caird, Fund.
    Ideas of Christianity, 2:233‐256—“God is united with nature, in
    the atoms, in the trees, in the planets. Science is seeing nature
    full of the life of God. God is united to man in body and soul.
    The beating of his heart and the voice of conscience witness to
    God within. God sleeps in the stone, dreams in the animal, wakes
    in man.”


A. Negatively.—It is not:

(_a_) A merely natural union, like that of God with all human spirits,—as
held by rationalists.


    In our physical life we are conscious of another life within us
    which is not subject to our wills: the heart beats involuntarily,
    whether we sleep or wake. But in our spiritual life we are still
    more conscious of a life within our life. Even the heathen said:
    “Est Deus in nobis; agitante calescimus illo,” and the Egyptians
    held to the identification of the departed with Osiris (Renouf,
    Hibbert Lectures, 185). But Paul urges us to work out our
    salvation, upon the very ground that “_it is God that worketh_” in
    us, “_both to will and to work, for his good pleasure_” (_Phil.
    2:12, 13_). This life of God in the soul is the life of Christ.

    The movement of the electric car cannot be explained simply from
    the working of its own motor apparatus. The electric current
    throbbing through the wire, and the dynamo from which that energy
    proceeds, are needed to explain the result. In like manner we need
    a spiritual Christ to explain the spiritual activity of the
    Christian. A. H. Strong, Sermon before the Baptist World Congress
    in London, 1905—“We had in America some years ago a steam engine
    all whose working parts were made of glass. The steam came from
    without, but, being hot enough to move machinery, this steam was
    itself invisible, and there was presented the curious spectacle of
    an engine, transparent, moving, and doing important work, while
    yet no cause for this activity was perceptible. So the church,
    humanity, the universe, are all in constant and progressive
    movement, but the Christ who moves them is invisible. Faith comes
    to believe where it cannot see. It joins itself to this invisible
    Christ, and knows him as its very life.”


(_b_) A merely moral union, or union of love and sympathy, like that
between teacher and scholar, friend and friend,—as held by Socinians and
Arminians.


    There is a moral union between different souls: _1 Sam.
    18:1_—“_the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and
    Jonathan loved him as his own soul_”—here the Vulgate has: “Anima
    Jonathæ agglutinata Davidi.” Aristotle calls friends “one soul.”
    So in a higher sense, in _Acts 4:32_, the early believers are said
    to have been “_of one heart and soul_.” But in _John 17:21, 26_,
    Christ’s union with his people is distinguished from any mere
    union of love and sympathy: “_that they may all be one; even as
    thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in
    us;... that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them, and
    I in them_.” Jesus’ aim, in the whole of his last discourse, is to
    show that no mere union of love and sympathy will be sufficient:
    “_apart from me_,” he says, “_ye can do nothing_” (_John 15:5_).
    That his disciples may be vitally joined to himself, is therefore
    the subject of his last prayer.

    Dorner says well, that Arminianism (and with this doctrine Roman
    Catholics and the advocates of New School views substantially
    agree) makes man a mere tangent to the circle of the divine
    nature. It has no idea of the interpenetration of the one by the
    other. But the Lutheran Formula of Concord says much more
    correctly: “Damnamus sententiam quod non Deus ipse, sed dona Dei
    duntaxat, in credentibus habitent.”

    Ritschl presents to us a historical Christ, and Pfleiderer
    presents to us an ideal Christ, but neither one gives us the
    living Christ who is the present spiritual life of the believer.
    Wendt, in his Teaching of Jesus, 2:310, comes equally far short of
    a serious interpretation of our Lord’s promise, when he says:
    “This union to his person, as to its contents, is nothing else
    than adherence to the message of the kingdom of God brought by
    him.” It is not enough for me to be merely _in touch_ with Christ.
    He must come to be “not so far as even to be near.” Tennyson, The
    Higher Pantheism: “Closer is he than breathing, and nearer than
    hands or feet.” William Watson, The Unknown God: “Yea, in my flesh
    his Spirit doth flow, Too near, too far, for me to know.”


(_c_) A union of essence, which destroys the distinct personality and
subsistence of either Christ or the human spirit,—as held by many of the
mystics.


    Many of the mystics, as Schwenkfeld, Weigel, Sebastian Frank, held
    to an _essential_ union between Christ and the believer. One of
    Weigel’s followers, therefore, could say to another: “I am Christ
    Jesus, the living Word of God; I have redeemed thee by my sinless
    sufferings.” We are ever to remember that the indwelling of Christ
    only puts the believer more completely in possession of himself,
    and makes him more conscious of his own personality and power.
    Union with Christ must be taken in connection with the other truth
    of the personality and activity of the Christian; otherwise it
    tends to pantheism. Martineau, Study, 2:190—“In nature it is God’s
    immanent life, in morals it is God’s transcendent life, with which
    we commune.”

    Angelus Silesius, a German philosophical poet (1624‐1677),
    audaciously wrote: “I know God cannot live an instant without me;
    He must give up the ghost, if I should cease to be.” Lowde, a
    disciple of Malebranche, used the phrase “Godded with God, and
    Christed with Christ,” and Jonathan Edwards, in his Religious
    Affections, quotes it with disapprobation, saying that “the saints
    do not become actually partakers of the divine essence, as would
    be inferred from this abominable and blasphemous language of
    heretics” (Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 224). “Self is not a mode of
    the divine: it is a principle of isolation. In order to religion,
    I must have a will to surrender.... ‘Our wills are ours, to make
    them thine.’... Though the self is, in _knowledge_, a principle of
    unification; in _existence_, or metaphysically, it is a principle
    of isolation” (Seth).

    Inge, Christian Mysticism, 30—“Some of the mystics went astray by
    teaching a real _substitution_ of the divine for human nature,
    thus depersonalizing man—a fatal mistake, for without human
    personality we cannot conceive of divine personality.” Lyman
    Abbott: “In Christ, God and man are united, not as the river is
    united with the sea, losing its personality therein, but as the
    child is united with the father, or the wife with the husband,
    whose personality and individuality are strengthened and increased
    by the union.” Here Dr. Abbott’s view comes as far short of the
    truth as that of the mystics goes beyond the truth. As we shall
    see, the union of the believer with Christ is a vital union,
    surpassing in its intimacy any union of souls that we know. The
    union of child with father, or of wife with husband, is only a
    pointer which hints very imperfectly at the interpenetrating and
    energizing of the human spirit by the divine.


(_d_) A union mediated and conditioned by participation of the sacraments
of the church,—as held by Romanists, Lutherans, and High‐Church
Episcopalians.


    Perhaps the most pernicious misinterpretation of the nature of
    this union is that which conceives of it as a physical and
    material one, and which rears upon this basis the fabric of a
    sacramental and external Christianity. It is sufficient here to
    say that this union cannot be mediated by sacraments, since
    sacraments presuppose it as already existing; both Baptism and the
    Lord’s Supper are designed only for believers. Only faith receives
    and retains Christ; and faith is the act of the soul grasping what
    is purely invisible and supersensible: not the act of the body,
    submitting to Baptism or partaking of the Supper.

    William Lincoln: “The only way for the believer, if he wants to go
    rightly, is to remember that truth is always two‐sided. If there
    is any truth that the Holy Spirit has specially pressed upon your
    heart, if you do not want to push it to the extreme, ask what is
    the counter‐truth, and lean a little of your weight upon that;
    otherwise, if you bear so very much on one side of the truth,
    there is a danger of pushing it into a heresy. Heresy means
    selected truth; it does not mean error; heresy and error are very
    different things. Heresy is truth, but truth pushed into undue
    importance, to the disparagement of the truth upon the other
    side.” Heresy (αἵρεσις) = an act of choice, the picking and
    choosing of a part, instead of comprehensively embracing the whole
    of truth. Sacramentarians substitute the symbol for the thing
    symbolized.


B. Positively.—It is:

(_a_) An organic union,—in which we become members of Christ and partakers
of his humanity.


    Kant defines an organism, as that whose parts are reciprocally
    means and end. The body is an organism; since the limbs exist for
    the heart, and the heart for the limbs. So each member of Christ’s
    body lives for him who is the head; and Christ the head equally
    lives for his members: _Eph. 5:29, 30_—“_no man ever hated his own
    flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, __ even as Christ also
    the church; because we are members of his body_.” The train‐
    despatcher is a symbol of the concentration of energy; the
    switchmen and conductors who receive his orders are symbols of the
    localization of force; but it is all one organic system.


(_b_) A vital union,—in which Christ’s life becomes the dominating
principle within us.


    This union is a vital one, in distinction from any union of mere
    juxtaposition or external influence. Christ does not work upon us
    from without, as one separated from us, but from within, as the
    very heart from which the life‐blood of our spirits flows. See
    _Gal. 2:20_—“_it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in
    me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith,
    the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave
    himself up for me;_” _Col 3:3, 4_—“_For ye died, and your life is
    hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall be
    manifested, then shall ye also with him be manifested in glory._”
    Christ’s life is not corrupted by the corruption of his members,
    any more than the ray of light is defiled by the filth with which
    it comes in contact. We may be unconscious of this union with
    Christ, as we often are of the circulation of the blood, yet it
    may be the very source and condition of our life.


(_c_) A spiritual union,—that is, a union whose source and author is the
Holy Spirit.


    By a spiritual union we mean a union not of body but of spirit,—a
    union, therefore, which only the Holy Spirit originates and
    maintains. _Rom. 8:9, 10_—“_ye are not in the flesh but in the
    Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if
    any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if
    Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit
    is life because of righteousness._” The indwelling of Christ
    involves a continual exercise of efficient power. In _Eph. 3:16,
    17_, “_strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inward
    man_” is immediately followed by “_that Christ may dwell in your
    hearts through faith_.”


(_d_) An indissoluble union,—that is, a union which, consistently with
Christ’s promise and grace, can never be dissolved.


    _Mat. 28:20_—“_lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the
    world_”; _John 10:28_—“_they shall never perish, and no one shall
    snatch them out of my hand_”; _Rom. 8:35, 39_—“_Who shall separate
    us from the love of Christ?... nor height, nor depth, nor any
    other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God,
    which is in Christ Jesus our Lord_”; _1 Thess. 4:14, 17_—“_them
    also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him ...
    then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be
    caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall
    we ever be with the Lord._”

    Christ’s omnipresence makes it possible for him to be united to,
    and to be present in, each believer, as perfectly and fully as if
    that believer were the only one to receive Christ’s fulness. As
    Christ’s omnipresence makes the whole Christ present in every
    place, each believer has the whole Christ with him, as his source
    of strength, purity, life; so that each may say: Christ gives all
    his time and wisdom and care to me. Such a union as this lacks
    every element of instability. Once formed, the union is
    indissoluble. Many of the ties of earth are rudely broken,—not so
    with our union with Christ,—that endures forever.

    Since there is now an unchangeable and divine element in us, our
    salvation depends no longer upon our unstable wills, but upon
    Christ’s purpose and power. By temporary declension from duty, or
    by our causeless unbelief, we may banish Christ to the barest and
    most remote room of the soul’s house; but he does not suffer us
    wholly to exclude him; and when we are willing to unbar the doors,
    he is still there, ready to fill the whole mansion with his light
    and love.


(_e_) An inscrutable union,—mystical, however, only in the sense of
surpassing in its intimacy and value any other union of souls which we
know.


    This union is inscrutable, indeed; but it is not mystical, in the
    sense of being unintelligible to the Christian or beyond the reach
    of his experience. If we call it mystical at all, it should be
    only because, in the intimacy of its communion and in the
    transforming power of its influence, it surpasses any other union
    of souls that we know, and so cannot be fully described or
    understood by earthly analogies. _Eph. 5:32_—“_This mystery is
    great: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the church_”; _Col.
    1:27_—“_the riches of the glory of this mystery among the
    Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory._”

    See Diman, Theistic Argument, 380—“As physical science has brought
    us to the conclusion that back of all the phenomena of the
    material universe there lies an invisible universe of forces, and
    that these forces may ultimately be reduced to one all‐pervading
    force in which the unity of the physical universe consists; and as
    philosophy has advanced the rational conjecture that this ultimate
    all‐pervading force is simply will‐force; so the great Teacher
    holds up to us the spiritual universe as pervaded by one
    omnipotent life—a life which was revealed in him as its highest
    manifestation, but which is shared by all who by faith become
    partakers of his nature. He was Son of God: they too had power to
    become sons of God. The incarnation is wholly within the natural
    course and tendency of things. It was prepared for, it came, in
    the fulness of times. Christ’s life is not something sporadic and
    individual, having its source in the personal conviction of each
    disciple; it implies a real connection with Christ, the head.
    Behind all nature there is one force; behind all varieties of
    Christian life and character there is one spiritual power. All
    nature is not inert matter,—it is pervaded by a living presence.
    So all the body of believers live by virtue of the all‐working
    Spirit of Christ, the Holy Ghost.” An epitaph at Silton, in
    Dorsetshire, reads: “Here lies a piece of Christ—a star in dust, A
    vein of gold, a china dish, that must Be used in heaven when God
    shall feed the just.”

    A. H. Strong, in Examiner, 1880: “Such is the nature of union with
    Christ,—such I mean, is the nature of every believer’s union with
    Christ. For, whether he knows it or not, every Christian has
    entered into just such a partnership as this. It is this and this
    only which constitutes him a Christian, and which makes possible a
    Christian church. We may, indeed, be thus united to Christ,
    without being fully conscious of the real nature of our relation
    to him. We may actually possess the kernel, while as yet we have
    regard only to the shell; we may seem to ourselves to be united to
    Christ only by an external bond, while after all it is an inward
    and spiritual bond that makes us his. God often reveals to the
    Christian the mystery of the gospel, which is Christ _in_ him the
    hope of glory, at the very time that he is seeking only some
    nearer access to a Redeemer outside of him. Trying to find a union
    of coöperation or of sympathy, he is amazed to learn that there is
    already established a union with Christ more glorious and blessed,
    namely, a union of life; and so, like the miners in the Rocky
    Mountains, while he is looking only for silver, he finds gold.
    Christ and the believer have the same life. They are not separate
    persons linked together by some temporary bond of friendship,—they
    are united by a tie as close and indissoluble as if the same blood
    ran in their veins. Yet the Christian may never have suspected how
    intimate a union he has with his Savior; and the first
    understanding of this truth may be the gateway through which he
    passes into a holier and happier stage of the Christian life.”

    So the Way leads, through the Truth, to the Life (_John 14:6_).
    Apprehension of an external Savior prepares for the reception and
    experience of the internal Savior. Christ is first the Door of the
    sheep, but in him, after they have once entered in, they find
    pasture (_John 10:7‐9_). On the nature of this union, see H. B.
    Smith, System of Christian Theology, 531‐539; Baird, Elohim
    Revealed, 601; Wilberforce, Incarnation, 208‐272, and New Birth of
    Man’s Nature, 1‐30. _Per contra_, see Park, Discourses, 117‐136.


3. Consequences of this Union as respects the Believer.


We have seen that Christ’s union with humanity, at the incarnation,
involved him in all the legal liabilities of the race to which he united
himself, and enabled him so to assume the penalty of its sin as to make
for all men a full satisfaction to the divine justice, and to remove all
external obstacles to man’s return to God. An internal obstacle, however,
still remains—the evil affections and will, and the consequent guilt, of
the individual soul. This last obstacle also Christ removes, in the case
of all his people, by uniting himself to them in a closer and more perfect
manner than that in which he is united to humanity at large. As Christ’s
union with the race secures the objective reconciliation of the race to
God, so Christ’s union with believers secures the subjective
reconciliation of believers to God.


    In Baird, Elohim Revealed, 607‐610, in Owen, on Justification,
    chap. 8, in Boston, Covenant of Grace, chap. 2, and in Dale,
    Atonement, 265‐440, the union of the believer with Christ is made
    to explain the bearing of our sins by Christ. As we have seen in
    our discussion of the Atonement, however (page 759), this explains
    the cause by the effect, and implies that Christ died only for the
    elect (see review of Dale, in Brit. Quar. Rev., Apr.
    1876:221‐225). It is not the union of Christ with the believer,
    but the union of Christ with humanity at large, that explains his
    taking upon him human guilt and penalty.

    Amnesty offered to a rebellious city may be complete, yet it may
    avail only for those who surrender. Pardon secured from a
    Governor, upon the ground of the services of an Advocate, may be
    effectual only when the convict accepts it,—there is no hope for
    him when he tears up the pardon. Dr. H. E. Robins: “The judicial
    declaration of acquittal on the ground of the death of Christ,
    which comes to all men (_Rom. 5:18_), and into the benefits of
    which they are introduced by natural birth, is inchoate
    justification, and will become perfected justification through the
    new birth of the Holy Spirit, unless the working of this divine
    agent is resisted by the personal moral action of those who are
    lost.” What Dr. Robins calls “inchoate justification” we prefer to
    call “ideal justification” or “attainable justification.” Humanity
    in Christ is justified, and every member of the race who joins
    himself to Christ by faith participates in Christ’s justification.
    H. E. Dudley: “Adam’s sin holds us all down just as gravity holds
    all, while Christ’s righteousness, though secured for all and
    accessible to all, involves an effort of will in climbing and
    grasping which not all will make.” Justification in Christ is the
    birthright of humanity; but, in order to possess and enjoy it,
    each of us must claim and appropriate it by faith.

    R. W. Dale, Fellowship with Christ, 7—“When we were created in
    Christ, the fortunes of the human race for good or evil became
    his. The Incarnation revealed and fulfilled the relations which
    already existed between the Son of God and mankind. From the
    beginning Christ had entered into fellowship with us. When we
    sinned, he remained in fellowship with us still. Our miseries” [we
    would add: our guilt] “were his, by his own choice.... His
    fellowship with us is the foundation of our fellowship with
    him.... When I have discovered that by the very constitution of my
    nature I am to achieve perfection in the power of the life of
    Another—who is yet not Another, but the very ground of my being—it
    ceases to be incredible to me that Another—who is yet not
    Another—should be the Atonement for my sin, and that his relation
    to God should determine mine.”

    A tract entitled “The Seven Togethers” sums up the Scripture
    testimony with regard to the Consequences of the believer’s Union
    with Christ: 1. Crucified together with Christ—_Gal.
    2:20_—συνεσταύρωμαι. 2. Died together with Christ—_Col.
    2:20_—ἀπεθάνετε. 3. Buried together with Christ—_Rom.
    6:4_—συνετάφημεν. 4. Quickened together with Christ—_Eph.
    2:5_—συνεζωοποίησεν. 5. Raised together with Christ—_Col.
    3:1_—συνηγέρθητε. 6. Sufferers together with Christ—_Rom.
    8:17_—συμπάσχομεν. 7. Glorified together with Christ—_Rom.
    8:17_—συνδοξασθῶμεν. Union with Christ results in common sonship,
    relation to God, character, influence, and destiny.

    Imperfect apprehension of the believer’s union with Christ works
    to the great injury of Christian doctrine. An experience of union
    with Christ first enables us to understand the death of sin and
    separation from God which has befallen the race sprung from the
    first Adam. The life and liberty of the children of God in Christ
    Jesus shows us by contrast how far astray we had gone. The vital
    and organic unity of the new race sprung from the second Adam
    reveals the depravity and disintegration which we had inherited
    from our first father. We see that as there is one source of
    spiritual life in Christ, so there was one source of corrupt life
    in Adam; and that as we are justified by reason of our oneness
    with the justified Christ, so we are condemned by reason of our
    oneness with the condemned Adam.

    A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 175—“If it is consistent with
    evolution that the physical and natural life of the race should be
    derived from a single source, then it is equally consistent with
    evolution that the moral and spiritual life of the race should be
    derived from a single source. Scripture is stating only scientific
    fact when it sets the second Adam, the head of redeemed humanity,
    over against the first Adam, the head of fallen humanity. We are
    told that evolution should give us many Christs. We reply that
    evolution has not given us many Adams. Evolution, as it assigns to
    the natural head of the race a supreme and unique position, must
    be consistent with itself, and must assign a supreme and unique
    position to Jesus Christ, the spiritual head of the race. As there
    was but one Adam from whom all the natural life of the race was
    derived, so that there can be but one Christ from whom all the
    spiritual life of the race is derived.”


The consequences of union with Christ may be summarily stated as follows:

(_a_) Union with Christ involves a change in the dominant affection of the
soul. Christ’s entrance into the soul makes it a new creature, in the
sense that the ruling disposition, which before was sinful, now becomes
holy. This change we call _Regeneration_.


    _Rom. 8:2_—“_For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus
    made me free from the law of sin and of death_”; _2 Cor.
    5:17_—“_if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature_”
    (marg.—“_there is a new creation_”); _Gal. 1:15, 16_—“_it was the
    good pleasure of God ... to reveal his Son in me_”; _Eph.
    2:10_—“_For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for
    good works._” As we derive our old nature from the first man Adam,
    by birth, so we derive a new nature from the second man Christ, by
    the new birth. Union with Christ is the true “transfusion of
    blood.” “The death‐struck sinner, like the wan, anæmic, dying
    invalid, is saved by having poured into his veins the healthier
    blood of Christ” (Drummond, Nat. Law in the Spir. World). God
    regenerates the soul by uniting it to Jesus Christ.

    In the Johnston Harvester Works at Batavia, when they paint their
    machinery, they do it by immersing part after part in a great tank
    of paint,—so the painting is instantaneous and complete. Our
    baptism into Christ is the outward picture of an inward immersion
    of the soul not only into his love and fellowship, but into his
    very life, so that in him we become new creatures (_2 Cor. 5:17_).
    As Miss Sullivan surrounded Helen Keller with the influence of her
    strong personality, by intelligence and sympathy and determination
    striving to awaken the blind and dumb soul and give it light and
    love, so Jesus envelops us. But his Spirit is more encompassing
    and more penetrating than any human influence however powerful,
    because his life is the very ground and principle of our being.

    Tennyson: “O for a man to arise in me, That the man that I am may
    cease to be!” Emerson: “Himself from God he could not free; He
    builded better than he knew.” Religion is not the adding of a new
    department of activity as an adjunct to our own life or the
    grafting of a new method of manifestation upon the old. It is
    rather the grafting of our souls into Christ, so that his life
    dominates and manifests itself in all our activities. The magnet
    which left to itself can lift only a three pound weight, will lift
    three hundred when it is attached to the electric dynamo.
    Expositor’s Greek Testament on _1 Cor. 15:45, 46_—“The action of
    Jesus in ‘_breathing_’ upon his disciples while he said, ‘_Receive
    the Holy Spirit_’ (_John 20:22_ _sq._) symbolized the vitalizing
    relationship which at this epoch he assumed towards mankind; this
    act raised to a higher potency the original ‘_breathing_’ of God
    by which ‘_man became a living soul_’ (_Gen. 2:7_).”


(_b_) Union with Christ involves a new exercise of the soul’s powers in
repentance and faith; faith, indeed, is the act of the soul by which,
under the operation of God, Christ is received. This new exercise of the
soul’s powers we call _Conversion_ (Repentance and Faith). It is the
obverse or human side of Regeneration.


    _Eph. 3:17_—“_that Christ may dwell in your hearts through
    faith_”; _2 Tim. 3:15_—“_the sacred writings which are able to
    make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ
    Jesus._” Faith is the soul’s laying hold of Christ as its only
    source of life, pardon, and salvation. And so we see what true
    religion is. It is not a moral life; it is not a determination to
    be religious; it is not faith, if by faith we mean an external
    trust that somehow Christ will save us; it is nothing less than
    the life of the soul in God, through Christ his Son. To Christ
    then we are to look for the origin, continuance and increase of
    our faith (_Luke 17:5_—“_said unto the Lord, Increase our
    faith_”). Our faith is but a part of “_his fulness_” of which “_we
    all received, and grace for grace_” (_John 1:16_).

    A. H. Strong, Sermon before the Baptist World Congress, London,
    1905—“Christianity is summed up in the two facts: Christ _for_ us,
    and Christ _in_ us—Christ _for_ us upon the Cross, revealing the
    eternal opposition of holiness to sin, and yet, through God’s
    eternal suffering for sin making objective atonement for us; and
    Christ _in_ us by his Spirit, renewing in us the lost image of
    God, and abiding in us as the all‐sufficient source of purity and
    power. Here are the two foci of the Christian ellipse: Christ
    _for_ us, who redeemed us from the curse of the law by being made
    a curse for us, and Christ _in_ us, the hope of glory, whom the
    apostle calls the mystery of the gospel.

    “We need Christ _in_ us as well as Christ _for_ us. How shall I,
    how shall society, find healing and purification within? Let me
    answer by reminding you of what they did at Chicago. In all the
    world there was no river more stagnant and fetid than was Chicago
    River. Its sluggish stream received the sweepings of the
    watercraft and the offal of the city, and there was no current to
    carry the detritus away. There it settled, and bred miasma and
    fever. At last it was suggested that, by cutting through the low
    ridge between the city and the Desplaines River, the current could
    be set running in the opposite direction, and drainage could be
    secured into the Illinois River and the great Mississippi. At a
    cost of fifteen millions of dollars the cut was made, and now all
    the water of Lake Michigan can be relied upon to cleanse that
    turbid stream. What Chicago River could never do for itself, the
    great lake now does for it. So no human soul can purge itself of
    its sin; and what the individual cannot do, humanity at large is
    powerless to accomplish. Sin has dominion over us, and we are foul
    to the very depths of our being, until with the help of God we
    break through the barrier of our self‐will, and let the floods of
    Christ’s purifying life flow into us. Then, in an hour, more is
    done to renew, than all our efforts for years had effected. Thus
    humanity is saved, individual by individual, not by philosophy, or
    philanthropy, or self‐development, or self‐reformation, but simply
    by joining itself to Jesus Christ, and by being filled in Him with
    all the fulness of God.”


(_c_) Union with Christ gives to the believer the legal standing and
rights of Christ. As Christ’s union with the race involves atonement, so
the believer’s union with Christ involves _Justification_. The believer is
entitled to take for his own all that Christ is, and all that Christ has
done; and this because he has within him that new life of humanity which
suffered in Christ’s death and rose from the grave in Christ’s
resurrection,—in other words, because he is virtually one person with the
Redeemer. In Christ the believer is prophet, priest, and king.


    _Acts 13:39_—“_by him_ [lit.: ‘_in him_’ = in union with him]
    _every one that believeth is justified_”; _Rom. 6:7, 8_—“_he that
    hath died is justified from sin ... we died with Christ_”;
    _7:4_—“_dead to the law through the body of Christ_”; _8:1_—“_no
    condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus_”; _17_—“_heirs of
    God, and joint‐heirs with Christ_”; _1 Cor. 1:30_—“_But of him ye
    are in Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and
    righteousness_ [justification]”; _3:21, 23_—“_all things are yours
    ... and ye are Christ’s_”; _6:11_—“_ye were justified in the name
    of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God_”; _2 Cor.
    5:14_—“_we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all
    died_”; _21_—“_Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our
    behalf; that we might become the righteousness_ [justification]
    _of God in him_” = God’s justified persons, in union with Christ
    (see pages 760, 761).

    _Gal. 2:20_—“_I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no
    longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me_”; _Eph. 1:4,
    6_—“_chose us in him ... to the praise of the glory of his grace,
    which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved_”; _2:5, 6_—“_even
    when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together
    with Christ ... made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in
    Christ Jesus_”; _Phil. 3:8, 9_—“_that I may gain Christ, and be
    found in him, not having a righteousness of mine own, even that
    which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ,
    the righteousness which is from God by faith_”; _2 Tim.
    2:11_—“_Faithful is the saying: For if we died with him, we shall
    also live with him._” Prophet: _Luke 12:12_—“_the Holy Spirit
    shall teach you in that very hour what ye ought to say_”; _1 John
    2:20_—“_ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and ye know all
    things._” Priest: _1 Pet. 2:5_—“_a holy priesthood, to offer up
    spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ_”;
    _Rev. 20:6_—“_they shall be priests of God and of Christ_”; _1
    Pet. 2:9_—“_a royal priesthood._” King: _Rev. 3:21_—“_He that
    overcometh, I will give to him to sit down with me in my throne_”;
    _5:10_—“_madest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests._”
    The connection of justification and union with Christ delivers the
    former from the charge of being a mechanical and arbitrary
    procedure. As Jonathan Edwards has said: “The justification of the
    believer is no other than his being admitted to communion in, or
    participation of, this head and surety of all believers.”


(_d_) Union with Christ secures to the believer the continuously
transforming, assimilating power of Christ’s life,—first, for the soul;
secondly, for the body,—consecrating it in the present, and in the future
raising it up in the likeness of Christ’s glorified body. This continuous
influence, so far as it is exerted in the present life, we call
_Sanctification_, the human side or aspect of which is _Perseverance_.


    For the soul: _John 1:16_—“_of his fulness we all received, and
    grace for grace_”—successive and increasing measures of grace,
    corresponding to the soul’s successive and increasing needs; _Rom.
    8:10_—“_if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but
    the spirit is life because of righteousness_”; _1 Cor.
    15:45_—“_The last Adam became a life‐giving spirit_”; _Phil.
    2:5_—“_Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus_”; _1
    John 3:2_—“_if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him._”
    “Can Christ let the believer fall out of his hands? No, for the
    believer is his hands.”

    For the body: _1 Cor. 6:17‐20_—“_he that is joined unto the Lord
    is one spirit ... know ye not that your body is a temple of the
    Holy Spirit which is in you ... glorify God therefore in your
    body_”; _Thess. 5:23_—“_And the God of peace himself sanctify you
    wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire,
    without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ_”; _Rom.
    8:11_—“_shall give life also to your mortal bodies through his
    Spirit that dwelleth in you_”; _1 Cor. 15:49_—“_as we have borne
    the image of the earthy_ [man], _we shall also bear the image of
    the heavenly_ [man]”; _Phil. 3:20, 21_—“_For our citizenship is in
    heaven; from whence also we wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus
    Christ: who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that
    it may be conformed to the body of his glory, according to the
    working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto
    himself._”

    Is there a physical miracle wrought for the drunkard in his
    regeneration? Mr. Moody says, Yes; Mr. Gough says, No. We prefer
    to say that the change is a spiritual one; but that the “expulsive
    power of a new affection” indirectly affects the body, so that old
    appetites sometimes disappear in a moment; and that often, in the
    course of years, great changes take place even in the believer’s
    body. Tennyson, Idylls: “Have ye looked at Edyrn? Have ye seen how
    nobly changed? This work of his is great and wonderful; His very
    face with change of heart is changed.” “Christ in the soul
    fashions the germinal man into his own likeness,—this is the
    embryology of the new life. The cardinal error in religious life
    is the attempt to live without proper environment” (see Drummond,
    Natural Law in Spiritual World, 253‐284). Human life from Adam
    does not stand the test,—only divine‐human life in Christ can
    secure us from falling. This is the work of Christ, now that he
    has ascended and taken to himself his power, namely, to give his
    life more and more fully to the church, until it shall grow up in
    all things into him, the Head, and shall fitly express his glory
    to the world.

    As the accomplished organist discloses unsuspected capabilities of
    his instrument, so Christ brings into activity all the latent
    powers of the human soul. “I was five years in the ministry,” said
    an American preacher, “before I realized that my Savior is alive.”
    Dr. R. W. Dale has left on record the almost unutterable feelings
    that stirred his soul when he first realized this truth; see
    Walker, The Spirit and the Incarnation, preface, v. Many have
    struggled in vain against sin until they have admitted Christ to
    their hearts,—then they could say: “_this is the victory that hath
    overcome the world, even our faith_” (_1 John 5:4_). “Go out, God
    will go in; Die thou, and let him live; Be not, and he will be;
    Wait, and he’ll all things give.” The best way to get air out of a
    vessel is to pour water in. Only in Christ can we find our pardon,
    peace, purity, and power. He is “_made unto us wisdom from God,
    and justification and sanctification, and redemption_” (_1 Cor.
    1:30_). A medical man says: “The only radical remedy for
    dipsomania is religiomania” (quoted in William James, Varieties of
    Religious Experience, 268). It is easy to break into an empty
    house; the spirit cast out returns, finds the house empty, brings
    seven others, and “_the last state of that man becometh worse than
    the first_” (_Mat. 12:45_). There is no safety in simply expelling
    sin; we need also to bring in Christ; in fact only he can enable
    us to expel not only actual sin but the love of it.

    Alexander McLaren: “If we are ‘_in Christ_,’ we are like a diver
    in his crystal bell, and have a solid though invisible wall around
    us, which keeps all sea‐monsters off us, and communicates with the
    upper air, whence we draw the breath of calm life and can work in
    security though in the ocean depths.” John Caird, Fund. Ideas,
    2:98—“How do we know that the life of God has not departed from
    nature? Because every spring we witness the annual miracle of
    nature’s revival, every summer and autumn the waving corn. How do
    we know that Christ has not departed from the world? Because he
    imparts to the soul that trusts him a power, a purity, a peace,
    which are beyond all that nature can give.”


(_e_) Union with Christ brings about a fellowship of Christ with the
believer,—Christ takes part in all the labors, temptations, and sufferings
of his people; a fellowship of the believer with Christ,—so that Christ’s
whole experience on earth is in some measure reproduced in him; a
fellowship of all believers with one another,—furnishing a basis for the
spiritual unity of Christ’s people on earth, and for the eternal communion
of heaven. The doctrine of Union with Christ is therefore the
indispensable preparation for _Ecclesiology_, and for _Eschatology_.


    Fellowship of Christ with the believer: _Phil. 4:13_—“_I can do
    all things in him that strengtheneth me_”; _Heb. 4:15_—“_For we
    have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of
    our infirmities_”; _cf._ _Is. 63:9_—“_In all their affliction he
    was afflicted._” _Heb. 2:18_—“_in that he himself hath suffered
    being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted_” = are
    being tempted, are under temptation. Bp. Wordsworth: “By his
    _passion_ he acquired _compassion_.” _2 Cor. 2:14_—“_thanks be
    unto God, who always leadeth us in triumph in Christ_” = Christ
    leads us in triumph, but his triumph is ours, even if it be a
    triumph over us. One with him, we participate in his joy and in
    his sovereignty. _Rev. 3:21_—“_He that overcometh, I will give to
    him to sit down with me in my throne._” W. F. Taylor on _Rom.
    8:9_—“_The Spirit of God dwelleth in you.... if any man hath not
    the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his_”—“Christ dwells in us,
    says the apostle. But do we accept him as a resident, or as a
    ruler? England was first represented at King Thebau’s court by her
    resident. This official could rebuke, and even threaten, but no
    more,—Thebau was sovereign. Burma knew no peace, till England
    ruled. So Christ does not consent to be represented by a mere
    resident. He must himself dwell within the soul, and he must
    reign.” Christina Rossetti, Thee Only: “Lord, we are rivers
    running to thy sea, Our waves and ripples all derived from thee; A
    nothing we should have, a nothing be, Except for thee. Sweet are
    the waters of thy shoreless sea; Make sweet our waters that make
    haste to thee; Pour in thy sweetness, that ourselves may be
    Sweetness to thee!”

    Of the believer with Christ: _Phil. 3:10_—“_that I may know him,
    and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his
    sufferings, becoming conformed unto his death_”; _Col.
    1:24_—“_fill up on my part that which is lacking of the
    afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is
    the church_”; _1 Pet. 4:13_—“_partakers of Christ’s sufferings._”
    The Christian reproduces Christ’s life in miniature, and, in a
    true sense, lives it over again. Only upon the principle of union
    with Christ can we explain how the Christian instinctively applies
    to himself the prophecies and promises which originally and
    primarily were uttered with reference to Christ: “_thou wilt not
    leave my soul to Sheol; Neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to
    see corruption_” (_Ps. 16:10, 11_). This fellowship is the ground
    of the promises made to believing prayer: _John
    14:13_—“_whatsoever ye shall ask is my name, that will I do_”;
    Westcott, Bib. Com., _in loco_: “The meaning of the phrase [‘_in
    my name_’] is ‘as being one with me even as I am revealed to you.’
    Its two correlatives are ‘_in me_’ and the Pauline ‘_in Christ_’.”
    “_All things are yours_” (_1 Cor. 3:21_), because Christ is
    universal King, and all believers are exalted to fellowship with
    him. After the battle of Sedan, King William asked a wounded
    Prussian officer whether it were well with him. “All is well where
    your majesty leads!” was the reply. _Phil. 1:21_—“_For to me to
    live is Christ, and to die is gain._” Paul indeed uses the words
    “Christ” and “church” as interchangeable terms: _1 Cor.
    12:12_—“_as the body is one, and hath many members, ... so also is
    Christ._” Denney, Studies in Theology, 171—“There is not in the N.
    T. from beginning to end, in the record of the original and
    genuine Christian life, a single word of despondency or gloom. It
    is the most buoyant, exhilarating and joyful book in the world.”
    This is due to the fact that the writers believe in a living and
    exalted Christ, and know themselves to be one with him. They
    descend crowned into the arena. In the Soudan, every morning for
    half an hour before General Gordon’s tent there lay a white
    handkerchief. The most pressing message, even on matters of life
    and death, waited till that handkerchief was withdrawn. It was the
    signal that Christ and Gordon were in communion with each other.

    Of all believers with one another: _John 17:21_—“_that they may
    all be one_”; _1 Cor. 10:17_—“_we, who are many, are one bread,
    one body: for we all partake of the one bread_”; _Eph.
    2:15_—“_create in himself of the two one new man, so making
    peace_”; _1 John 1:3_—“_that ye also may have fellowship with us:
    yea, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus
    Christ_”—here the word κοινωνία is used. Fellowship with each
    other is the effect and result of the fellowship of each with God
    in Christ. Compare _John 10:16_—“_they shall become one flock, one
    shepherd_”; Westcott, Bib. Com., _in loco_: “The bond of
    fellowship is shown to lie in the common relation to one Lord....
    Nothing is said of one ‘fold’ under the new dispensation.” Here is
    a unity, not of external organization, but of common life. Of this
    the visible church is the consequence and expression. But this
    communion is not limited to earth,—it is perpetuated beyond death:
    _1 Thess. 4:17_—“_so shall we ever be with the Lord_”; _Heb.
    12:23_—“_to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who
    are enrolled in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the
    spirits of just men made perfect_”; _Rev. 21_ and _22_—the city of
    God, the new Jerusalem, is the image of perfect society, as well
    as of intensity and fulness of life in Christ. The ordinances
    express the essence of Ecclesiology—union with Christ—for Baptism
    symbolizes the incorporation of the believer in Christ, while the
    Lord’s Supper symbolizes the incorporation of Christ in the
    believer. Christianity is a social matter, and the true Christian
    feels the need of being with and among his brethren. The Romans
    could not understand why “this new sect” must be holding meetings
    all the time—even daily meetings. Why could they not go singly, or
    in families, to the temples, and make offerings to their God, and
    then come away, as the pagans did? It was this meeting together
    which exposed them to persecution and martyrdom. It was the
    natural and inevitable expression of their union with Christ and
    so of their union with one another.

    The consciousness of union with Christ gives assurance of
    salvation. It is a great stimulus to believing prayer and to
    patient labor. It is a duty to “_know what is the hope of his
    calling, what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the
    saints, and what the exceeding greatness of his power to us‐ward
    who believe_” (_Eph. 1:18, 19_). Christ’s command, “_Abide in me,
    and I in you_” (_John 15:4_), implies that we are both to realize
    and to confirm this union, by active exertion of our own wills. We
    are to abide in him by an entire consecration, and to let him
    abide in us by an appropriating faith. We are to give ourselves to
    Christ, and to take in return the Christ who gives himself to
    us,—in other words, we are to believe Christ’s promises and to act
    upon them. All sin consists in the sundering of man’s life from
    God, and most systems of falsehood in religion are attempts to
    save man without merging his life in God’s once more. The only
    religion that can save mankind is the religion that fills the
    whole heart and the whole life with God, and that aims to
    interpenetrate universal humanity with that same living Christ who
    has already made himself one with the believer. This consciousness
    of union with Christ gives “_boldness_” (παρρησία—_Acts 4:13_; _1
    John 5:14_) toward men and toward God. The word belongs to the
    Greek democracies. Freemen are bold. Demosthenes boasts of his
    frankness. Christ frees us from the hidebound, introspective,
    self‐conscious spirit. In him we become free, demonstrative,
    outspoken. So we find, in John’s epistles, that boldness in prayer
    is spoken of as a virtue, and the author of the Epistle to the
    Hebrews urges us to “_draw near with boldness unto the throne of
    grace_” (_Heb. 4:16_). An engagement of marriage is not the same
    as marriage. The parties may be still distant from each other.
    Many Christians get just near enough to Christ to be engaged to
    him. This seems to be the experience of Christian in the Pilgrim’s
    Progress. But our privilege is to have a present Christ, and to do
    our work not only _for_ him, but _in_ him. “Since Christ and we
    are one, Why should we doubt or fear?” “We two are so joined,
    He’ll not be in heaven, And leave me behind.”

    We append a few statements with regard to this union and its
    consequences, from noted names in theology and the church. Luther:
    “By faith thou art so glued to Christ that of thee and him there
    becomes as it were one person, so that with confidence thou canst
    say: ‘I am Christ,—that is, Christ’s righteousness, victory,
    _etc._, are mine’; and Christ in turn can say: ‘I am that
    sinner,—that is, his sins, his death, _etc._, are mine, because he
    clings to me and I to him, for we have been joined through faith
    into one flesh and bone.’ ” Calvin: “I attribute the highest
    importance to the connection between the head and the members; to
    the inhabitation of Christ in our hearts; in a word, to the
    mystical union by which we enjoy him, so that, being made ours, he
    makes us partakers of the blessings with which he is furnished.”
    John Bunyan: “The Lord led me into the knowledge of the mystery of
    union with Christ, that I was joined to him, that I was bone of
    his bone and flesh of his flesh. By this also my faith in him as
    my righteousness was the more confirmed; for if he and I were one,
    then his righteousness was mine, his merits mine, his victory also
    mine. Now could I see myself in heaven and on earth at once—in
    heaven by my Christ, my risen head, my righteousness and life,
    though on earth by my body or person.” Edwards: “Faith is the
    soul’s active uniting with Christ. God sees fit that, in order to
    a union’s being established between two intelligent active beings,
    there should be the mutual act of both, that each should receive
    the other, as entirely joining themselves to one another.” Andrew
    Fuller: “I have no doubt that the imputation of Christ’s
    righteousness presupposes a union with him; since there is no
    perceivable fitness in bestowing benefits on one for another’s
    sake, where there is no union or relation between.”

    See Luther, quoted, with other references, in Thomasius, Christi
    Person und Werk, 3:325. See also Calvin, Institutes, 1:660;
    Edwards, Works, 4:66, 69, 70; Andrew Fuller, Works, 2:685; Pascal,
    Thoughts, Eng. trans., 429; Hooker, Eccl. Polity, book 5, ch. 56;
    Tillotson, Sermons, 3:307; Trench, Studies in Gospels, 284, and
    Christ the True Vine, in Hulsean Lectures; Schöberlein, in Studien
    und Kritiken, 1847:7‐69; Caird, on Union with God, in Scotch
    Sermons, sermon 2; Godet, on the Ultimate Design of Man, in
    Princeton Rev., Nov. 1880—the design is “God in man, and man in
    God”; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 590‐617; Upham, Divine Union,
    Interior Life, Life of Madame Guyon and Fénelon; A. J. Gordon, In
    Christ; McDuff, In Christo; J. Denham Smith, Life‐truths, 25‐98;
    A. H. Strong, Philosophy and Religion, 220‐225; Bishop Hall’s
    Treatise on The Church Mystical; Andrew Murray, Abide in Christ;
    Stearns, Evidence of Christian Experience, 145, 174, 179; F. B.
    Meyer, Christian Living—essay on Appropriation of Christ, _vs._
    mere imitation of Christ; Sanday, Epistle to the Romans,
    supplementary essay on the Mystic Union; H. B. Smith, System of
    Theology, 531; J. M. Campbell, The Indwelling Christ.


II. Regeneration.


Regeneration is that act of God by which the governing disposition of the
soul is made holy, and by which, through the truth as a means, the first
holy exercise of this disposition is secured.

Regeneration, or the new birth, is the divine side of that change of heart
which, viewed from the human side, we call conversion. It is God’s turning
the soul to himself,—conversion being the soul’s turning itself to God, of
which God’s turning it is both the accompaniment and cause. It will be
observed from the above definition, that there are two aspects of
regeneration, in the first of which the soul is passive, in the second of
which the soul is active. God changes the governing disposition,—in this
change the soul is simply acted upon. God secures the initial exercise of
this disposition in view of the truth,—in this change the soul itself
acts. Yet these two parts of God’s operation are simultaneous. At the same
moment that he makes the soul sensitive, he pours in the light of his
truth and induces the exercise of the holy disposition he has imparted.


    This distinction between the passive and the active aspects of
    regeneration is necessitated, as we shall see, by the twofold
    method of representing the change in Scripture. In many passages
    the change is ascribed wholly to the power of God; the change is a
    change in the fundamental disposition of the soul; there is no use
    of means. In other passages we find truth referred to as an agency
    employed by the Holy Spirit, and the mind acts in view of this
    truth. The distinction between these two aspects of regeneration
    seems to be intimated in _Eph. 2:5, 6_—“_made us alive together
    with Christ,_” and “_raised us up with him_.” Lazarus must first
    be made alive, and in this he could _not_ coöperate; but he must
    also come forth from the tomb, and in this he _could_ be active.
    In the old photography, the plate was first made sensitive, and in
    this the plate was passive; then it was exposed to the object, and
    now the plate actively seized upon the rays of light which the
    object emitted.

    Availing ourselves of the illustration from photography, we may
    compare God’s initial work in the soul to the sensitizing of the
    plate, his next work to the pouring in of the light and the
    production of the picture. The soul is first made receptive to the
    truth; then it is enabled actually to receive the truth. But the
    illustration fails in one respect,—it represents the two aspects
    of regeneration as successive. In regeneration there is no
    chronological succession. At the same instant that God makes the
    soul sensitive, he also draws out its new sensibility in view of
    the truth. Let us notice also that, as in photography the picture
    however perfect needs to be developed, and this development takes
    time, so regeneration is only the beginning of God’s work; not all
    the dispositions, but only the governing disposition, is made
    holy; there is still need that sanctification should follow
    regeneration; and sanctification is a work of God which lasts for
    a whole lifetime. We may add that “heredity affects regeneration
    as the quality of the film affects photography, and environment
    affects regeneration as the focus affects photography” (W. T.
    Thayer).

    Sacramentarianism has so obscured the doctrine of Scripture that
    many persons who gave no evidence of being regenerate are quite
    convinced that they are Christians. Uncle John Vassar therefore
    never asked: “Are you a Christian?” but always: “Have you ever
    been born again?” E. G. Robinson: “The doctrine of regeneration,
    aside from sacramentarianism, was not apprehended by Luther or the
    Reformers, was not indeed wrought out till Wesley taught that God
    instantaneously renewed the affections and the will.” We get the
    doctrine of regeneration mainly from the apostle John, as we get
    the doctrine of justification mainly from the apostle Paul.
    Stevens, Johannine Theology, 366—“Paul’s great words are,
    justification, and righteousness; John’s are, birth from God, and
    life. But, for both Paul and John, faith is life‐union with
    Christ.”

    Stearns, Evidence of Christian Experience, 134—“The sinful nature
    is not gone, but its power is broken; sin no longer dominates the
    life; it has been thrust from the centre to the circumference; it
    has the sentence of death in itself; the man is freed, at least in
    potency and promise. 218—An activity may be immediate, yet not
    unmediated. God’s action on the soul may be through the sense, yet
    still be immediate, as when finite spirits communicate with each
    other.” Dubois, in Century Magazine, Dec. 1894:233—“Man has made
    his way up from physical conditions to the consciousness of
    spiritual needs. Heredity and environment fetter him. He needs
    spiritual help. God provides a spiritual environment in
    regeneration. As science is the verification of the ideal in
    nature, so religion is the verification of the spiritual in human
    life.” Last sermon of Seth K. Mitchell on _Rev. 21:5_—“_Behold, I
    make all things new_”—“God first makes a new man, then gives him a
    new heart, then a new commandment. He also gives a new body, a new
    name, a new robe, a new song, and a new home.”


1. Scripture Representations.


(_a_) Regeneration is a change indispensable to the salvation of the
sinner.


    _John 3:7_—“_Ye must be born anew_”; _Gal. 6:15_—“_neither is
    circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature_”
    (marg.—“_creation_”); _cf._ _Heb. 12:14_—“_the sanctification
    without which no man shall see the Lord_”—regeneration, therefore,
    is yet more necessary to salvation; _Eph. 2:3_—“_by nature
    children of wrath, even as the rest_”; _Rom. 3:11_—“_There is none
    that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God_”; _John
    6:44, 65_—“_No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me
    draw him ... no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him
    of the Father_”; _Jer. 13:23_—“_Can the Ethiopian change his skin,
    or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are
    accustomed to do evil._”


(_b_) It is a change in the inmost principle of life.


    _John 3:3_—“_Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of
    God_”; _5:21_—“_as the Father raiseth the dead and giveth them
    life, even so the Son also giveth life to whom he will_”; _Rom.
    6:13_—“_present yourselves unto God, as alive from the dead_”;
    _Eph. 2:1_—“_And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through
    your trespasses and sins_”; _5:14_—“_Awake, thou that sleepest,
    and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee._” In
    _John 3:3_—“_born anew_” = not, “altered,” “influenced,”
    “reinvigorated,” “reformed”; but a new beginning, a new stamp or
    character, a new family likeness to God and to his children. “_So
    is every one that is born of the Spirit_” (_John 3:8_) = 1.
    secrecy of process; 2. independence of the will of man; 3.
    evidence given in results of conduct and life. It is a good thing
    to remove the means of gratifying an evil appetite; but how much
    better it is to remove the appetite itself! It is a good thing to
    save men from frequenting dangerous resorts by furnishing safe
    places of recreation and entertainment; but far better is it to
    implant within the man such a love for all that is pure and good,
    that he will instinctively shun the impure and evil. Christianity
    aims to purify the springs of action.


(_c_) It is a change in the heart, or governing disposition.


    _Mat. 12:33, 35_—“_Either make the tree good, and its fruit good;
    or make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt: for the tree is
    known by its fruit.... The good man out of his good treasure
    bringeth forth good things: and the evil man out of his evil
    treasure bringeth forth evil things_”; _15:19_—“_For out of the
    heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications,
    thefts, false witness, railings_”; _Acts 16:14_—“_And a certain
    woman named Lydia ... heard us: whose heart the Lord opened to
    give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul_”; _Rom.
    6:17_—“_But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of
    sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching
    whereunto ye were delivered_”; _10:10_—“_with the heart man
    believeth unto righteousness_”; _cf._ _Ps. 51:10_—“_Create in me a
    clean heart, O God; And renew a right spirit within me_”; _Jer.
    31:33_—“_I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their
    hearts will I write it_”; _Ez. 11:19_—“_And I will give them one
    heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the
    stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of
    flesh._”

    Horace Mann: “One former is worth a hundred reformers.” It is
    often said that the redemption of society is as important as the
    regeneration of the individual. Yes, we reply; but the
    regeneration of society can never be accomplished except through
    the regeneration of the individual. Reformers try in vain to
    construct a stable and happy community from persons who are
    selfish, weak, and miserable. The first cry of such reformers is:
    “Get your circumstances changed!” Christ’s first call is: “Get
    yourselves changed, and then the things around you will be
    changed.” Many college settlements, and temperance societies, and
    self‐reformations begin at the wrong end. They are like kindling a
    coal‐fire by lighting kindlings at the top. The fire soon goes
    out. We need God’s work at the very basis of character and not on
    the outer edge, at the very beginning, and not simply at the end.
    _Mat. 6:33_—“_seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness;
    and all these things shall be added unto you._”


(_d_) It is a change in the moral relations of the soul.


    _Eph. 2:5_—“_when we were dead through our trespasses, made us
    alive together with Christ_”; _4:23, 24_—“_that ye be renewed in
    the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, that after God
    hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth_”; _Col.
    1:13_—“_who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and
    translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love._” William
    James, Varieties of Religious Experience, 508, finds the features
    belonging to all religions: 1. an uneasiness; and 2. its solution.
    1. The uneasiness, reduced to its simplest terms, is a sense that
    there is _something wrong about us_, as we naturally stand. 2. The
    solution is a sense that we are saved _from the wrongness_ by
    making proper connection with the higher powers.


(e) It is a change wrought in connection with the use of truth as a means.


    _James 1:18_—“_Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of
    truth_”—here in connection with the special agency of God (not of
    mere natural law) the truth is spoken of as a means; _1 Pet.
    1:23_—“_having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but
    of incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and
    abideth_”; _2 Pet. 1:4_—“_his precious and exceeding great
    promises; that through these ye may become partakers of the divine
    nature_”; _cf._ _Jer. 23:29_—“_Is not my word like fire? saith
    Jehovah; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?_”
    _John 15:3_—“_Already ye are clean because of the word which I
    have spoken unto you_”; _Eph. 6:17_—“_the sword of the Spirit,
    which is the word of God_”; _Heb. 4:12_—“_For the word of God is
    living, and active, and sharper than any two‐edged sword, and
    piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints
    and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the
    heart_”; _1 Pet. 2:9_—“_called you out of darkness into his
    marvellous light._” An advertising sign reads: “For spaces and
    ideas, apply to Johnson and Smith.” In regeneration, we need both
    the open mind and the truth to instruct it, and we may apply to
    God for both.


(_f_) It is a change instantaneous, secretly wrought, and known only in
its results.


    _John 5:24_—“_He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent
    me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath
    passed out of death into life_”; _cf._ _Mat. 6:24_—“_No man can
    serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the
    other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other._” _John
    3:8_—“_The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice
    thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth:
    so is every one that is born of the Spirit_”; _cf._ _Phil. 2:12,
    13_—“_work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it
    is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good
    pleasure_”; _2 Pet. 1:10_—“_Wherefore, brethren, give the more
    diligence to make your calling and election sure._”


(_g_) It is a change wrought by God.


    _John 1:13_—“_who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the
    flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God_”; _3:5_—“_Except one be
    born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
    God_”; _3:8_, marg.—“_The Spirit breatheth where it will_”; _Eph.
    1:19, 20_—“_the exceeding greatness of his power to us‐ward who
    believe, according to that working of the strength of his might
    which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and
    made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places_”;
    _2:10_—“_For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for
    good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in
    them_”; _1 Pet. 1:3_—“_Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord
    Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto
    a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead_”;
    _cf._ _1 Cor. 3:6, 7_—“_I planted, Apollos watered; but God gave
    the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything,
    neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase._”

    We have seen that we are “_begotten again ... through the word_”
    (_1 Pet. 1:23_). In the revealed truth with regard to the person
    and work of Christ there is a divine adaptation to the work of
    renewing our hearts. But truth in itself is powerless to
    regenerate and sanctify, unless the Holy Spirit uses it—“_the
    sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God_” (_Eph. 6:17_).
    Hence regeneration is ascribed preëminently to the Holy Spirit,
    and men are said to be “_born of the Spirit_” (_John 3:8_). When
    Robert Morrison started for China, an incredulous American said to
    him: “Mr. Morrison, do you think you can make any impression on
    the Chinese?” “No,” was the reply; “but I think the Lord can.”


(_h_) It is a change accomplished through the union of the soul with
Christ.


    _Rom. 8:2_—“_For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus
    made me free from the law of sin and death_”; _2 Cor. 5:17_—“_if
    any man is in Christ, he is a new creature_” (marg.—“_there is a
    new creation_”); _Gal. 1:15, 16_—“_it was the good pleasure of God
    ... to reveal his Son in me_”; _Eph. 2:10_—“_For we are his
    workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works._” On the
    Scriptural representations, see E. D. Griffin, Divine Efficiency,
    117‐164; H. B. Smith, System of Theology, 553‐569—“Regeneration
    involves union with Christ, and not a change of heart without
    relation to him.”

    _Eph. 3:14, 15_—“_the Father, from whom every fatherhood in heaven
    and on earth is named._” But even here God works through Christ,
    and Christ himself is called “_Everlasting Father_” (_Is. 9:6_).
    The real basis of our sonship and unity is in Christ, our Creator,
    and Upholder. Sin is repudiation of this filial relationship.
    Regeneration by the Spirit restores our sonship by joining us once
    more, ethically and spiritually, to Christ the Son, and so
    adopting us again into God’s family. Hence the Holy Spirit does
    not reveal himself, but Christ. The Spirit is light, and light
    does not reveal itself, but all other things. I may know that the
    Holy Spirit is working within me whenever I more clearly perceive
    Christ. Sonship in Christ makes us not only individually children
    of God, but also members of a commonwealth. _Ps. 87:4_—“_Yea, of
    Zion it shall be said, This one and that one was born in her_” =
    “the most glorious thing to be said about them is not something
    pertaining to their separate history, but that they have become
    members, by adoption, of the city of God” (Perowne). The Psalm
    speaks of the adoption of nations, but it is equally true of
    individuals.


2. Necessity of Regeneration.


That all men without exception need to be changed in moral character, is
manifest, not only from Scripture passages already cited, but from the
following rational considerations:

(_a_) Holiness, or conformity to the fundamental moral attribute of God,
is the indispensable condition of securing the divine favor, of attaining
peace of conscience, and of preparing the soul for the associations and
employments of the blest.


    Phillips Brooks seems to have taught that regeneration is merely a
    natural forward step in man’s development. See his Life,
    2:353—“The entrance into this deeper consciousness of sonship to
    God and into the motive power which it exercises is Regeneration,
    the new birth, not merely with reference to time, but with
    reference also to profoundness. Because man has something sinful
    to cast away in order to enter this higher life, therefore
    regeneration must begin with repentance. But that is an incident.
    It is not essential to the idea. A man simply imperfect and not
    sinful would still have to be born again. The presentation of sin
    as guilt, of release as forgiveness, of consequence as punishment,
    have their true meaning as the most personal expressions of man’s
    moral condition as always measured by, and man’s moral changes as
    always dependent upon, God.” Here imperfection seems to mean
    depraved condition as distinguished from conscious transgression;
    it is not regarded as sinful; it needs not to be repented of. Yet
    it does require regeneration. In Phillips Brooks’s creed there is
    no article devoted to sin. Baptism he calls “the declaration of
    the universal fact of the sonship of man to God. The Lord’s Supper
    is the declaration of the universal fact of man’s dependence upon
    God for supply of life. It is associated with the death of Jesus,
    because in that the truth of God giving himself to man found its
    completest manifestation.”

    Others seem to teach regeneration by education. Here too there is
    no recognition of inborn sin or guilt. Man’s imperfection of
    nature is innocent. He needs training in order to fit him for
    association with higher intelligences and with God. In the
    evolution of his powers there comes a natural crisis, like that of
    graduation of the scholar, and this crisis may be called
    conversion. This educational theory of regeneration is represented
    by Starbuck, Psychology of Religion, and by Coe, The Spiritual
    Life. What human nature needs however is not evolution, but
    involution and revolution—involution, the communication of a new
    life, and revolution, change of direction resulting from that
    life. Human nature, as we have seen in our treatment of sin, is
    not a green apple to be perfected by mere growth, but an apple
    with a worm at the core, which left to itself will surely rot and
    perish.

    President G. Stanley Hall, in his essay on The Religious
    Affirmations of Psychology, says that the total depravity of man
    is an ascertained fact apart from the teachings of the Bible.
    There had come into his hands for inspection several thousands of
    letters written to a medical man who advertised that he would give
    confidential advice and treatment to all, secretly. On the
    strength of these letters Dr. Hall was prepared to say that John
    Calvin had not told the half of what is true. He declared that the
    necessity of regeneration in order to the development of character
    was clearly established from psychological investigation.

    A. H. Strong, Cleveland Sermon, 1904—“Here is the danger of some
    modern theories of Christian education. They give us statistics,
    to show that the age of puberty is the age of strongest religious
    impressions; and the inference is drawn that conversion is nothing
    but a natural phenomenon, a regular stage of development. The free
    will, and the evil bent of that will, are forgotten, and the
    absolute dependence of perverse human nature upon the regenerating
    spirit of God. The age of puberty is the age of the strongest
    religious impressions? Yes, but it is also the age of the
    strongest artistic and social and sensuous impressions, and only a
    new birth from above can lead the soul to seek first the kingdom
    of God.”


(_b_) The condition of universal humanity as by nature depraved, and, when
arrived at moral consciousness, as guilty of actual transgression, is
precisely the opposite of that holiness without which the soul cannot
exist in normal relation to God, to self, or to holy beings.


    Plutarch has a parable of a man who tried to make a dead body
    stand upright, but who finished his labors saying: “Deest aliquid
    intus”—“There’s something lacking inside.” Ribot, Diseases of the
    Will, 53—“In the vicious man the moral elements are lacking. If
    the idea of amendment arises, it is involuntary.... But if a first
    element is not given by nature, and with it a potential energy,
    nothing results. The theological dogma of grace as a free gift
    appears to us therefore founded upon a much more exact psychology
    than the contrary opinion.” “Thou art chained to the wheel of the
    foe By links which a world cannot sever: With thy tyrant through
    storm and through calm thou shall go, And thy sentence is bondage
    forever.”

    Martensen, Christian Ethics: “When Kant treats of the radical evil
    of human nature, he makes the remarkable statement that, if a good
    will is to appear in us, this cannot happen through a partial
    improvement, nor through any reform, but only through a
    revolution, a total overturn within us, that is to be compared to
    a new creation.” Those who hold that man may attain perfection by
    mere natural growth deny this radical evil of human nature, and
    assume that our nature is a good seed which needs only favorable
    external influences of moisture and sunshine to bring forth good
    fruit. But human nature is a damaged seed, and what comes of it
    will be aborted and stunted like itself. The doctrine of mere
    development denies God’s holiness, man’s sin, the need of Christ,
    the necessity of atonement, the work of the Holy Spirit, the
    justice of penalty. Kant’s doctrine of the radical evil of human
    nature, like Aristotle’s doctrine that man is born on an inclined
    plane and subject to a downward gravitation, is not matched by a
    corresponding doctrine of regeneration. Only the apostle Paul can
    tell us how we came to be in this dreadful predicament, and where
    is the power that can deliver us; see Stearns, Evidence of
    Christian Experience, 274.

    Dean Swift’s worthy sought many years for a method of extracting
    sunbeams from cucumbers. We cannot cure the barren tree by giving
    it new bark or new branches,—it must have new sap. Healing
    snakebites is not killing the snake. Poetry and music, the
    uplifting power of culture, the inherent nobility of man, the
    general mercy of God—no one of these will save the soul. Horace
    Bushnell: “The soul of all improvement is the improvement of the
    soul.” Frost cannot be removed from a window pane simply by
    scratching it away,—you must raise the temperature of the room. It
    is as impossible to get regeneration out of reformation as to get
    a harvest out of a field by mere plowing. Reformation is plucking
    bitter apples from a tree, and in their place tying good apples on
    with a string (Dr. Pentecost). It is regeneration or
    degradation—the beginning of an upward movement by a power not
    man’s own, or the continuance and increase of a downward movement
    that can end only in ruin.

    Kidd, Social Evolution, shows that in humanity itself there
    resides no power of progress. The ocean steamship that has burned
    its last pound of coal may proceed on its course by virtue of its
    momentum, but it is only a question of the clock how soon it will
    cease to move, except as tossed about by the wind and the waves.
    Not only is there power lacking for the good, but apart from God’s
    grace the evil tendencies constantly became more aggravated. The
    settled states of the affections and will practically dominate the
    life. Charles H. Spurgeon: “If a thief should get into heaven
    unchanged, he would begin by picking the angels’ pockets.” The
    land is full of examples of the descent of man, not _from_ the
    brute, but _to_ the brute. The tares are not degenerate wheat,
    which by cultivation will become good wheat,—they are not only
    useless but noxious, and they must be rooted out and burned.
    “Society never will be better than the individuals who compose it.
    A sound ship can never be made of rotten timber. Individual
    reformation must precede social reconstruction.” Socialism will
    always be a failure until it becomes Christian. We must be born
    from above, as truly as we have been begotten by our fathers upon
    earth, or we cannot see the kingdom of God.


(_c_) A radical internal change is therefore requisite in every human
soul—a change in that which constitutes its character. Holiness cannot be
attained, as the pantheist claims, by a merely natural growth or
development, since man’s natural tendencies are wholly in the direction of
selfishness. There must be a reversal of his inmost dispositions and
principles of action, if he is to see the kingdom of God.


    Men’s good deeds and reformation may be illustrated by eddies in a
    stream whose general current is downward; by walking westward in a
    railway‐car while the train is going east; by Capt. Parry’s
    traveling north, while the ice‐floe on which he walked was moving
    southward at a rate much more rapid than his walking. It is
    possible to be “_ever learning, and never able to come to the
    knowledge of the truth_” (_2 Tim. 3:7_). Better never have been
    born, than not be born again. But the necessity of regeneration
    implies its possibility: _John 3:7_—“_Ye must be born anew_” = ye
    may be born anew,—the text is not merely a warning and a
    command,—it is also a promise. Every sinner has the chance of
    making a new start and of beginning a new life.

    J. D. Robertson, The Holy Spirit and Christian Service,
    57—“Emerson says that the gate of gifts closes at birth. After a
    man emerges from his mother’s womb he can have no new endowments,
    no fresh increments of strength and wisdom, joy and grace within.
    The only grace is the grace of creation. But this view is deistic
    and not Christian.” Emerson’s saying is true of natural gifts, but
    not of spiritual gifts. He forgot Pentecost. He forgot the all‐
    encompassing atmosphere of the divine personality and love, and
    its readiness to enter in at every chink and crevice of our
    voluntary being. The longing men have to turn over a new leaf in
    life’s book, to break with the past, to assert their better
    selves, is a preliminary impulse of God’s Spirit and an evidence
    of prevenient grace preparing the way for regeneration. Thus
    interpreted and yielded to, these impulses warrant unbounded hope
    for the future. “No star is ever lost we once have seen; We always
    may be what we might have been; The hopes that lost in some far
    distance seem May be the truer life, and this the dream.”

    The greatest minds feel, at least at times, their need of help
    from above. Although Cicero uses the term “regeneration” to
    signify what we should call naturalization, yet he recognizes
    man’s dependence upon God: “Nemo vir magnus, sine aliquo divino
    afflatu, unquam fuit.” Seneca: “Bonus vir sine illo nemo est.”
    Aristotle: “Wickedness perverts the judgment and makes men err
    with respect to practical principles, so that no man can be wise
    and judicious who is not good.” Goethe: “Who ne’er his bread in
    sorrow ate, Who ne’er the mournful midnight hours Weeping upon his
    bed has sate, He knows you not, ye heavenly Powers.” Shakespeare,
    King Lear: “Is there a reason in nature for these hard hearts?”
    Robert Browning, in Halbert and Hob, replies: “O Lear, That a
    reason out of nature must turn them soft, seems clear.”

    John Stuart Mill (see Autobiography, 132‐142) knew that the
    feeling of interest in others’ welfare would make him happy,—but
    the knowledge of this fact did not give him the feeling. The
    “enthusiasm of humanity”—unselfish love, of which we read in “Ecce
    Homo”—is easy to talk about; but how to produce it,—that is the
    question. Drummond, Natural Law in the Spiritual World,
    61‐94—“There is no abiogenesis in the spiritual, more than in the
    natural, world. Can the stone grow more and more living until it
    enters the organic world? No, Christianity is a new life,—it is
    Christ in you.” As natural life comes to us mediately, through
    Adam, so spiritual life comes to us mediately, through Christ. See
    Bushnell, Nature and the Supernatural, 220‐249; Anderson,
    Regeneration, 51‐88; Bennet Tyler, Memoir and Lectures, 340‐354.


3. The Efficient Cause of Regeneration.


Three views only need be considered,—all others are modifications of
these. The first view puts the efficient cause of regeneration in the
human will; the second, in the truth considered as a system of motives;
the third, in the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit.


    John Stuart Mill regarded cause as embracing all the antecedents
    to an event. Hazard, Man a Creative First Cause, 12‐15, shows
    that, as at any given instant the whole past is everywhere the
    same, the effects must, upon this view, at each instant be
    everywhere one and the same. “The theory that, of every successive
    event, the real cause is the whole of the antecedents, does not
    distinguish between the passive conditions acted upon and changed,
    and the active agencies which act upon and change them; does not
    distinguish what _produces_, from what merely _precedes_, change.”

    We prefer the definition given by Porter, Human Intellect,
    592—Cause is “the most conspicuous and prominent of the agencies,
    or conditions, that produce a result”; or that of Dr. Mark
    Hopkins: “Any exertion or manifestation of energy that produces a
    change is a cause, and nothing else is. We must distinguish cause
    from occasion, or material. Cause is not to be defined as
    ‘everything without which the effect could not be realized.’ ”
    Better still, perhaps, may we say, that efficient cause is the
    competent producing power by which the effect is secured. James
    Martineau, Types, 1: preface, xiii—“A cause is that which
    determines the indeterminate.” Not the light, but the
    photographer, is the cause of the picture; light is but the
    photographer’s servant. So the “_word of God_” is the “_sword of
    the Spirit_” (_Eph. 6:17_); the Spirit uses the word as his
    instrument; but the Spirit himself is the cause of regeneration.


A. The human will, as the efficient cause of regeneration.

This view takes two forms, according as the will is regarded as acting
apart from, or in conjunction with, special influences of the truth
applied by God. Pelagians hold the former; Arminians the latter.

(_a_) To the Pelagian view, that regeneration is solely the act of man,
and is identical with self‐reformation, we object that the sinner’s
depravity, since it consists in a fixed state of the affections which
determines the settled character of the volitions, amounts to a moral
inability. Without a renewal of the affections from which all moral action
springs, man will not choose holiness nor accept salvation.


    Man’s volitions are practically the shadow of his affections. It
    is as useless to think of a man’s volitions separating themselves
    from his affections, and drawing him towards God, as it is to
    think of a man’s shadow separating itself from him, and leading
    him in the opposite direction to that in which he is going. Man’s
    affections, to use Calvin’s words, are like horses that have
    thrown off the charioteer and are running wildly,—they need a new
    hand to direct them. In disease, we must be helped by a physician.
    We do not stop a locomotive engine by applying force to the
    wheels, but by reversing the lever. So the change in man must be,
    not in the transient volitions, but in the deeper springs of
    action—the fundamental bent of the affections and will. See
    Henslow, Evolution, 134. Shakespeare, All’s Well that Ends Well,
    2:1:149—“It is not so with Him that all things knows, As ’tis with
    us that square our guess with shows; But most it is presumption in
    us when The help of heaven we count the act of men.”

    Henry Clay said that he did not know for himself personally what
    the change of heart spoken of by Christians meant; but he had seen
    Kentucky family feuds of long standing healed by religious
    revivals, and that whatever could heal a Kentucky family feud was
    more than human.—Mr. Peter Harvey was a lifelong friend of Daniel
    Webster. He wrote a most interesting volume of reminiscenses of
    the great man. He tells how one John Colby married the oldest
    sister of Mr. Webster. Said Mr. Webster of John Colby: “Finally he
    went up to Andover, New Hampshire, and bought a farm, and the only
    recollection I have about him is that he was called the wickedest
    man in the neighborhood, so far as swearing and impiety went. I
    used to wonder how my sister could marry so profane a man as John
    Colby.” Years afterwards news comes to Mr. Webster that a
    wonderful change has passed upon John Colby. Mr. Harvey and Mr.
    Webster take a journey together to visit John Colby. As Mr.
    Webster enters John Colby’s house, he sees open before him a
    large‐print Bible, which he has just been reading. When greetings
    have been interchanged, the first question John Colby asks of Mr.
    Webster is, “Are you a Christian?” And then, at John Colby’s
    suggestion, the two men kneel and pray together. When the visit is
    done, this is what Mr. Webster says to Mr. Harvey as they ride
    away: “I should like to know what the enemies of religion would
    say to John Colby’s conversion. There was a man as unlikely,
    humanly speaking, to become a Christian as any man I ever saw. He
    was reckless, heedless, impious, never attended church, never
    experienced the good influence of associating with religious
    people. And here he has been living on in that reckless way until
    he has got to be an old man, until a period of life when you
    naturally would not expect his habits to change. And yet he has
    been brought into the condition in which we have seen him to‐
    day,—a penitent, trusting, humble believer.” “Whatever people may
    say,” added Mr. Webster, “nothing can convince me that anything
    short of the grace of Almighty God could make such a change as I,
    with my own eyes, have witnessed in the life of John Colby.” When
    they got back to Franklin, New Hampshire, in the evening, they met
    another lifelong friend of Mr. Webster’s, John Taylor, standing at
    his door. Mr. Webster called out: “Well, John Taylor, miracles
    happen in these latter days as well as in the days of old.” “What
    now, Squire?” asked John Taylor. “Why,” replied Mr. Webster, “John
    Colby has become a Christian. If that is not a miracle, what is?”


(_b_) To the Arminian view, that regeneration is the act of man,
coöperating with divine influences applied through the truth (synergistic
theory), we object that no beginning of holiness is in this way
conceivable. For, so long as man’s selfish and perverse affections are
unchanged, no choosing God is possible but such as proceeds from supreme
desire for one’s own interest and happiness. But the man thus supremely
bent on self‐gratification cannot see in God, or his service, anything
productive of happiness; or, if he could see in them anything of
advantage, his choice of God and his service from such a motive would not
be a holy choice, and therefore could not be a beginning of holiness.


    Although Melanchthon (1497‐1560) preceded Arminius (1560‐1609),
    his view was substantially the same with that of the Dutch
    theologian. Melanchthon never experienced the throes and travails
    of a new spiritual life, as Luther did. His external and internal
    development was peculiarly placid and serene. This Præceptor
    Germaniæ had the modesty of the genuine scholar. He was not a
    dogmatist, and he never entered the ranks of the ministry. He
    never could be persuaded to accept the degree of Doctor of
    Theology, though he lectured on theological subjects to audiences
    of thousands. Dorner says of Melanchthon: “He held at first that
    the Spirit of God is the primary, and the word of God the
    secondary, or instrumental, agency in conversion, while the human
    will allows their action and freely yields to it.” Later, he held
    that “conversion is the result of the combined action
    (_copulatio_) of three causes, the truth of God, the Holy Spirit,
    and the will of man.” This synergistic view in his last years
    involved the theologian of the German Reformation in serious
    trouble. Luthardt: “He made a _facultas_ out of a mere
    _capacitas_.” Dorner says again: “Man’s causality is not to be
    coördinated with that of God, however small the influence ascribed
    to it. It is a purely _receptive_, not a productive, agency. The
    opposite is the fundamental Romanist error.” Self‐love will never
    induce a man to give up self‐love. Selfishness will not throttle
    and cast out selfishness. “Such a choice from a selfish motive
    would be unholy, when judged by God’s standard. It is absurd to
    make salvation depend upon the exercises of a wholly unspiritual
    power”; see Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:716‐720 (Syst. Doct.,
    4:179‐183). Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:505—“Sin does not first stop,
    and then holiness come in place of sin; but holiness positively
    expels sin. Darkness does not first cease, and then light enter;
    but light drives out darkness.” On the Arminian view, see Bib.
    Sac., 19:265, 266.

    John Wesley’s theology was a modified Arminianism, yet it was John
    Wesley who did most to establish the doctrine of regeneration. He
    asserted that the Holy Spirit acts through the truth, in
    distinction from the doctrine that the Holy Spirit works solely
    through the ministers and sacraments of the church. But in
    asserting the work of the Holy Spirit in the individual soul, he
    went too far to the opposite extreme of emphasizing the ability of
    man to choose God’s service, when without love to God there was
    nothing in God’s service to attract. A. H. Bradford, Age of Faith:
    “It is as if Jesus had said: If a sailor will properly set his
    rudder the wind will fill his sails. The will is the rudder of the
    character; if it is turned in the right direction, all the winds
    of heaven will favor; if it is turned in the wrong direction, they
    will oppose.” The question returns: What shall move the man to set
    his rudder aright, if he has no desire to reach the proper haven?
    Here is the need of divine power, not merely to coöperate with
    man, after man’s will is set in the right direction, but to set it
    in the right direction in the first place. _Phil. 2:13_—“_it is
    God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good
    pleasure._”

    Still another modification of Arminian doctrine is found in the
    Revealed Theology of N. W. Taylor of New Haven, who maintained
    that, antecedently to regeneration, the _selfish_ principle is
    suspended in the sinner’s heart, and that then, prompted by _self‐
    love_, he uses the means of regeneration from motives that are
    neither sinful nor holy. He held that all men, saints and sinners,
    have their own happiness for their ultimate end. Regeneration
    involves no change in this principle or motive, but only a change
    in the governing purpose to seek this happiness in God rather than
    in the world. Dr. Taylor said that man could turn to God, whatever
    the Spirit did or did not do. He could turn to God if he would;
    but he could also turn to God if he wouldn’t. In other words, he
    maintained the power of contrary choice, while yet affirming the
    certainty that, without the Holy Spirit’s influences, man would
    always choose wrongly. These doctrines caused a division in the
    Congregational body. Those who opposed Taylor withdrew their
    support from New Haven, and founded the East Windsor Seminary in
    1834. For Taylor’s view, see N. W. Taylor, Revealed Theology,
    369‐406, and in The Christian Spectator for 1829.

    The chief opponent of Dr. Taylor was Dr. Bennet Tyler. He replied
    to Dr. Taylor that moral character has its seat, not in the
    purpose, but in the affections back of the purpose. Otherwise
    every Christian must be in a state of sinless perfection, for his
    governing purpose is to serve God. But we know that there are
    affections and desires not under control of this
    purpose—dispositions not in conformity with the predominant
    disposition. How, Dr. Tyler asked, can a sinner, completely
    selfish, from a selfish motive, resolve not to be selfish, and so
    suspend his selfishness? “Antecedently to regeneration, there can
    be no suspension of the selfish principle. It is said that, in
    suspending it, the sinner is actuated by self‐love. But is it
    possible that the sinner, while destitute of love to God and every
    particle of genuine benevolence, should love himself at all and
    not love himself supremely? He loves nothing more than self. He
    does not regard God or the universe, except as they tend to
    promote his ultimate end, his own happiness. No sinner ever
    suspended this selfishness until subdued by divine grace. We can
    not become regenerate by preferring God to the world merely from
    regard to our own interest. There is no necessity of the Holy
    Spirit to renew the heart, if self‐love prompts men to turn from
    the world to God. On the view thus combated, depravity consists
    simply in ignorance. All men need is enlightenment as to the best
    means of securing their own happiness. Regeneration by the Holy
    Spirit is, therefore, not necessary.” See Bennet Tyler, Memoir and
    Lectures, 316‐381, esp. 334, 370, 371; Letters on the New Haven
    Theology, 21‐72, 143‐163; review of Taylor and Fitch, by E. D.
    Griffin, Divine Efficiency, 13‐54; Martineau, Study, 2:9—“By
    making it a man’s interest to be disinterested, do you cause him
    to forget himself and put any love into his heart? or do you only
    break him in and cause him to turn this way and that by the bit
    and lash of a driving necessity?” The sinner, apart from the grace
    of God, cannot see the truth. Wilberforce took Pitt to hear Cecil
    preach, but Pitt declared that he did not understand a word that
    Cecil said. Apart from the grace of God, the sinner, even when
    made to see the truth, resists it the more, the more clearly he
    sees it. Then the Holy Spirit overcomes his opposition and makes
    him willing in the day of God’s power (_Psalm 110:3_).


B. The truth, as the efficient cause of regeneration.

According to this view, the truth as a system of motives is the direct and
immediate cause of the change from unholiness to holiness. This view is
objectionable for two reasons:

(_a_) It erroneously regards motives as wholly external to the mind that
is influenced by them. This is to conceive of them as mechanically
constraining the will, and is indistinguishable from necessitarianism. On
the contrary, motives are compounded of external presentations and
internal dispositions. It is the soul’s affections which render certain
suggestions attractive and others repugnant to us. In brief, the heart
makes the motive.

(_b_) Only as truth is loved, therefore, can it be a motive to holiness.
But we have seen that the aversion of the sinner to God is such that the
truth is hated instead of loved, and a thing that is hated, is hated more
intensely, the more distinctly it is seen. Hence no mere power of the
truth can be regarded as the efficient cause of regeneration. The contrary
view implies that it is not the truth which the sinner hates, but rather
some element of error which is mingled with it.


    Lyman Beecher and Charles G. Finney held this view. The influence
    of the Holy Spirit differs from that of the preacher only in
    degree,—both use only moral suasion; both do nothing more than to
    present the truth; both work upon the soul from without. “Were I
    as eloquent as the Holy Ghost, I could convert sinners as well as
    he,” said a popular preacher of this school (see Bennet Tyler,
    Letters on New Haven Theology, 164‐171). On this view, it would be
    absurd to pray to God to regenerate, for that is more than he can
    do,—regeneration is simply the effect of truth.

    Miley, in Meth. Quar., July, 1881:434‐462, holds that “the will
    cannot rationally act without motive, but that it has always power
    to suspend action, or defer it, for the purpose of rational
    examination of the motive or end, and to consider the opposite
    motive or end. Putting the old end or motive out of view will
    temporarily break its power, and the new truth considered will
    furnish motive for right action. Thus, by using our faculty of
    suspending choice, and of fixing attention, we can realize the
    permanent eligibility of the good and choose it against the evil.
    This is, however, not the realization of a new spiritual life in
    regeneration, but the election of its attainment. Power to do this
    suspending is of grace [grace, however, given equally to all].
    Without this power, life would be a spontaneous and irresponsible
    development of evil.”

    The view of Miley, thus substantially given, resembles that of Dr.
    Taylor, upon which we have already commented; but, unlike that, it
    makes truth itself, apart from the affections, a determining
    agency in the change from sin to holiness. Our one reply is that,
    without a change in the affections, the truth can neither be known
    nor obeyed. Seeing cannot be the means of being born again, for
    one must first be born again in order to see the kingdom of God
    (_John 3:3_). The mind will not choose God, until God appears to
    be the greatest good.

    Edwards, quoted by Griffin, Divine Efficiency, 64—“Let the sinner
    apply his rational powers to the contemplation of divine things,
    and let his belief be speculatively correct; still he is in such a
    state that those objects of contemplation will excite in him no
    holy affections.” The Scriptures declare (_Rom. 8:7_) that “_the
    mind of the flesh is enmity_”—not against some error or mistaken
    notion of God—but “_is enmity against God_.” It is God’s holiness,
    mandatory and punitive, that is hated. A clearer view of that
    holiness will only increase the hatred. A woman’s hatred of
    spiders will never be changed to love by bringing them close to
    her. Magnifying them with a compound oxy‐hydrogen microscope will
    not help the matter. Tyler: “All the light of the last day will
    not subdue the sinner’s heart.” The mere presence of God, and
    seeing God face to face, will be hell to him, if his hatred be not
    first changed to love. See E. D. Griffin, Divine Efficiency,
    105‐116, 203‐221; and review of Griffin, by S. R. Mason, Truth
    Unfolded, 383‐407.

    Bradford, Heredity and Christian Problems, 239—“Christianity puts
    three motives before men: love, self‐love, and fear.” True, but
    the last two are only preliminary motives, not essentially
    Christian. The soul that is moved only by self‐love or by fear has
    not yet entered into the Christian life at all. And any attention
    to the truth of God which originates in these motives has no
    absolute moral value, and cannot be regarded as even a beginning
    of salvation. Nothing but holiness and love are entitled to be
    called Christianity, and these the truth of itself cannot summon
    up. The Spirit of God must go with the truth to impart right
    desires and to make the truth effective. E. G. Robinson: “The
    glory of our salvation can no more be attributed to the word of
    God only, than the glory of a Praxiteles or a Canova can be
    ascribed to the chisel or the mallet with which he wrought into
    beauty his immortal creations.”


C. The immediate agency of the Holy Spirit, as the efficient cause of
regeneration.

In ascribing to the Holy Spirit the authorship of regeneration, we do not
affirm that the divine Spirit accomplishes his work without any
accompanying instrumentality. We simply assert that the power which
regenerates is the power of God, and that although conjoined with the use
of means, there is a direct operation of this power upon the sinner’s
heart which changes its moral character. We add two remarks by way of
further explanation:

(_a_) The Scriptural assertions of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and
of his mighty power in the soul forbid us to regard the divine Spirit in
regeneration as coming in contact, not with the soul, but only with the
truth. The phrases, “to energize the truth,” “to intensify the truth,” “to
illuminate the truth,” have no proper meaning; since even God cannot make
the truth more true. If any change is wrought, it must be wrought, not in
the truth, but in the soul.


    The maxim, “Truth is mighty and will prevail,” is very untrue, if
    God be left out of the account. Truth without God is an
    abstraction, and not a power. It is a mere instrument, useless
    without an agent. “_The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of
    God_” (_Eph. 6:17_), must be wielded by the Holy Spirit himself.
    And the Holy Spirit comes in contact, not simply with the
    instrument, but with the soul. To all moral, and especially to all
    religious truth, there is an inward unsusceptibility, arising from
    the perversity of the affections and the will. This blindness and
    hardness of heart must be removed, before the soul can perceive or
    be moved by the truth. Hence the Spirit must deal directly with
    the soul. Denovan: “Our natural hearts are hearts of stone. The
    word of God is good seed sown on the hard, trodden, macadamized
    highway, which the horses of passion, the asses of self‐will, the
    wagons of imaginary treasure, have made impenetrable. Only the
    Holy Spirit can soften and pulverize this soil.”

    The Psalmist prays: “_Incline my heart unto thy testimonies_”
    (_Ps. 119:36_), while of Lydia it is said: “_whose heart the Lord
    opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul_”
    (_Acts 16:14_). We may say of the Holy Spirit: “He freezes and
    then melts the soil, He breaks the hard, cold stone, Kills out the
    rooted weeds so vile,—All this he does alone; And every virtue we
    possess, And every victory won, And every thought of holiness, Are
    his, and his alone.” Hence, in _Ps. 90:16, 17_, the Psalmist says,
    first: “_Let thy work appear unto thy servants_”; then “_establish
    thou the work of our hands upon us_”—God’s work is first to
    appear,—then man’s work, which is God’s work carried out by human
    instruments. At Jericho, the force was not applied to the rams’
    horns, but to the walls. When Jesus healed the blind man, his
    power was applied, not to the spittle, but to the eyes. The
    impression is prepared, not by heating the seal, but by softening
    the wax. So God’s power acts, not upon the truth, but upon the
    sinner.

    _Ps. 59:10_—“_My God with his lovingkindness will meet me_”; A.
    V.—“_The God of my mercy shall prevent me_,” _i. e._, go before
    me. Augustine urges this text as proof that the grace of God
    precedes all merit of man: “What didst thou find in me but only
    sins? Before I do anything good, his mercy will go before me. What
    will unhappy Pelagius answer here?” Calvin however says this may
    be a pious, but it is not a fair, use of the passage. The passage
    does teach dependence upon God; but God’s anticipation of our
    action, or in other words, the doctrine of prevenient grace, must
    be derived from other portions of Scripture, such as _John 1:13_,
    and _Eph. 2:10_. “The enthusiasm of humanity” to which J. R.
    Seeley, the author of Ecce Homo, exhorts us, is doubtless the
    secret of happiness and usefulness,—unfortunately he does not tell
    us whence it may come. John Stuart Mill felt the need of it, but
    he did not get it. Arthur Hugh Clough, Clergyman’s First Tale:
    “Would I could wish my wishes all to rest, And know to wish the
    wish that were the best.” Bradford, Heredity, 228—“God is the
    environment of the soul, yet man has free will. Light fills the
    spaces, yet a man from ignorance may remain in a cave, or from
    choice may dwell in darkness.” Man needs therefore a divine
    influence which will beget in him a disposition to use his
    opportunities aright.

    We may illustrate the philosophy of revivals by the canal boat
    which lies before the gate of a lock. No power on earth can open
    the lock. But soon the lock begins to fill, and when the water has
    reached the proper level, the gate can be opened almost at a
    touch. Or, a steamer runs into a sandbar. Tugs fail to pull the
    vessel off. Her own engines cannot accomplish it. But when the
    tide comes in, she swings free without effort. So what we need in
    religion is an influx of spiritual influence which will make easy
    what before is difficult if not impossible. The Superintendent of
    a New York State Prison tells us that the common schools furnish
    83 per cent., and the colleges and academies over 4 per cent., of
    the inmates of Auburn and Sing Sing. Truth without the Holy Spirit
    to apply it is like sunshine without the actinic ray which alone
    can give it vitalizing energy.


(_b_) Even if truth could be energized, intensified, illuminated, there
would still be needed a change in the moral disposition, before the soul
could recognize its beauty or be affected by it. No mere increase of light
can enable a blind man to see; the disease of the eye must first be cured
before external objects are visible. So God’s work in regeneration must be
performed within the soul itself. Over and above all influence of the
truth, there must be a direct influence of the Holy Spirit upon the heart.
Although wrought in conjunction with the presentation of truth to the
intellect, regeneration differs from moral suasion in being an immediate
act of God.


    Before regeneration, man’s knowledge of God is the blind man’s
    knowledge of color. The Scriptures call such knowledge
    “_ignorance_” (_Eph. 4:18_). The heart does not appreciate God’s
    mercy. Regeneration gives an experimental or heart knowledge; see
    Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:495. _Is. 50:4_—God “_wakeneth mine ear to
    hear_.” It is false to say that soul can come in contact with soul
    only through the influence of truth. In the intercourse of dear
    friends, or in the discourse of the orator, there is a personal
    influence, distinct from the word spoken, which persuades the
    heart and conquers the will. We sometimes call it “magnetism,”—but
    we mean simply that soul reaches soul, in ways apart from the use
    of physical intermediaries. Compare the facts, imperfectly known
    as yet, of second sight, mind‐reading, clairvoyance. But whether
    these be accepted or not, it still is true that God has not made
    the human soul so that it is inaccessible to himself. The
    omnipresent Spirit penetrates and pervades all spirits that have
    been made by him. See Lotze, Outlines of Psychology (Ladd), 142,
    143.

    In the primary change of disposition, which is the most essential
    feature of regeneration, the Spirit of God acts directly upon the
    spirit of man. In the securing of the initial exercise of this new
    disposition—which constitutes the secondary feature of God’s work
    of regeneration—the truth is used as a means. Hence, perhaps, in
    _James 1:18_, we read: “_Of his own will he brought us forth by
    the word of truth_” instead of “he begat us by the word of
    truth,”—the reference being to the secondary, not to the primary,
    feature of regeneration. The advocates of the opposite view—the
    view that God works _only_ through the truth as a means, and that
    his _only_ influence upon the soul is a moral influence—very
    naturally deny the mystical union of the soul with Christ. Squier,
    for example, in his Autobiog., 343‐378, esp. 360, on the Spirit’s
    influences, quotes _John 16:8_—he “_will convict the world in
    respect of sin_”—to show that God regenerates by applying truth to
    men’s minds, so far as to convince them, by fair and sufficient
    arguments, that they are sinners.

    Christ, opening blind eyes and unstopping deaf ears, illustrates
    the nature of God’s operation in regeneration,—in the case of the
    blind, there is plenty of _light_,—what is wanted is _sight_. The
    negro convert said that his conversion was due to himself and God:
    he fought against God with all his might, and God did the rest. So
    our moral successes are due to ourselves and God,—we have done
    only the fighting against God, and God has done the rest. The sand
    of Sahara would not bring forth flowers and fruit, even if you
    turned into it a hundred rivers like the Nile. Man may hear
    sermons for a lifetime, and still be barren of all spiritual
    growths. The soil of the heart needs to be changed, and the good
    seed of the kingdom needs to be planted there.

    For the view that truth is “energized” or “intensified” by the
    Holy Spirit, see Phelps, New Birth, 61, 121; Walker, Philosophy of
    Plan of Salvation, chap. 18. _Per contra_, see Wardlaw, Syst.
    Theol., 3:24, 25; E. D. Griffin, Divine Efficiency, 73‐116;
    Anderson, Regeneration, 123‐168; Edwards, Works, 2:547‐597;
    Chalmers, Lectures on Romans, chap. 1; Payne, Divine Sovereignty,
    lect. 23:363‐367; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 3:3‐37, 466‐485. On the
    whole subject of the Efficient Cause of Regeneration, see Hopkins,
    Works, 1:454; Dwight, Theology, 2:418‐429; John Owen, Works,
    3:282‐297, 366‐538; Robert Hall, Sermon on the Cause, Agent, and
    Purpose of Regeneration.


4. The Instrumentality used in Regeneration.


A. The Roman, English and Lutheran churches hold that regeneration is
accomplished through the instrumentality of baptism. The Disciples, or
followers of Alexander Campbell, make regeneration include baptism, as
well as repentance and faith. To the view that baptism is a means of
regeneration we urge the following objections:

(_a_) The Scriptures represent baptism to be not the means but only the
sign of regeneration, and therefore to presuppose and follow regeneration.
For this reason only believers—that is, persons giving credible evidence
of being regenerated—were baptized (Acts 8:12). Not external baptism, but
the conscientious turning of the soul to God which baptism symbolizes,
saves us (1 Pet. 3:21—συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα). Texts like John 3:5,
Acts 2:38, Col. 2:12, Tit. 3:5, are to be explained upon the principle
that regeneration, the inward change, and baptism, the outward sign of
that change, were regarded as only different sides or aspects of the same
fact, and either side or aspect might therefore be described in terms
derived from the other.

(_b_) Upon this view, there is a striking incongruity between the nature
of the change to be wrought and the means employed to produce it. The
change is a spiritual one, but the means are physical. It is far more
rational to suppose that, in changing the character of intelligent beings,
God uses means which have relation to their intelligence. The view we are
considering is part and parcel of a general scheme of mechanical rather
than moral salvation, and is more consistent with a materialistic than
with a spiritual philosophy.


    _Acts 8:12_—“_when they believed Philip preaching good tidings
    concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they
    were baptized_”; _1 Pet. 3:21_—“_which also after a true likeness
    doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth
    of the flesh, but the interrogation_ [marg.—‘_inquiry_’,
    ‘_appeal_’] _of a good conscience toward God_” = the inquiry of
    the soul after God, the conscientious turning of the soul to God.

    Plumptre, however, makes ἐπερώτημα a forensic term equivalent to
    “examination,” and including both question and answer. It means,
    then, the open answer of allegiance to Christ, given by the new
    convert to the constituted officers of the church. “That which is
    of the essence of the saving power of baptism is the confession
    and the profession which precede it. If this comes from a
    conscience that really renounces sin and believes on Christ, then
    baptism, as the channel through which the grace of the new birth
    is conveyed and the convert admitted into the church of Christ,
    ‘saves us,’ but not otherwise.” We may adopt this statement from
    Plumptre’s Commentary, with the alteration of the word “conveyed”
    into “symbolized” or “manifested.” Plumptre’s interpretation is,
    as he seems to admit, in its obvious meaning inconsistent with
    infant baptism; to us it seems equally inconsistent with any
    doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

    Scriptural regeneration is God’s (1) changing man’s disposition,
    and (2) securing its first exercise. Regeneration, according to
    the Disciples, is man’s (1) repentance and faith, and (2)
    submission to baptism. Alexander Campbell, Christianity Restored:
    “We plead that all the converting power of the Holy Spirit is
    exhibited in the divine Record.” Address of Disciples to Ohio
    Baptist State Convention, 1871: “With us regeneration includes all
    that is comprehended in faith, repentance, and baptism, and so far
    as it is expressive of birth, it belongs more properly to the last
    of these than to either of the former.” But if baptism be the
    instrument of regeneration, it is difficult to see how the
    patriarchs, or the penitent thief, could have been regenerated.
    _Luke 23:43_—“_This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise._”
    Bossuet: “_This day_”—what promptitude! “_With me_”—what
    companionship! “_In Paradise_”—what rest! Bersier: “ ‘_This
    day_’—what then? no flames of Purgatory? no long period of
    mournful expiation? ‘_This day_’—pardon and heaven!”

    Baptism is a condition of being outwardly in the kingdom; it is
    not a condition of being inwardly in the kingdom. The confounding
    of these two led many in the early church to dread dying
    unbaptized, rather than dying unsaved. Even Pascal, in later
    times, held that participation in outward ceremonies might lead to
    real conversion. He probably meant that an initial act of holy
    will would tend to draw others in its train. Similarly we urge
    unconverted people to take some step that will manifest religious
    interest. We hope that in taking this step a new decision of the
    will, inwrought by the Spirit of God, may reveal itself. But a
    religion which consists only in such outward performances is
    justly denominated a cutaneous religion, for it is only skin‐deep.
    On _John 3:5_—“_Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he
    cannot enter into the kingdom of God_”; _Acts 2:38_—“_Repent ye,
    and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto
    the remission of your sins_”; _Col. 2:12_—“_buried with him in
    baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith_”;
    _Tit. 3:5_—“_saved us, through the washing of regeneration and
    renewing of the Holy Spirit_”—see further discussion and
    exposition in our chapter on the Ordinances. Adkins, Disciples and
    Baptists, a booklet published by the Am. Bap. Pub. Society, is the
    best statement of the Baptist position, as distinguished from that
    of the Disciples. It claims that Disciples overrate the externals
    of Christianity and underrate the work of the Holy Spirit. _Per
    contra_, see Gates, Disciples and Baptists.


B. The Scriptural view is that regeneration, so far as it secures an
activity of man, is accomplished through the instrumentality of the truth.
Although the Holy Spirit does not in any way illuminate the truth, he does
illuminate the mind, so that it can perceive the truth. In conjunction
with the change of man’s inner disposition, there is an appeal to man’s
rational nature through the truth. Two inferences may be drawn:

(_a_) Man is not wholly passive at the time of his regeneration. He is
passive only with respect to the change of his ruling disposition. With
respect to the exercise of this disposition, he is active. Although the
efficient power which secures this exercise of the new disposition is the
power of God, yet man is not therefore unconscious, nor is he a mere
machine worked by God’s fingers. On the other hand, his whole moral nature
under God’s working is alive and active. We reject the “exercise‐system,”
which regards God as the direct author of all man’s thoughts, feelings,
and volitions, not only in its general tenor, but in its special
application to regeneration.


    Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:503—“A dead man cannot assist in his own
    resurrection.” This is true so far as the giving of life is
    concerned. But once made alive, man can, like Lazarus, obey
    Christ’s command and “_come forth_” (_John 11:43_). In fact, if he
    does not obey, there is no evidence that there is spiritual life.
    “In us is God; we burn but as he moves”—“Est deus in nobis;
    agitante calescimus illo.” Wireless telegraphy requires an attuned
    receiver; regeneration attunes the soul so that it vibrates
    responsively to God and receives the communications of his truth.
    When a convert came to Rowland Hill and claimed that she had been
    converted in a dream, he replied: “We will see how you walk, now
    that you are awake.”

    Lord Bacon said he would open every one of Argus’s hundred eyes,
    before he opened one of Briareus’s hundred hands. If God did not
    renew men’s hearts in connection with our preaching of the truth,
    we might well give up our ministry. E. G. Robinson: “The
    conversion of a soul is just as much according to law as the
    raising of a crop of turnips.” Simon, Reconciliation, 377—“Though
    the mere preaching of the gospel is not the _cause_ of the
    conversion and revivification of men, it is a necessary
    _condition_—as necessary as the action of light and heat, or other
    physical agencies, are on a germ, if it is to develop, grow, and
    bear its proper fruit.”


(_b_) The activity of man’s mind in regeneration is activity in view of
the truth. God secures the initial exercise of the new disposition which
he has wrought in man’s heart in connection with the use of truth as a
means. Here we perceive the link between the efficiency of God and the
activity of man. Only as the sinner’s mind is brought into contact with
the truth, does God complete his regenerating work. And as the change of
inward disposition and the initial exercise of it are never, so far as we
know, separated by any interval of time, we can say, in general, that
Christian work is successful only as it commends the truth to every man’s
conscience in the sight of God (2 Cor. 4:2).


    In _Eph. 1:17, 18_, there is recognized the divine illumination of
    the mind to behold the truth—“_may give unto you a spirit of
    wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him; having the eyes of
    your heart enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of his
    calling_” On truth as a means of regeneration, see Hovey,
    Outlines, 192, who quotes Cunningham, Historical Theology,
    1:617—“Regeneration may be taken in a limited sense as including
    only the first impartation of spiritual life ... or it may be
    taken in a wider sense as comprehending the whole of that process
    by which he is renewed or made over again in the whole man after
    the image of God,—_i. e._, as including the production of saving
    faith and union to Christ. Only in the first sense did the
    Reformers maintain that man in the process was wholly passive and
    not active; for they did not dispute that, before the process in
    the second and more enlarged sense was completed, man was
    spiritually alive and active, and continued so ever after during
    the whole process of his sanctification.”

    Dr. Hovey suggests an apt illustration of these two parts of the
    Holy Spirit’s work and their union in regeneration: At the same
    time that God makes the photographic plate sensitive, he pours in
    the light of truth whereby the image of Christ is formed in the
    soul. Without the “sensitizing” of the plate, it would never fix
    the rays of light so as to retain the image. In the process of
    “sensitizing,” the plate is passive; under the influence of light,
    it is active. In both the “sensitizing” and the taking of the
    picture, the real agent is not the plate nor the light, but the
    photographer. The photographer cannot perform both operations at
    the same moment. God can. He gives the new affection, and at the
    same instant he secures its exercise in view of the truth.

    For denial of the instrumentality of truth in regeneration, see
    Pierce, in Bap. Quar., Jan. 1872:52. _Per contra_, see Anderson,
    Regeneration, 89‐122. H. B. Smith holds middle ground. He says:
    “In adults it [regeneration] is wrought most frequently by the
    word of God as the instrument. Believing that infants may be
    regenerated, we cannot assert that it is tied to the word of God
    absolutely.” We prefer to say that, if infants are regenerated,
    they also are regenerated in conjunction with some influence of
    truth upon the mind, dim as the recognition of it may be.
    Otherwise we break the Scriptural connection between regeneration
    and conversion, and open the way for faith in a physical, magical,
    sacramental salvation. Squier, Autobiog., 368, says well, of the
    theory of regeneration which makes man purely passive, that it has
    a benumbing effect upon preaching: “The lack of expectation
    unnerves the efforts of the preacher; an impression of the
    fortuitous presence neutralizes his engagedness. This antinomian
    dependence on the Spirit extracts all vitality from the pulpit and
    sense of responsibility from the hearer, and makes preaching an
    _opus operatum_, like the baptismal regeneration of the
    formalist.” Only of the first element in regeneration are Shedd’s
    words true: “A dead man cannot assist in his own resurrection”
    (Dogm. Theol., 2:503).

    Squier goes to the opposite extreme of regarding the truth alone
    as the cause of regeneration. His words are none the less a
    valuable protest against the view that regeneration is so entirely
    due to God that in no part of it is man active. It was with a
    better view that Luther cried: “O that we might multiply living
    books, that is, preachers!” And the preacher is successful only as
    he possesses and unfolds the truth. John took the little book from
    the Covenant‐angel’s hand and ate it (_Rev. 10:8‐11_). So he who
    is to preach God’s truth must feed upon it, until it has become
    his own. For the Exercise‐system, see Emmons, Works, 4:339‐411;
    Hagenbach, Hist. Doct., 2:439.


5. The Nature of the Change wrought in Regeneration.


A. It is a change in which the governing disposition is made holy. This
implies that:

(_a_) It is not a change in the substance of either body or soul.
Regeneration is not a physical change. There is no physical seed or germ
implanted in man’s nature. Regeneration does not add to, or subtract from,
the number of man’s intellectual, emotional or voluntary faculties. But
regeneration is the giving of a new direction or tendency to powers of
affection which man possessed before. Man had the faculty of love before,
but his love was supremely set on self. In regeneration the direction of
that faculty is changed, and his love is now set supremely upon God.


    _Eph. 2:10_—“_created in Christ Jesus for good works_”—does not
    imply that the old soul is annihilated, and a new soul created.
    The “_old man_” which is “_crucified_”—(_Rom. 6:6_) and “_put
    away_” (_Eph. 4:22_) is simply the sinful bent of the affections
    and will. When this direction of the dispositions is changed, and
    becomes holy, we can call the change a new birth of the old
    nature, because the same _faculties_ that acted before are acting
    now, the only difference being that now these faculties are set
    toward God and purity. Or, regarding the change from another point
    of view, we may speak of man as having a “new nature,” as
    “recreated,” as being a “new creature,” because this _direction_
    of the affection and will, which ensures a different life from
    what was led before, is something totally new, and due wholly to
    the regenerating act of God. In _1 Pet. 1:23_—“_begotten again,
    not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible_”—all materialistic
    inferences from the word “_seed_,” as if it implied the
    implantation of a physical germ, are prevented by the following
    explanatory words: “_through the word of God, which liveth and
    abideth_.”

    So, too, when we describe regeneration as the communication of a
    new life to the soul, we should not conceive of this new life as a
    _substance_ imparted or infused into us. The new life is rather a
    new direction and activity of our own affections and will. There
    is, indeed a union of the soul with Christ; Christ dwells in the
    renewed heart; Christ’s entrance into the soul is the _cause_ and
    _accompaniment_ of its regeneration. But this entrance of Christ
    into the soul is not _itself_ regeneration. We must distinguish
    the effect from the cause; otherwise we shall be in danger of a
    pantheistic confounding of our own personality and life with the
    personality and life of Christ. Christ is indeed our life, in the
    sense of being the cause and supporter of our life, but he is not
    our life in the sense that, after our union with him, our
    individuality ceases. The effect of union with Christ is rather
    that our individuality is enlarged and exalted (_John 10:10_—“_I
    came that they may have life, and may have it abundantly._” See
    page 799, (_c_)).

    We must therefore take with a grain of allowance the generally
    excellent words of A. J. Gordon, Twofold Life, 22—“Regeneration is
    the communication of the divine nature to man by the operation of
    the Holy Spirit through the word (_2 Pet. 1:4_).... As Christ was
    made partaker of human nature by incarnation, that so he might
    enter into truest fellowship with us, we are made partakers of the
    divine nature, by regeneration, that we may enter into truest
    fellowship with God. Regeneration is not a change of nature, _i.
    e._, a natural heart bettered. Eternal life is not natural life
    prolonged into endless duration. It is the divine life imparted to
    us, the very life of God communicated to the human soul, and
    bringing forth there its proper fruit.” Dr. Gordon’s view that
    regeneration adds a new substance or faculty to the soul is the
    result of literalizing the Scripture metaphors of creation and
    life. This turning of symbol into fact accounts for his tendency
    toward annihilation doctrine in the case of the unregenerate,
    toward faith cure and the belief that all physical evils can be
    removed by prayer. E. H. Johnson, The Holy Spirit: “Regeneration
    is a change, not in the quantity, but in the quality, of the
    soul.” E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 320—“Regeneration
    consists in a divinely wrought change in the moral affections.”

    So, too, we would criticize the doctrine of Drummond, Nat. Law in
    the Spir. World: “People forget the persistence of force. Instead
    of transforming energy, they try to create it. We must either
    depend on environment, or be self‐sufficient. The ‘cannot _bear
    fruit of itself_’ (_John 15:4_) is the ‘_cannot_’ of natural law.
    Natural fruit flourishes with air and sunshine. The difference
    between the Christian and the non‐Christian is the difference
    between the organic and the inorganic. The Christian has all the
    characteristics of life: assimilation, waste, reproduction,
    spontaneous action.” See criticism of Drummond, by Murphy, in
    Brit. Quar., 1884:118‐125—“As in resurrection there is a physical
    connection with the old body, so in regeneration there is a
    natural connection with the old soul.” Also, Brit. Quar., July,
    1880, art.: Evolution Viewed in Relation to Theology—“The
    regenerating agency of the Spirit of God is symbolized, not by the
    vitalization of dead matter, but by the agency of the organizing
    intelligence which guides the evolution of living beings.”
    Murphy’s answer to Drummond is republished. Murphy’s Natural
    Selection and Spiritual Freedom, 1‐33—“The will can no more create
    force, either muscular or mental, than it can create matter. And
    it is equally true that for our spiritual nourishment and
    spiritual force we are altogether dependent on our spiritual
    environment, which is God.” In “dead matter” there is no sin.

    Drummond would imply that, as matter has no promise or potency of
    life and is not responsible for being without life (or “dead,” to
    use his misleading word), and if it ever is to live must wait for
    the life‐giving influence to come unsought, so the human soul is
    not responsible for being spiritually dead, cannot seek for life,
    must passively wait for the Spirit. Plymouth Brethren generally
    hold the same view with Drummond, that regeneration _adds_
    something—as _vitality_—to the substance of the soul. Christ is
    transsubstantiated into the soul’s substance; or, the πνεῦμα is
    added. But we have given over talking of vitality, as if it were a
    substance or faculty. We regard it as merely a mode of action.
    Evolution, moreover, uses what already exists, so far as it will
    go, instead of creating new; as in the miracle of the loaves, and
    as in the original creation of man, so in his recreation or
    regeneration. Dr. Charles Hodge also makes the same mistake in
    calling regeneration an “origination of the principle of the
    spirit of life, just as literal and real a creation as the
    origination of the principle of natural life.” This, too,
    literalizes Scripture metaphor, and ignores the fact that the
    change accomplished in regeneration is an exclusively moral one.
    There is indeed a new entrance of Christ into the soul, or a new
    exercise of his spiritual power within the soul. But the effect of
    Christ’s working is not to add any new faculty or substance, but
    only to give new direction to already existing powers.


(_b_) Regeneration involves an enlightenment of the understanding and a
rectification of the volitions. But it seems most consonant with Scripture
and with a correct psychology to regard these changes as immediate and
necessary consequences of the change of disposition already mentioned,
rather than as the primary and central facts in regeneration. The taste
for truth logically precedes perception of the truth, and love for God
logically precedes obedience to God; indeed, without love no obedience is
possible. Reverse the lever of affection, and this moral locomotive,
without further change, will move away from sin, and toward truth and God.


    Texts which seem to imply that a right taste, disposition,
    affection, logically precedes both knowledge of God and obedience
    to God, are the following: _Ps. 34:8_—“_Oh taste and see that
    Jehovah is good_”; _119:36_—“_Incline my heart unto thy
    testimonies_”; _Jer. 24:7_—“_I will give them a heart to know
    me_”; _Mat. 5:8_—“_Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall
    see God_”; _John 7:17_—“_If any man willeth to do his will, he
    shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God_”; _Acts
    16:14_—of Lydia it is said: “_whose heart the Lord opened to give
    heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul_”; _Eph.
    1:18_—“_having the eyes of your heart enlightened._” “Change the
    centre of a circle and you change the place and direction of all
    its radii.”

    The text _John 1:12, 13_—“_But as many as received him, to them
    gave him the right to become children of God, even to them that
    believe on his name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will
    of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God_”—seems at first
    sight to imply that faith is the condition of regeneration, and
    therefore prior to it. “But if ἐξουσίαν here signifies the
    ‘_right_’ or ‘privilege’ of sonship, it is a right which may
    presuppose faith as the work of the Spirit in regeneration—a work
    apart from which no genuine faith exists in the soul. But it is
    possible that John means to say that, in the case of all who
    received Christ, their power to believe was _given_ to them by
    him. In the original the emphasis is on ‘_gave,_’ and this is
    shown by the order of the words”; see Hovey, Manual of Theology,
    345, and Com. on _John 1:12, 13_—“The meaning would then be this:
    ‘Many did not receive him; but some did; and as to all who
    received him, he _gave_ them grace by which they were enabled to
    do this, and so to become God’s children.’ ”

    Ruskin: “The first and last and closest trial question to any
    living creature is, ‘What do you like?’ Go out into the street and
    ask the first man you meet what his taste is, and, if he answers
    candidly, you know him, body and soul. What we like determines
    what we are, and is the sign of what we are; and to teach taste is
    inevitably to form character.” If the taste here spoken of is
    moral and spiritual taste, the words of Ruskin are sober truth.
    Regeneration is essentially a changing of the fundamental taste of
    the soul. But by taste we mean the direction of man’s love, the
    bent of his affections, the trend of his will. And to alter that
    taste is not to impart a new faculty, or to create a new
    substance, but simply to set toward God the affections which
    hitherto have been set upon self and sin. We may illustrate by the
    engineer who climbs over the cab into a runaway locomotive and who
    changes its course, not by adding any new rod or cog to the
    machine, but simply by reversing the lever. The engine slows up
    and soon moves in an opposite direction to that in which it has
    been going. Man needs no new faculty of love; he needs only to
    have his love set in a new and holy direction; this is virtually
    to give him a new birth, to make him a new creature, to impart to
    him a new life. But being born again, created anew, made alive
    from the dead, are physical metaphors, to be interpreted not
    literally but spiritually.


(_c_) It is objected, indeed, that we know only of mental substance and of
mental acts, and that the new disposition or state just mentioned, since
it is not an act, must be regarded as a new substance, and so lack all
moral quality. But we reply that, besides substance and acts, there are
habits, tendencies, proclivities, some of them native and some of them
acquired. They are voluntary, and have moral character. If we can by
repeated acts originate sinful tendencies, God can surely originate in us
holy tendencies. Such holy tendencies formed a part of the nature of Adam,
as he came from the hand of God. As the result of the Fall, we are born
with tendencies toward evil for which we are responsible. Regeneration is
a restoration of the original tendencies toward God which were lost by the
Fall. Such holy tendencies (tastes, dispositions, affections) are not only
not unmoral—they are the only possible springs of right moral action. Only
in the restoration of them does man become truly free.


    _Mat. 12:33_—“_Make the tree good, and its fruit good_”; _Eph.
    2:10_—“_created in Christ Jesus for good works._” The tree is
    first made good—the character renewed in its fundamental
    principle, love to God—in the certainty that when this is done the
    fruit will be good also. Good works are the necessary result of
    regeneration by union with Christ. Regeneration introduces a new
    force into humanity, the force of a new love. The work of the
    preacher is that of coöperation with God in the impartation of a
    new life—a work far more radical and more noble than that of moral
    reform, by as much as the origination of a new force is more
    radical and more noble than the guidance of that force after it
    has been originated. Does regeneration cure disease and remove
    physical ills? Not primarily. _Mat. 1:21_—“_thou shalt call his
    name Jesus; for it is he that shall save his people from their
    sins._” Salvation from sin is Christ’s first and main work. He
    performed physical healing only to illustrate and further the
    healing of the soul. Hence in the case of the paralytic, when he
    was expected to cure the body, he said first: “_thy sins are
    forgiven_” (_Mat. 9:2_); but, that they who stood by might not
    doubt his power to forgive, he added the raising up of the palsied
    man. And ultimately in every redeemed man the holy heart will
    bring in its train the perfected body: _Rom. 8:23_—“_we ourselves
    groan within ourselves, waiting for our adoption, to wit, the
    redemption of our body._”

    On holy affection as the spring of holy action, see especially
    Edwards, Religious Affections, in Works, 3:1‐21. This treatise is
    Jonathan Edwards’s Confessions, as much as if it were directly
    addressed to the Deity. Allen, his biographer, calls it “a work
    which will not suffer by comparison with the work of great
    teachers in theology, whether ancient or modern.” President
    Timothy Dwight regarded it as most worthy of preservation next to
    the Bible. See also Hodge, Essays and Reviews, 1:48; Owen on the
    Holy Spirit, in Works, 3:297‐336; Charnock on Regeneration; Andrew
    Fuller, Works, 2:461‐471, 512‐560, and 3:796; Bellamy, Works,
    2:502; Dwight, Works, 2:418; Woods, Works, 3:1‐21; Anderson,
    Regeneration, 21‐50.


B. It is an instantaneous change, in a region of the soul below
consciousness, and is therefore known only in its results.

(_a_) It is an instantaneous change.—Regeneration is not a gradual work.
Although there may be a gradual work of God’s providence and Spirit,
preparing the change, and a gradual recognition of it after it has taken
place, there must be an instant of time when, under the influence of God’s
Spirit, the disposition of the soul, just before hostile to God, is
changed to love. Any other view assumes an intermediate state of
indecision which has no moral character at all, and confounds regeneration
either with conviction or with sanctification.


    Conviction of sin is an ordinary, if not an invariable, antecedent
    of regeneration. It results from the contemplation of truth. It is
    often accompanied by fear, remorse, and cries for mercy. But these
    desires and fears are not signs of regeneration. They are selfish.
    They are quite consistent with manifest and dreadful enmity to
    God. They have a hopeful aspect, simply because they are evidence
    that the Holy Spirit is striving with the soul. But this work of
    the Spirit is not yet regeneration; at most, it is preparation for
    regeneration. So far as the sinner is concerned, he is more of a
    sinner than ever before; because, under more light than has ever
    before been given him, he is still rejecting Christ and resisting
    the Spirit. The word of God and the Holy Spirit appeal to lower as
    well as to higher motives; most men’s concern about religion is
    determined, at the outset, by hope or fear. See Shedd, Dogm.
    Theol., 2:512.

    All these motives, though they are not the highest, are yet proper
    motives to influence the soul; it is right to seek God from
    motives of self‐interest, and because we desire heaven. But the
    seeking which not only begins, but ends, upon this lower plane, is
    never successful. Until the soul gives itself to God from motives
    of love, it is never saved. And so long as these preliminary
    motives rule, regeneration has not yet taken place. Bible‐reading,
    and prayers, and church‐attendance, and partial reformations, are
    certainly better than apathy or outbreaking sin. They may be signs
    that God is working in the soul. But without complete surrender to
    God, they may be accompanied with the greatest guilt and the
    greatest danger; simply because, under such influences, the
    withholding of submission implies the most active hatred to God,
    and opposition to his will. Instance cases of outward reformation
    that preceded regeneration,—like that of John Bunyan, who left off
    swearing before his conversion. Park: “The soul is a monad, and
    must turn all at once. If we are standing on the line, we are yet
    unregenerate. We are regenerate only when we cross it.” There is a
    prevenient grace as well as a regenerating grace. Wendelius indeed
    distinguished five kinds of grace, namely, prevenient,
    preparatory, operant, coöperant, and perfecting.

    While in some cases God’s preparatory work occupies a long time,
    there are many cases in which he cuts short his work in
    righteousness (_Rom. 9:28_). Some persons are regenerated in
    infancy or childhood, cannot remember a time when they did not
    love Christ, and yet take long to learn that they are regenerate.
    Others are convicted and converted suddenly in mature years. The
    best proof of regeneration is not the memory of a past experience,
    however vivid and startling, but rather a present inward love for
    Christ, his holiness, his servants, his work, and his word. Much
    sympathy should be given to those who have been early converted,
    but who, from timidity, self‐distrust, or the faults of
    inconsistent church members, have been deterred from joining
    themselves with Christian people, and so have lost all hope and
    joy in their religious lives. Instance the man who, though
    converted in a revival of religion, was injured by a professed
    Christian, and became a recluse, but cherished the memory of his
    dead wife and child, kept the playthings of the one and the
    clothing of the other, and left directions to have them buried
    with him.

    As there is danger of confounding regeneration with preparatory
    influences of God’s Spirit, so there is danger of confounding
    regeneration with sanctification. Sanctification, as the
    development of the new affection, is gradual and progressive. But
    no _beginning_ is progressive or gradual; and regeneration is a
    beginning of the new affection. We may gradually come to the
    _knowledge_ that a new affection exists, but the knowledge of a
    beginning is one thing; the beginning itself is another thing.
    Luther had experienced a change of heart, long before he knew its
    meaning or could express his new feelings in scientific form. It
    is not in the sense of a gradual regeneration, but in the sense of
    a gradual recognition of the fact of regeneration, and a
    progressive enjoyment of its results, that “_the path of the
    righteous_” is said to be “_as the dawning light_”—the morning‐
    dawn that begins in faintness, but—“_that shineth more and more
    unto the perfect day_” (_Prov. 4:18_). _Cf._ _2 Cor. 4:4_—“_the
    god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that
    the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image
    of God, should not dawn upon them._” Here the recognition of God’s
    work is described as gradual; that the work itself is
    instantaneous, appears from the following _verse 6_—“_Seeing it is
    God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in
    our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God
    in the face of Jesus Christ._”

    Illustrate by the unconscious crossing of the line which separates
    one State of the Federal Union from another. From this doctrine of
    instantaneous regeneration, we may infer the duty of reaping as
    well as of sowing: _John 4:38_—“_I sent you to reap._” “It is a
    mistaken notion that it takes God a long time to give increase to
    the seed planted in a sinner’s heart. This grows out of the idea
    that regeneration is a matter of _training_; that a soul must be
    _educated_ from a lost state into a state of salvation. Let us
    remember that three thousand, whom in the morning Peter called
    murderers of Christ, were before night regenerated and baptized
    members of his church.” Drummond, in his Nat. Law in the Spir.
    World, remarks upon the humaneness of sudden conversion. As self‐
    limitation, self‐mortification, suicide of the old nature, it is
    well to have it at once done and over with, and not to die by
    degrees.


(_b_) This change takes place in the region of the soul below
consciousness.—It is by no means true that God’s work in regeneration is
always recognized by the subject of it. On the other hand, it is never
directly perceived at all. The working of God in the human soul, since it
contravenes no law of man’s being, but rather puts him in the full and
normal possession of his own powers, is secret and inscrutable. Although
man is conscious, he is not conscious of God’s regenerating agency.


    We know our own natural existence only through the phenomena of
    thought and sense. So we know our own spiritual existence, as new
    creatures in Christ, only through the new feelings and experiences
    of the soul. “The will does not need to act solitarily, in order
    to act freely.” God acts on the will, and the resulting holiness
    is true freedom. _John 8:36_—“_If therefore the Son shall make you
    free, ye shall be free indeed._” We have the consciousness of
    freedom; but the act of God in giving us this freedom is beyond or
    beneath our consciousness.

    Both Luther and Calvin used the word regeneration in a loose way,
    confounding it with sanctification. After the Federalists made a
    distinct doctrine of it, Calvinists in general came to treat it
    separately. And John Wesley rescued it from identification with
    sacraments, by showing its connection with the truth. E. G.
    Robinson: “Regeneration is in one sense instantaneous, in another
    sense not. There is necessity of some sort of knowledge in
    regeneration. The doctrine of Christ crucified is the fit
    instrument. The object of religion is to produce a _sound_ rather
    than an _emotional_ experience. Revivals of religion are valuable
    in just the proportion in which they produce rational conviction
    and permanently righteous action.” But none are left unaffected by
    them. “An arm of the magnetic needle must be attracted to the
    magnetic pole of the earth, or it must be repelled,—there is no
    such thing as indifference. Modern materialism, refusing to say
    that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, is led to declare
    that the hate of God is the beginning of wisdom” (Diesselhoff, Die
    klassische Poesie, 8).


(_c_) This change, however, is recognized indirectly in its results.—At
the moment of regeneration, the soul is conscious only of the truth and of
its own exercises with reference to it. That God is the author of its new
affection is an inference from the new character of the exercises which it
prompts. The human side or aspect of regeneration is Conversion. This, and
the Sanctification which follows it (including the special gifts of the
Holy Spirit), are the sole evidences in any particular case that
regeneration is an accomplished fact.


    Regeneration, though it is the birth of a perfect child, is still
    the birth of a child. The child is to grow, and the growth is
    sanctification; in other words, sanctification, as we shall see,
    is simply the strengthening and development of the holy affection
    which begins its existence in regeneration. Hence the subject of
    the epistle to the _Romans_—salvation by faith—includes not only
    justification by faith (_chapters 1‐7_), but sanctification by
    faith (_chapters 8‐16_). On evidences of regeneration, see
    Anderson, Regeneration, 169‐214, 227‐295; Woods, Works, 44‐55. The
    transition from justification by faith to sanctification by faith
    is in _chapter 8_ of the epistle to the _Romans_. That begins by
    declaring that there is _no condemnation_ in Christ, and ends by
    declaring that there is _no separation_ from Christ. The work of
    the Holy Spirit follows upon the work of Christ. See Godet on the
    epistle.

    The doctrine of Alexander Campbell was a protest against laying an
    unscriptural emphasis on emotional states as evidences of
    regeneration—a protest which certain mystical and antinomian
    exaggerations of evangelical teaching very justly provoked. But
    Campbell went to the opposite extreme of practically excluding
    emotion from religion, and of confining the work of the Holy
    Spirit to the conscious influence of the truth. Disciples need to
    recognize a power of the Holy Spirit exerted below consciousness,
    in order to explain the conscious acceptance of Christ and of his
    salvation.

    William James, Varieties of Religious Experience, 271—“If we
    should conceive that the human mind, with its different
    possibilities of equilibrium, might be like a many sided solid
    with different surfaces on which it could lie flat, we might liken
    mental revolutions to the spatial revolutions of such a body. As
    it is pried up, say by a lever, from a position in which it lies
    on surface A, for instance, it will linger for a time unstably
    half way up, and if the lever cease to urge it, it will tumble
    back or relapse, under the continued pull of gravity. But if at
    last it rotate far enough for its centre of gravity to pass beyond
    the surface A altogether, the body will fall over, on surface B,
    say, and will abide there permanently. The pulls of gravity
    towards A have vanished, and may now be disregarded. The
    polyhedron has become immune against further attraction from this
    direction.”


III. Conversion.


Conversion is that voluntary change in the mind of the sinner, in which he
turns, on the one hand, from sin, and on the other hand, to Christ. The
former or negative element in conversion, namely, the turning from sin, we
denominate repentance. The latter or positive element in conversion,
namely, the turning to Christ, we denominate faith.


    For account of repentance and faith as elements of conversion, see
    Andrew Fuller, Works, 1:666; Luthardt, Compendium der Dogmatik, 3d
    ed., 201‐206. The two elements of conversion seem to be in the
    mind of Paul, when he writes in _Rom. 6:11_—“_reckon ye also
    yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ
    Jesus_”; _Col. 3:3_—“_ye died, and your life is hid with Christ in
    God._” _Cf._ ἀποστρέφω, in _Acts 3:26_—“_in turning away every one
    of you from your iniquities_,” with ἐπιστρέφω in _Acts
    11:21_—“_believed_” and “_turned unto the Lord_.” A candidate for
    ordination was once asked which came first: regeneration or
    conversion. He replied very correctly: “Regeneration and
    conversion are like the cannon‐ball and the hole—they both go
    through together.” This is true however only as to their
    chronological relation. Logically the ball is first and causes the
    hole, not the hole first and causes the ball.


(_a_) Conversion is the human side or aspect of that fundamental spiritual
change which, as viewed from the divine side, we call regeneration. It is
simply man’s turning. The Scriptures recognize the voluntary activity of
the human soul in this change as distinctly as they recognize the
causative agency of God. While God turns men to himself (Ps. 85:4; Song
1:4; Jer. 31:18; Lam. 5:21), men are exhorted to turn themselves to God
(Prov. 1:23; Is. 31:6; 59:20; Ez. 14:6; 18:32; 33:9, 11; Joel 2:12‐14).
While God is represented as the author of the new heart and the new spirit
(Ps. 51:10; Ez. 11:19; 36:26), men are commanded to make for themselves a
new heart and a new spirit (Ez. 18:31; 2 Cor. 7:1; cf. Phil. 2:12, 13;
Eph. 5:14).


    _Ps. 85:4_—“_Turn us, O God of our salvation_”; _Song 1:4_—“_Draw
    me, we will run after thee_”; _Jer. 31:18_—“_turn thou me, and I
    shall be turned_”; _Lam. 5:21_—“_Turn thou us unto thee, O
    Jehovah, and we shall be turned._”

    _Prov. 1:23_—“_Turn you at my reproof: Behold, I will pour out my
    spirit unto you_”; _Is. 31:6_—“_Turn ye unto him from whom ye have
    deeply revolted, O children of Israel_”; _59:20_—“_And a Redeemer
    will come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in
    Jacob_”; _Ez. 14:6_—“_Return ye, and turn yourselves from your
    idols_”; _18:32_—“_turn yourselves and live_”; _33:9_—“_if thou
    warn the wicked of his way to turn from it, and he turn not from
    his way, he shall die in his iniquity_”; _11_—“_turn ye, turn ye
    from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?_”
    _Joel 2:12‐14_—“_turn ye unto me with all your heart._”

    _Ps. 51:10_—“_Create in me a clean heart, O God; And renew a right
    spirit within me_”; _Ez. 11:19_—“_And I will give them one heart,
    and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony
    heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh_”;
    _36:26_—“_A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will
    I put within you._”

    _Ez. 18:31_—“_Cast away from you all your transgressions, wherein
    ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit:
    for why will ye die, O house of Israel?_” _2 Cor. 7:1_—“_Having
    therefore these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from
    all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the
    fear of God_”; _cf._ _Phil. 2:12, 13_—“_work out your own
    salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who worketh in
    you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure_”; _Eph.
    5:14_—“_Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and
    Christ shall shine upon thee._”

    When asked the way to heaven, Bishop Wilberforce replied: “Take
    the first turn to the right, and go straight forward.” Phillips
    Brooks’s conversion is described by Professor Allen, Life, 1:266,
    as consisting in the resolve “to be true to himself, to renounce
    nothing which he knew to be good, and yet bring all things captive
    to the obedience of God, ... the absolute surrender of his will to
    God, in accordance with the example of Christ: ‘_Lo, I am come ...
    to do thy will, O God_’ (_Heb. 10:7_).”


(_b_) This twofold method of representation can be explained only when we
remember that man’s powers may be interpenetrated and quickened by the
divine, not only without destroying man’s freedom, but with the result of
making man for the first time truly free. Since the relation between the
divine and the human activity is not one of chronological succession, man
is never to wait for God’s working. If he is ever regenerated, it must be
in and through a movement of his own will, in which he turns to God as
unconstrainedly and with as little consciousness of God’s operation upon
him, as if no such operation of God were involved in the change. And in
preaching, we are to press upon men the claims of God and their duty of
immediate submission to Christ, with the certainty that they who do so
submit will subsequently recognize this new and holy activity of their own
wills as due to a working within them of divine power.


    _Ps. 110:3_—“_Thy people offer themselves willingly in the day of
    thy power._” The act of God is accompanied by an activity of man.
    Dorner: “God’s act initiates action.” There is indeed an original
    changing of man’s tastes and affections, and in this man is
    passive. But this is only the first aspect of regeneration. In the
    second aspect of it—the rousing of man’s powers—God’s action is
    accompanied by man’s activity, and regeneration is but the obverse
    side of conversion. Luther’s word: “Man, in conversion, is purely
    passive,” is true only of the first part of the change; and here,
    by “conversion,” Luther means “regeneration.” Melanchthon said
    better: “Non est enim coäctio, ut voluntas non possit repugnare:
    trahit Deus, sed volentem trahit.” See Meyer on _Rom. 8:14_—“_led
    by the Spirit of God_”: “The expression,” Meyer says, “is passive,
    though without prejudice to the human will, as _verse 13_ proves:
    ‘_by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body_.’ ”

    As, by a well known principle of hydrostatics, the water contained
    in a little tube can balance the water of a whole ocean, so God’s
    grace can be balanced by man’s will. As sunshine on the sand
    produces nothing unless man sow the seed, and as a fair breeze
    does not propel the vessel unless man spread the sails, so the
    influences of God’s Spirit require human agencies, and work
    through them. The Holy Spirit is sovereign,—he bloweth where he
    listeth. Even though there be uniform human conditions, there will
    not be uniform spiritual results. Results are often independent of
    human conditions as such. This is the truth emphasized by Andrew
    Fuller. But this does not prevent us from saying that, whenever
    God’s Spirit works in regeneration, there is always accompanying
    it a voluntary change in man, which we call conversion, and that
    this change is as free, and as really man’s own work, as if there
    were no divine influence upon him.

    Jesus told the man with the withered hand to stretch forth his
    hand; it was the man’s duty to stretch it forth, not to wait for
    strength from God to do it. Jesus told the man sick of the palsy
    to take up his bed and walk. It was that man’s duty to obey the
    command, not to pray for power to obey. Depend wholly upon God?
    Yes, as you depend wholly upon wind when you sail, yet need to
    keep your sails properly set. “_Work out your own salvation_”
    comes first in the apostle’s exhortation; “_for it is God who
    worketh in you_” follows (_Phil. 2:12, 13_); which means that our
    first business is to use our wills in obedience; then we shall
    find that God has gone before us to prepare us to obey.

    _Mat. 11:12_—“_the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and men
    of violence take it by force._” Conversion is like the invasion of
    a kingdom. Men are not to wait for God’s time, but to act at once.
    Not bodily exercises are required, but impassioned earnestness of
    soul. Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 2:49‐56—“Not injustice and
    violence, but energetic laying hold of a good to which they can
    make no claim. It is of no avail to wait idly, or to seek
    laboriously to earn it; but it is of avail to lay hold of it and
    to retain it. It is ready as a gift of God for men, but men must
    direct their desire and will toward it.... The man who put on the
    wedding garment did not earn his share of the feast thereby, yet
    he did show the disposition without which he was not permitted to
    partake of it.”

    James, Varieties of Religious Experience, 12—“The two main
    phenomena of religion, they will say, are essentially phenomena of
    adolescence, and therefore synchronous with the development of
    sexual life. To which the retort is easy: Even were the asserted
    synchrony unrestrictedly true as a fact (which it is not), it is
    not only the sexual life, but the entire higher mental life, which
    awakens during adolescence. One might then as well set up the
    thesis that the interest in mechanics, physics, chemistry, logic,
    physiology and sociology, which springs up during adolescent years
    along with that in poetry and religion, is also a perversion of
    the sexual instinct, but this would be too absurd. Moreover, if
    the argument from synchrony is to decide, what is to be done with
    the fact that the religious age _par excellence_ would seem to be
    old age, when the uproar of the sexual life is past?”


(_c_) From the fact that the word “conversion” means simply “a turning,”
every turning of the Christian from sin, subsequent to the first, may, in
a subordinate sense, be denominated a conversion (Luke 22:32). Since
regeneration is not complete sanctification, and the change of governing
disposition is not identical with complete purification of the nature,
such subsequent turnings from sin are necessary consequences and evidences
of the first (_cf._ John 13:10). But they do not, like the first, imply a
change in the governing disposition,—they are rather new manifestations of
a disposition already changed. For this reason, conversion proper, like
the regeneration of which it is the obverse side, can occur but once. The
phrase “second conversion,” even if it does not imply radical
misconception of the nature of conversion, is misleading. We prefer,
therefore, to describe these subsequent experiences, not by the term
“conversion,” but by such phrases as “breaking off, forsaking, returning
from, neglects or transgressions,” and “coming back to Christ, trusting
anew in him.” It is with repentance and faith, as elements in that first
and radical change by which the soul enters upon a state of salvation,
that we have now to do.


    _Luke 22:31, 32_—“_Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you,
    that he might sift you as wheat: but I made supplication for thee,
    that thy faith fail not; and do thou, when once thou hast turned
    again_ [A. V.: ‘_art converted_’], _establish thy brethren_”;
    _John 13:10_—“_He that is bathed_ [has taken a full bath] _needeth
    not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit_ [as a whole].”
    Notice that Jesus here announces that only one regeneration is
    needed,—what follows is not conversion but sanctification.
    Spurgeon said he believed in regeneration, but not in re‐
    regeneration. Second blessing? Yes, and a forty‐second. The stages
    in the Christian life are like ice, water, invisible vapor, steam,
    all successive and natural results of increasing temperature,
    seemingly different from one another, yet all forms of the same
    element.

    On the relation between the divine and the human agencies, we
    quote a different view from another writer: “God decrees to employ
    means which in every case are sufficient, and which in certain
    cases it is foreseen will be effectual. Human action converts a
    sufficient means into an effectual means. The result is not always
    according to the varying use of means. The power is all of God.
    Man has power to resist only. There is a universal influence of
    the Spirit, but the influences of the Spirit vary in different
    cases, just as external opportunities do. The love of holiness is
    blunted, but it still lingers. The Holy Spirit quickens it. When
    this love is wholly lost, sin against the Holy Ghost results.
    Before regeneration there is a desire for holiness, an
    apprehension of its beauty, but this is overborne by a greater
    love for sin. If the man does not quickly grow worse, it is not
    because of positive action on his part, but only because
    negatively he does not resist as he might. ‘_Behold, I stand at
    the door and knock_.’ God leads at first by a resistible
    influence. When man yields, God leads by an irresistible
    influence. The second influence of the Holy Spirit confirms the
    Christian’s choice. This second influence is called ‘sealing.’
    There is no necessary interval of time between the two. Prevenient
    grace comes first; conversion comes after.”

    To this view, we would reply that a partial love for holiness, and
    an ability to choose it before God works effectually upon the
    heart, seem to contradict those Scriptures which assert that “_the
    mind of the flesh is enmity against God_” (_Rom. 8:7_), and that
    all good works are the result of God’s new creation (_Eph. 2:10_).
    Conversion does not precede regeneration,—it chronologically
    accompanies regeneration, though it logically follows it.


1. Repentance.


Repentance is that voluntary change in the mind of the sinner in which he
turns from sin. Being essentially a change of mind, it involves a change
of view, a change of feeling, and a change of purpose. We may therefore
analyze repentance into three constituents, each succeeding term of which
includes and implies the one preceding:

A. An intellectual element,—change of view—recognition of sin as involving
personal guilt, defilement, and helplessness (Ps. 51:3, 7, 11). If
unaccompanied by the following elements, this recognition may manifest
itself in fear of punishment, although as yet there is no hatred of sin.
This element is indicated in the Scripture phrase ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας (Rom.
3:20; _cf._ 1:32).


    _Ps. 51:3, 11_—“_For I know my transgressions; And my sin is ever
    before me.... Cast me not away from thy presence, And take not thy
    Holy Spirit from me_”; _Rom. 3:20_—“_through the law cometh the
    knowledge of sin_”; _cf._ _1:32_—“_who, knowing the ordinance of
    God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not
    only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them._”

    It is well to remember that God requires us to cherish no views or
    emotions that contradict the truth. He wants of us no false
    humility. Humility (_humus_) = groundness—a coming down to the
    hard‐pan of facts—a facing of the truth. Repentance, therefore, is
    not a calling ourselves by hard names. It is not cringing, or
    exaggerated self‐contempt. It is simple recognition of what we
    are. The “’umble” Uriah Heep is the arrant hypocrite. If we see
    ourselves as God sees us, we shall say with _Job 42:5, 6_—“_I had
    heard of thee by the hearing of the ear; But now mine eye seeth
    thee: Wherefore I abhor myself, And repent in dust and ashes._”

    Apart from God’s working in the heart there is no proper
    recognition of sin, either in people of high or low degree. Lady
    Huntington invited the Duchess of Buckingham to come and hear
    Whitefield, when the Duchess answered: “It is monstrous to be told
    that you have a heart as sinful as the common wretches that crawl
    on the earth,—it is highly offensive and insulting.” Mr. Moody,
    after preaching to the prisoners in the jail at Chicago, visited
    them in their cells. In the first cell he found two, playing
    cards. They said false witnesses had testified against them. In
    the second cell, the convict said that the guilty man had escaped,
    but that he, a mere accomplice, had been caught. In the last cell
    only Mr. Moody found a man crying over his sins. Henry Drummond,
    after hearing the confessions of inquirers, said: “I am sick of
    the sins of these men,—how can God bear it?”

    Experience of sin does not teach us to recognize sin. We do not
    learn to know chloroform by frequently inhaling it. The drunkard
    does not understand the degrading effects of drink so well as his
    miserable wife and children do. Even the natural conscience does
    not give the recognition of sin that is needed in true repentance.
    The confession “_I have sinned_” is made by hardened Pharaoh (_Ex.
    9:27_), double minded Balaam (_Num. 22:34_), remorseful Achan
    (_Josh. 7:20_), insincere King Saul (_1 Sam. 15:24_), despairing
    Judas (_Mat. 27:4_); but in no one of these cases was there true
    repentance. True repentance takes God’s part against ourselves,
    has sympathy with God, feels how unworthily the Ruler, Father,
    Friend of men has been treated. It does not ask, “What will my sin
    bring to me?” but, “What does my sin mean to God?” It involves, in
    addition to the mere recognition of sin:


B. An emotional element,—change of feeling—sorrow for sin as committed
against goodness and justice, and therefore hateful to God, and hateful in
itself (Ps. 51:1, 2, 10, 14). This element of repentance is indicated in
the Scripture word μεταμέλομαι. If accompanied by the following element,
it is a λύπη κατὰ Θεόν. If not so accompanied, it is a λύπη τοῦ κόσμου =
remorse and despair (Mat. 27:3; Luke 18:23; 2 Cor. 7:9, 10).


    _Ps. 51:1, 2, 10, 14_—“_Have mercy upon me ... blot out my
    transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, And cleanse
    me from my sin.... Create in me a clean heart, O God; ... Deliver
    me from bloodguiltiness, O God_”; _Mat. 27:3_—“_Then Judas, who
    betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself,
    and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests
    and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent __
    blood_”; _Luke 18:23_—“_when he heard these things, he became
    exceeding sorrowful; for he was very rich_”; _2 Cor. 7:9, 10_—“_I
    now rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye were made
    sorry unto repentance; for ye were made sorry after a godly
    sort.... For godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation, a
    repentance which bringeth no regret: but the sorrow of the world
    worketh death._” We must distinguish sorrow for sin from shame on
    account of it and fear of its consequences. These last are
    selfish, while godly sorrow is disinterested. “A man may be angry
    with himself and may despise himself without any humble
    prostration before God or confession of his guilt” (Shedd, Dogm.
    Theol., 2:535, note).

    True repentance, as illustrated in _Ps. 51_, does not think of 1.
    consequences, 2. other men, 3. heredity, as an excuse; but it sees
    sin as 1. transgression against God, 2. personal guilt, 3.
    defiling the inmost being. Perowne on _Ps. 51:1_—“In all godly
    sorrow there is hope. Sorrow without hope may be remorse or
    despair, but it is not repentance.” Much so‐called repentance is
    illustrated by the little girl’s prayer: “O God, make me good,—not
    real good, but just good enough so that I won’t have to be
    whipped!” Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, 2:3—“’Tis meet so,
    daughter; but lest you do repent As that the sin hath brought you
    to this shame, Which sorrow is always towards ourselves, not
    heaven, Showing we would not spare heaven as we love it, But as we
    stand in fear.... I do repent me as it is an evil, And take the
    shame with joy.” Tempest, 3:3—“For which foul deed, the Powers
    delaying, not forgetting, Have incensed the seas, and shores, yea,
    all the creatures, Against your peace.... Whose wrath to guard you
    from ... is nothing but heart’s sorrow And a clear life ensuing.”

    Simon, Reconciliation, 195, 379—“At the very bottom it is God
    whose claims are advocated, whose part is taken, by that in us
    which, whilst most truly our own, yea, our very selves, is also
    most truly his, and of him. The divine energy and idea which
    constitutes us will not let its own root and source suffer wrong
    unatoned. God intends us to be givers as well as receivers, givers
    even to him. We share in his image that we may be creators and
    givers, not from compulsion, but in love.” Such repentance as this
    is wrought only by the Holy Spirit. Conscience indeed is present
    in every human heart, but only the Holy Spirit convinces of sin.
    Why is the Holy Spirit needed? A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the
    Spirit, 189‐201—“Conscience is the witness to the law; the Spirit
    is the witness to grace. Conscience brings legal conviction; the
    Spirit brings evangelical conviction. The one begets a conviction
    unto despair; the other a conviction unto hope. Conscience
    convinces of sin committed, of righteousness impossible, of
    judgment impending; the Comforter convinces of sin committed, of
    righteousness imputed, of judgment accomplished—in Christ. God
    alone can reveal the divine view of sin, and enable man to
    understand it.” But, however agonizing the sorrow, it will not
    constitute true repentance, unless it leads to, or is accompanied
    by:


C. A voluntary element,—change of purpose—inward turning from sin and
disposition to seek pardon and cleansing (Ps. 51:5, 7, 10; Jer. 25:5).
This includes and implies the two preceding elements, and is therefore the
most important aspect of repentance. It is indicated in the Scripture term
μετάνοια (Acts 2:38; Rom. 2:4).


    _Ps. 51:5, 7, 10_—“_Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And
    in sin did my mother conceive me.... Purge me with hyssop, and I
    shall be clean: Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow....
    Create in me a clean heart, O God; And renew a right spirit within
    me_”; _Jer. 25:5_—“_Return ye now every one from his evil way, and
    from the evil of your doings_”; _Acts 2:38_—“_And Peter said unto
    them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of
    Jesus Christ_”; _Rom. 2:4_—“_despisest thou the riches of his
    goodness and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the
    goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?_”

    Walden, The Great Meaning of _Metanoia_, brings out well the fact
    that “repentance” is not the true translation of the word, but
    rather “change of mind”; indeed, he would give up the word
    “repentance” altogether in the N. T., except as the translation of
    μεταμέλεια. The idea of μετάνοια is abandonment of sin rather than
    sorrow for sin,—an act of the will rather than a state of the
    sensibility. Repentance is participation in Christ’s revulsion
    from sin and suffering on account of it. It is repentance _from_
    sin, not _of_ sin, nor _for_ sin—always ἀπό and ἔκ, never περί or
    ἐπί. The true illustrations of repentance are found in Job
    (_42:6_—“_I abhor myself, And repent in dust and ashes_”); in
    David (_Ps. 51:10_—“_Create in me a clean heart; And renew a right
    spirit within me_”); in Peter (_John 21:17_—“_thou knowest that I
    love thee_”); in the penitent thief (_Luke 23:42_—“_Jesus,
    remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom_”); in the prodigal
    son (_Luke 15:18_—“_I will arise and go to my Father_”).

    Repentance implies free will. Hence Spinoza, who knows nothing of
    free will, knows nothing of repentance. In book 4 of his Ethics,
    he says: “Repentance is not a virtue, that is, it does not spring
    from reason; on the contrary, the man who repents of what he has
    done is doubly wretched or impotent.” Still he urges that for the
    good of society it is not desirable that vulgar minds should be
    enlightened as to this matter; see Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 315.
    Determinism also renders it irrational to feel righteous
    indignation either at the misconduct of other people or of
    ourselves. Moral admiration is similarly irrational in the
    determinist; see Balfour, Foundations of Belief, 24.


In broad distinction from the Scriptural doctrine, we find the Romanist
view, which regards the three elements of repentance as the following: (1)
contrition; (2) confession; (3) satisfaction. Of these, contrition is the
only element properly belonging to repentance; yet from this contrition
the Romanist excludes all sorrow for sin of nature. Confession is
confession to the priest; and satisfaction is the sinner’s own doing of
outward penance, as a temporal and symbolic submission and reparation to
violated law. This view is false and pernicious, in that it confounds
repentance with its outward fruits, conceives of it as exercised rather
toward the church than toward God, and regards it as a meritorious ground,
instead of a mere condition, of pardon.


    On the Romanist doctrine of Penance, Thornwell (Collected
    Writings, 1:423) remarks: “The _culpa_ may be remitted, they say,
    while the _pœna_ is to some extent retained.” The priest absolves,
    not declaratively, but judicially. Denying the greatness of the
    sin, it makes man able to become his own Savior. Christ’s
    satisfaction, for sins after baptism, is not sufficient; our
    satisfaction is sufficient. But performance of one duty, we
    object, cannot make satisfaction for the violation of another.

    We are required to confess one to another, and specially to those
    whom we have wronged: _James 5:16_—“_Confess therefore your sins
    one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed._”
    This puts the hardest stress upon our natural pride. There are a
    hundred who will confess to a priest or to God, where there is one
    who will make frank and full confession to the aggrieved party.
    Confession to an official religious superior is not penitence nor
    a test of penitence. In the Confessional women expose their inmost
    desires to priests who are forbidden to marry. These priests are
    sometimes, though gradually, corrupted to the core, and at the
    same time they are taught in the Confessional precisely to what
    women to apply. In France many noble families will not permit
    their children to confess, and their women are not permitted to
    incur the danger.

    Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords said of auricular confession:
    “It has been injurious to the moral independence and virility of
    the nation to an extent to which probably it has been given to no
    other institution to affect the character of mankind.” See Walsh,
    Secret History of the Oxford Movement; A. J. Gordon, Ministry of
    the Spirit, 111—“Asceticism is an absolute inversion of the divine
    order, since it seeks life through death, instead of finding death
    through life. No degree of mortification can ever bring us to
    sanctification.” Penance can never effect true repentance, nor be
    other than a hindrance to the soul’s abandonment of sin. Penance
    is something external to be done, and it diverts attention from
    the real inward need of the soul. The monk does penance by
    sleeping on an iron bed and by wearing a hair shirt. When Anselm
    of Canterbury died, his under garments were found alive with
    vermin which the saint had cultivated in order to mortify the
    flesh. Dr. Pusey always sat on a hard chair, traveled as
    uncomfortably as possible, looked down when he walked, and
    whenever he saw a coal‐fire thought of hell. Thieves do penance by
    giving a part of their ill‐gotten wealth to charity. In all these
    things there is no transformation of the inner life.


In further explanation of the Scripture representations, we remark:

(_a_) That repentance, in each and all of its aspects, is wholly an inward
act, not to be confounded with the change of life which proceeds from it.

True repentance is indeed manifested and evidenced by confession of sin
before God (Luke 18:13), and by reparation for wrongs done to men (Luke
19:8). But these do not constitute repentance; they are rather fruits of
repentance. Between “repentance” and “fruit worthy of repentance,”
Scripture plainly distinguishes (Mat. 3:8).


    _Luke 18:13_—“_But the publican, standing afar off, would not lift
    up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying,
    God, be thou merciful to me a sinner_ [‘be propitiated to me the
    sinner’]”; _19:8_—“_And Zacchæus stood, and said unto the Lord,
    Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I
    have wrongfully exacted aught of any man, I restore fourfold_”;
    _Mat. 3:8_—“_Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance._”
    Fruit worthy of repentance, or fruits meet for repentance, are: 1.
    Confession of sin; 2. Surrender to Christ; 3. Turning from sin; 4.
    Reparation for wrong doing; 5. Right moral conduct; 6. Profession
    of Christian faith.

    On _Luke 17:3_—“_if thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if he repent,
    forgive him_”—Dr. B. H. Carroll remarks that the law is uniform
    which makes repentance indispensable to forgiveness. It applies to
    man’s forgiveness of man, as well as to God’s forgiveness of man,
    or the church’s forgiveness of man. But I must be sure that I
    cherish toward the offender the spirit of love, whether he repents
    or not. Freedom from all malice toward him, however, and even
    loving prayerful labor to lead him to repentance, is not
    forgiveness. This I can grant only when he actually repents. If I
    do forgive him without repentance, then I impose my rule on God
    when I pray: “_Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our
    debtors_” (_Mat. 6:12_).

    On the question whether the requirement that we forgive without
    atonement implies that God does, see Brit. and For. Evang. Rev.,
    Oct 1881:678‐691—“Answer: 1. The present constitution of things is
    based upon atonement. Forgiveness on our part is required upon the
    ground of the Cross, without which the world would be hell. 2. God
    is Judge. We forgive, as brethren. When he forgives, it is as
    Judge of all the earth, of whom all earthly judges are
    representatives. If earthly judges may exact justice, much more
    God. The argument that would abolish atonement would abolish all
    civil government. 3. I should forgive my brother on the ground of
    God’s love, and Christ’s bearing of his sins. 4. God, who requires
    atonement, is the same being that provides it. This is ‘handsome
    and generous.’ But I can never provide atonement for my brother. I
    must, therefore, forgive freely, only upon the ground of what
    Christ has done for him.”


(_b_) That repentance is only a negative condition, and not a positive
means of salvation.

This is evident from the fact that repentance is no more than the sinner’s
present duty, and can furnish no offset to the claims of the law on
account of past transgression. The truly penitent man feels that his
repentance has no merit. Apart from the positive element of conversion,
namely, faith in Christ, it would be only sorrow for guilt unremoved. This
very sorrow, moreover, is not the mere product of human will, but is the
gift of God.


    _Acts 5:31_—“_Him did God exalt with his right hand to be a Prince
    and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of
    sins_”; _11:18_—“_Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted
    repentance unto life_”; _2 Tim. 2:25_—“_if peradventure God may
    give them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth._” The truly
    penitent man recognizes the fact that his sin deserves punishment.
    He never regards his penitence as offsetting the demands of law,
    and as making his punishment unjust. Whitefield: “Our repentance
    needeth to be repented of, and our very tears to be washed in the
    blood of Christ.” Shakespeare, Henry V, 4:1—“More will I do:
    Though all that I can do is nothing worth, Since that my penitence
    comes after all, Imploring pardon”—imploring pardon both for the
    crime and for the imperfect repentance.


(_c_) That true repentance, however, never exists except in conjunction
with faith.

Sorrow for sin, not simply on account of its evil consequences to the
transgressor, but on account of its intrinsic hatefulness as opposed to
divine holiness and love, is practically impossible without some
confidence in God’s mercy. It is the Cross which first makes us truly
penitent (_cf._ John 12:32, 33). Hence all true preaching of repentance is
implicitly a preaching of faith (Mat. 3:1‐12; _cf._ Acts 19:4), and
repentance toward God involves faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21;
Luke 15:10, 24; 19:8, 9; _cf._ Gal. 3:7).


    _John 12:32, 33_—“_And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will
    draw all men unto myself. But this he said, signifying by what
    manner of death he should die._” _Mat. 3:1‐12_—John the Baptist’s
    preaching of repentance was also a preaching of faith; as is shown
    by _Acts 19:4_—“_John baptized with the baptism of repentance,
    saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should
    come after him, that is, on Jesus._” Repentance involves faith:
    _Acts 20:21_—“_testifying both to Jews and to Greeks repentance
    toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ_”; _Luke 15:10,
    24_—“_there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one
    sinner that repenteth.... this my son was dead, and is alive
    again; he was lost, and is found_”; _19:8, 9_—“_the half of my
    goods I give to the poor; and if I have wrongfully exacted aught
    of any man, I restore fourfold. And Jesus said unto him, To‐day is
    salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of
    Abraham_”—the father of all believers; _cf._ _Gal. 3:6, 7_—“_Even
    as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for
    righteousness. Know therefore that they that are of faith, the
    same are sons of Abraham._”

    _Luke 3:18_ says of John the Baptist: “_he preached the gospel
    unto the people_,” and the gospel message, the glad tidings, is
    more than the command to repent,—it is also the offer of salvation
    through Christ; see Prof. Wm. Arnold Stevens, on John the Baptist
    and his Gospel, in Studies on the Gospel according to John. _2
    Chron. 34:19_—“_And it came to pass, when the king had heard the
    words of the law, that he rent his clothes._” Moberly, Atonement
    and Personality, 44‐46—“Just in proportion as one sins, does he
    render it impossible for him truly to repent. Repentance must be
    the work of another in him. Is it not the Spirit of the Crucified
    which is the reality of the penitence of the truly penitent?” If
    this be true, then it is plain that there is no true repentance
    which is not accompanied by the faith that unites us to Christ.


(_d_) That, conversely, wherever there is true faith, there is true
repentance also.

Since repentance and faith are but different sides or aspects of the same
act of turning, faith is as inseparable from repentance as repentance is
from faith. That must be an unreal faith where there is no repentance,
just as that must be an unreal repentance where there is no faith. Yet
because the one aspect of his change is more prominent in the mind of the
convert than the other, we are not hastily to conclude that the other is
absent. Only that degree of conviction of sin is essential to salvation,
which carries with it a forsaking of sin and a trustful surrender to
Christ.


    Bishop Hall: “Never will Christ enter into that soul where the
    herald of repentance hath not been before him.” _2 Cor.
    7:10_—“_repentance unto salvation._” In consciousness, sensation
    and perception are in inverse ratio to each other. Clear vision is
    hardly conscious of sensation, but inflamed eyes are hardly
    conscious of anything besides sensation. So repentance and faith
    are seldom equally prominent in the consciousness of the converted
    man; but it is important to know that neither can exist without
    the other. The truly penitent man will, sooner or later, show that
    he has faith; and the true believer will certainly show, in due
    season, that he hates and renounces sin.

    The question, how much conviction a man needs to insure his
    salvation, may be answered by asking how much excitement one needs
    on a burning steamer. As, in the latter case, just enough to
    prompt persistent effort to escape; so, in the former case, just
    enough remorseful feeling is needed, to induce the sinner to
    betake himself believingly to Christ.

    On the general subject of Repentance, see Anderson, Regeneration,
    279‐288; Bp. Ossory, Nature and Effects of Faith, 40‐48, 311‐318;
    Woods, Works, 3:68‐78; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 5:1‐10, 208‐246;
    Luthardt, Compendium, 3d ed., 206‐208; Hodge, Outlines of
    Theology, 375‐381; Alexander, Evidences of Christianity, 47‐60;
    Crawford, Atonement, 413‐419.


2. Faith.


Faith is that voluntary change in the mind of the sinner in which he turns
to Christ. Being essentially a change of mind, it involves a change of
view, a change of feeling, and a change of purpose. We may therefore
analyze faith also into three constituents, each succeeding term of which
includes and implies the preceding:

A. An intellectual element (_notitia, credere Deum_),—recognition of the
truth of God’s revelation, or of the objective reality of the salvation
provided by Christ. This includes not only a historical belief in the
facts of the Scripture, but an intellectual belief in the doctrine taught
therein as to man’s sinfulness and dependence upon Christ.


    _John 2:23, 24_—“_How when he was in Jerusalem at the passover,
    during the feast, many believed on his name, beholding his signs
    which he did. But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that
    he knew all men_”; _cf._ _3:2_—Nicodemus has this external faith:
    “_no one can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with
    him_.” _James 2:19_—“_Thou believest that God is one; thou doest
    well: the demons also believe, and shudder._” Even this historical
    faith is not without its fruits. It is the spring of much
    philanthropic work. There were no hospitals in ancient Rome. Much
    of our modern progress is due to the leavening influence of
    Christianity, even in the case of those who have not personally
    accepted Christ.

    McLaren, S. S. Times, Feb. 22, 1902:107—“Luke does not hesitate to
    say, in _Acts 8:13_, that ‘_Simon Magus also himself believed_.’
    But he expects us to understand that Simon’s belief was not faith
    that saved, but mere credence in the gospel narrative as true
    history. It had no ethical or spiritual worth. He was ‘_amazed_,’
    as the Samaritans had been at his juggleries. It did not lead to
    repentance, or confession, or true trust. He was only ‘_amazed_’
    at Philip’s miracles, and there was no salvation in that.” Merely
    historical faith, such as Disciples and Ritschlians hold to, lacks
    the element of affection, and besides this lacks the present
    reality of Christ himself. Faith that does not lay hold of a
    present Christ is not saving faith.


B. An emotional element (_assensus, credere Deo_),—assent to the
revelation of God’s power and grace in Jesus Christ, as applicable to the
present needs of the soul. Those in whom this awakening of the
sensibilities is unaccompanied by the fundamental decision of the will,
which constitutes the next element of faith, may seem to themselves, and
for a time may appear to others, to have accepted Christ.


    _Mat. 13:20, 21_—“_he that was sown upon the rocky places, this is
    he that heareth the word, and straightway with joy receiveth it;
    yet hath he not root in himself, but endureth for a while; and
    when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word,
    straightway he stumbleth_”; _cf._ _Ps. 106:12, 13_—“_Then believed
    they his words; they sang his praise. They soon forgat his works;
    they waited not for his counsel_”; _Ez. 33:31, 32_—“_And they come
    unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my
    people, and they hear thy words, but do them not; for with their
    mouth they show much love, but their heart goeth after their gain.
    And, lo, thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath
    a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument; for they
    hear thy words, but they do them not_”; _John 5:35_—Of John the
    Baptist: “_He was the lamp that burneth and shineth; and ye were
    willing to rejoice for a season in his light_”; _8:30, 31_—“_As he
    spake these things, many believed on him_ (εἰς αὐτόν). _Jesus
    therefore said to those Jews that had believed him_ (αὐτῷ), _If ye
    abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples._” They believed
    _him_, but did not yet believe _on_ him, that is, make him the
    foundation of their faith and life. Yet Jesus graciously
    recognizes this first faint foreshadowing of faith. It might lead
    to full and saving faith.

    “Proselytes of the gate” were so called, because they contented
    themselves with sitting in the gate, as it were, without going
    into the holy city. “Proselytes of righteousness” were those who
    did their whole duty, by joining themselves fully to the people of
    God. Not _emotion_, but _devotion_, is the important thing.
    Temporary faith is as irrational and valueless as temporary
    repentance. It perhaps gained temporary blessing in the way of
    healing in the time of Christ, but, if not followed by complete
    surrender of the will, it might even aggravate one’s sin; see
    _John 5:14_—“_Behold, thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a
    worse thing befall thee._” The special faith of miracles was not a
    high, but a low, form of faith, and it is not to be sought in our
    day as indispensable to the progress of the kingdom. Miracles have
    ceased, not because of decline in faith, but because the Holy
    Spirit has changed the method of his manifestations, and has led
    the church to seek more spiritual gifts.


Saving faith, however, includes also:

C. A voluntary element (_fiducia, credere in Deum_),—trust in Christ as
Lord and Savior; or, in other words—to distinguish its two aspects:

(_a_) Surrender of the soul, as guilty and defiled, to Christ’s
governance.


    _Mat. 11:28, 29_—“_Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy
    laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn
    of me_”; _John 8:12_—“_I am the light of the world: he that
    followeth me shall not walk in the darkness_”; _14:1_—“_Let not
    your heart be troubled: believe in God, believe also in me_”;
    _Acts 16:31_—“_Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be
    saved._” Instances of the use of πιστεύω, in the sense of trustful
    committance or surrender, are: _John 2:24_—“_But Jesus did not
    trust himself unto them, for that he knew all men_”; _Rom.
    3:2_—“_they were intrusted with the oracles of God_”; _Gal.
    2:7_—“_when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of
    the uncircumcision._” πίστις = “trustful self‐surrender to God”
    (Meyer).

    In this surrender of the soul to Christ’s governance we have the
    guarantee that the gospel salvation is not an unmoral trust which
    permits continuance in sin. Aside from the fact that saving faith
    is only the obverse side of true repentance, the very nature of
    faith, as submission to Christ, the embodied law of God and source
    of spiritual life, makes a life of obedience and virtue to be its
    natural and necessary result. Faith is not only a declaration of
    dependence, it is also a vow of allegiance. The sick man’s faith
    in his physician is shown not simply by trusting him, but by
    obeying him. Doing what the doctor says is the very proof of
    trust. No physician will long care for a patient who refuses to
    obey his orders. Faith is self‐surrender to the great Physician,
    and a leaving of our case in his hands. But it is also the taking
    of his prescriptions, and the active following of his directions.

    We need to emphasize this active element in saving faith, lest men
    get the notion that mere indolent acquiescence in Christ’s plan
    will save them. Faith is not simple receptiveness. It gives
    itself, as well as receives Christ. It is not mere passivity,—it
    is also self‐committal. As all reception of knowledge is active,
    and there must be attention if we would learn, so all reception of
    Christ is active, and there must be intelligent giving as well as
    taking. The Watchman, April 30, 1896—“Faith is more than belief
    and trust. It is the action of the soul going out toward its
    object. It is the exercise of a spiritual faculty akin to that of
    sight; it establishes a personal relation between the one who
    exercises faith and the one who is its object. When the
    intellectual feature predominates, we call it belief; when the
    emotional element predominates, we call it trust. This faith is at
    once ‘An affirmation and an act Which bids eternal truth be
    present fact.’ ”

    There are great things received in faith, but nothing is received
    by the man who does not first give himself to Christ. A conquered
    general came into the presence of his conqueror and held out to
    him his hand: “Your sword first, sir!” was the response. But when
    General Lee _offered_ his sword to General Grant at Appomattox,
    the latter returned it, saying: “No, keep your sword, and go to
    your home.” Jacobi said that “Faith is the reflection of the
    divine knowing and willing in the finite spirit of man.” G. B.
    Foster, in Indiana Baptist Outlook, June 19, 1902—“Catholic
    orthodoxy is wrong in holding that the authority for faith is the
    church; for that would be an external authority. Protestant
    orthodoxy is wrong in holding that the authority for faith is the
    book; for that would be an external authority. Liberalism is wrong
    in holding that the reason is the authority for faith. The
    authority for faith is the revelation of God.” Faith in this
    revelation is faith in Christ the Revealer. It puts the soul in
    connection with the source of all knowledge and power. As the
    connection of a wire with the reservoir of electric force makes it
    the channel of vast energies, so the smallest measure of faith,
    any real connection of the soul with Christ, makes it the
    recipient of divine resources.

    While faith is the act of the whole man, and intellect, affection,
    and will are involved in it, will is the all‐inclusive and most
    important of its elements. No other exercise of will is such a
    revelation of our being and so decisive of our destiny. The
    voluntary element in faith is illustrated in marriage. Here one
    party pledges the future in permanent self‐surrender, commits
    one’s self to another person in confidence that this future, with
    all its new revelations of character, will only justify the
    decision made. Yet this is rational; see Holland, in Lux Mundi,
    46‐48. To put one’s hand into molten iron, even though one knows
    of the “spheroidal state” that gives impunity, requires an
    exertion of will; and not all workmen in metals are courageous
    enough to make the venture. The child who leaped into the dark
    cellar, in confidence that her father’s arms would be open to
    receive her, did not act irrationally, because she had heard her
    father’s command and trusted his promise. Though faith in Christ
    is a leap in the dark, and requires a mighty exercise of will, it
    is nevertheless the highest wisdom, because Christ’s word is
    pledged that “_him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out_”
    (_John 6:37_).

    J. W. A. Stewart: “Faith is 1. a bond between persons, trust,
    confidence; 2. it makes ventures, takes much for granted; 3. its
    security is the character and power of him in whom we believe,—not
    our faith, but his fidelity, is the guarantee that our faith is
    rational.” Kant said that nothing in the world is good but the
    good will which freely obeys the law of the good. Pfleiderer
    defines faith as the free surrender of the heart to the gracious
    will of God. Kaftan, Dogmatik, 21, declares that the Christian
    religion is essentially faith, and that this faith manifests
    itself as 1. doctrine; 2. worship; 3. morality.


(_b_) Reception and appropriation of Christ, as the source of pardon and
spiritual life.


    _John 1:12_—“_as many as received him, to them gave he the right
    to become children of God, even to them that believe on his
    name_”; _4:14_—“_whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give
    him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall
    become in him a well of water springing up unto eternal life_”;
    _6:53_—“_Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his
    blood, ye have not life in yourselves_”; _20:31_—“_these are
    written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
    God; and that believing ye may have life in his name_”; _Eph.
    3:17_—“_that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith_”;
    _Heb. 11:1_—“_Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a
    conviction of things not seen_”; _Rev. 3:20_—“_Behold, I stand at
    the door and knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I
    will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me._”

    The three constituents of faith may be illustrated from the
    thought, feeling, and action of a person who stands by a boat,
    upon a little island which the rising stream threatens to
    submerge. He first regards the boat from a purely intellectual
    point of view,—it is merely an _actually existing boat_. As the
    stream rises, he looks at it, secondly, with some accession of
    emotion,—his prospective danger awakens in him the conviction that
    it is a _good boat for a time of need_, though he is not yet ready
    to make use of it. But, thirdly, when he feels that the rushing
    tide must otherwise sweep him away, a volitional element is
    added,—he gets into the boat, trusts himself to it, accepts it as
    his _present, and only, means of safety_. Only this last faith in
    the boat is faith that saves, although this last includes both the
    preceding. It is equally clear that the getting into the boat may
    actually save a man, while at the same time he may be full of
    fears that the boat will never bring him to shore. These fears may
    be removed by the boatman’s word. So saving faith is not
    necessarily assurance of faith; but it becomes assurance of faith
    when the Holy Spirit “_beareth witness with our spirit, that we
    are children of God_” (_Rom. 8:16_). On the nature of this
    assurance, and on the distinction between it and saving faith, see
    pages 844‐846.

    “Coming to Christ,” “looking to Christ,” “receiving Christ,” are
    all descriptions of faith, as are also the phrases: “surrender to
    Christ,” “submission to Christ,” “closing in with Christ.” Paul
    refers to a confession of faith in _Rom. 10:9_—“_if thou shalt
    confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord._” Faith, then, is a taking
    of Christ as both Savior and Lord; and it includes both
    appropriation of Christ, and consecration to Christ. The voluntary
    element in faith, however, is a giving as well as a taking. The
    giving, or surrender, is illustrated in baptism by submergence;
    the taking, or reception, by emergence. See further on the
    Symbolism of Baptism. McCosh, Div. Government: “Saving faith is
    the consent of the will to the assent of the understanding, and
    commonly accompanied with emotion.” Pres. Hopkins, in Princeton
    Rev., Sept. 1878:511‐540—“In its intellectual element, faith is
    receptive, and believes that God _is_; in its affectional element,
    faith is assimilative, and believes that God is a _rewarder_; in
    its voluntary element, faith is operative, and actually _comes_ to
    God (_Heb. 11:6_).”

    Where the element of surrender is emphasized and the element of
    reception is not understood, the result is a legalistic
    experience, with little hope or joy. Only as we _appropriate_
    Christ, in connection with our _consecration_, do we realize the
    full blessing of the gospel. Light requires two things: the sun to
    shine, and the eye to take in its shining. So we cannot be saved
    without Christ to save, and faith to take the Savior for ours.
    Faith is the act by which we receive Christ. The woman who touched
    the border of Jesus’ garment received his healing power. It is
    better still to keep in touch with Christ so as to receive
    continually his grace and life. But best of all is taking him into
    our inmost being, to be the soul of our soul and the life of our
    life. This is the essence of faith, though many Christians do not
    yet realize it. Dr. Curry said well that faith can never be
    defined because it is a fact of life. It is a merging of our life
    in the life of Christ, and a reception of Christ’s life to
    interpenetrate and energize ours. In faith we must take Christ as
    well as give ourselves. It is certainly true that surrender
    without trust will not make us possessors of God’s peace. F. L.
    Anderson: “Faith is submissive reliance on Jesus Christ for
    salvation: 1. Reliance on Jesus Christ—not mere intellectual
    belief; 2. Reliance on him for salvation—we can never undo the
    past or atone for our sins; 3. Submissive reliance on Christ.
    Trust without surrender will never save.”


The passages already referred to refute the view of the Romanist, that
saving faith is simply implicit assent to the doctrines of the church; and
the view of the Disciple or Campbellite, that faith is merely intellectual
belief in the truth, on the presentation of evidence.


    The Romanist says that faith can coëxist with mortal sin. The
    Disciple holds that faith may and must exist before
    regeneration,—regeneration being completed in baptism. With these
    erroneous views, compare the noble utterance of Luther, Com. on
    Galatians, 1:191, 247, quoted in Thomasius, III, 2:183—“True
    faith,” says Luther, “is that assured trust and firm assent of
    heart, by which Christ is laid hold of,—so that Christ is the
    object of faith. Yet he is not merely the object of faith; but in
    the very faith, so to speak, Christ is present. Faith lays hold of
    Christ, and grasps him as a present possession, just as the ring
    holds the jewel.” Edwards, Works, 4:71‐73; 2:601‐641—“Faith,” says
    Edwards, “includes the whole act of unition to Christ as a Savior.
    The entire active uniting of the soul, or the whole of what is
    called coming to Christ, and receiving of him, is called faith in
    the Scripture.” See also Belief, What Is It? 150‐179, 290‐298.

    Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, 530—“Faith began by being: 1. a simple
    trust in God; then followed, 2. a simple expansion of that
    proposition into the assent to the proposition that God is good,
    and, 3. a simple acceptance of the proposition that Jesus Christ
    was his Son; then, 4. came in the definition of terms, and each
    definition of terms involved a new theory; finally, 5. the
    theories were gathered together into systems, and the martyrs and
    witnesses of Christ died for their faith, not outside but inside
    the Christian sphere; and instead of a world of religious belief
    which resembled the world of actual fact in the sublime unsymmetry
    of its foliage and the deep harmony of its discords, there
    prevailed the most fatal assumption of all, that the symmetry of a
    system is the test of its truth and the proof thereof.” We regard
    this statement of Hatch as erroneous, in that it attributes to the
    earliest disciples no larger faith than that of their Jewish
    brethren. We claim that the earliest faith involved an implicit
    acknowledgement of Jesus as Savior and Lord, and that this faith
    of simple obedience and trust became explicit recognition of our
    Lord’s deity and atonement just so soon as persecution and the
    Holy Spirit disclosed to them the real contents of their own
    consciousness.

    An illustration of the simplicity and saving power of faith is
    furnished by Principal J. R. Andrews, of New London, Conn.,
    Principal of the Bartlett Grammar School. When the steamer
    Atlantic was wrecked off Fisher’s Island, though Mr. Andrews could
    not swim, he determined to make a desperate effort to save his
    life. Binding a life‐preserver about him, he stood on the edge of
    the deck waiting his opportunity, and when he saw a wave moving
    shoreward, he jumped into the rough breakers and was borne safely
    to land. He was saved by faith. He accepted the conditions of
    salvation. Forty perished in a scene where he was saved. In one
    sense he saved himself; in another sense he depended upon God. It
    was a combination of personal activity and dependence upon God
    that resulted in his salvation. If he had not used the life‐
    preserver, he would have perished; if he had not cast himself into
    the sea, he would have perished. So faith in Christ is reliance
    upon him for salvation; but it is also our own making of a new
    start in life and the showing of our trust by action. Tract 357,
    Am. Tract Society—“What is it to believe on Christ? It is: To feel
    your need of him; To believe that he is able and willing to save
    you, and to save you now; and To cast yourself unreservedly upon
    his mercy, and trust in him alone for salvation.”


In further explanation of the Scripture representations, we remark:

(_a_) That faith is an act of the affections and will, as truly as it is
an act of the intellect.

It has been claimed that faith and unbelief are purely intellectual
states, which are necessarily determined by the facts at any given time
presented to the mind; and that they are, for this reason, as destitute of
moral quality and as far from being matters of obligation, as are our
instinctive feelings of pleasure and pain. But this view unwarrantably
isolates the intellect, and ignores the fact that, in all moral subjects,
the state of the affections and will affects the judgment of the mind with
regard to truth. In the intellectual act the whole moral nature expresses
itself. Since the tastes determine the opinions, faith is a moral act, and
men are responsible for not believing.


    _John 3:18‐20_—“_He that believeth on him is not judged: he that
    believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not
    believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is
    the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved
    the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For
    every one that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the
    light, lest his works should be reproved_”; _5:40_—“_ye will not
    come to me, that ye may have life_”; _16:8, 9_—“_And he, when he
    is come, will convict the world in respect of sin ... of sin,
    because they believe not on me_”; _Rev. 2:21_—“_she willed not to
    repent._” Notice that the Revised Version very frequently
    substitutes the voluntary and active terms “disobedience” and
    “disobedient” for the “_unbelief_” and “_unbelieving_” of the
    Authorized Version,—as in _Rom. 15:31_; _Heb. 3:18; 4:6, 11;
    11:31_. See Park, Discourses, 45, 46.

    Savages do not know that they are responsible for their physical
    appetites, or that there is any right and wrong in matters of
    sense, until they come under the influence of Christianity. In
    like manner, even men of science can declare that the intellectual
    sphere has no part in man’s probation, and that we are no more
    responsible for our opinions and beliefs than we are for the color
    of our skin. But faith is not a merely intellectual act,—the
    affections and will give it quality. There is no moral quality in
    the belief that 2 + 2 = 4, because we can not help that belief.
    But in believing on Christ there is moral quality, because there
    is the element of choice. Indeed it may be questioned, whether, in
    every judgment upon moral things, there is not an act of will.

    Hence on _John 7:17_—“_If any man willeth to do his will, he shall
    know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak
    from myself_”—F. L. Patton calls attention to the two common
    errors: (1) that obedience will certify doctrine,—which is untrue,
    because obedience is the result of faith, not _vice versa_; (2)
    that personal experience is the ultimate test of faith,—which is
    untrue, because the Bible is the only rule of faith, and it is one
    thing to receive truth through the feelings, but quite another to
    test truth by the feelings. The text really means, that if any man
    is willing to do God’s will, he shall know whether it be of God;
    and the two lessons to be drawn are: (1) the gospel needs no
    additional evidence; (2) the Holy Ghost is the hope of the world.
    On responsibility for opinions and beliefs, see Mozley, on Blanco
    White, in Essays Philos. and Historical, 2:142; T. T. Smith,
    Hulsean Lectures for 1839. Wilfrid Ward, The Wish to Believe,
    quotes Shakespeare: “Thy wish was father, Harry, to that thought”;
    and Thomas Arnold: “They dared not lightly believe what they so
    much wished to be true.”

    Pascal: “Faith is an act of the will.” Emerson, Essay on Worship:
    “A man bears beliefs as a tree bears apples. Man’s religious faith
    is the expression of what he is.” Bain: “In its essential
    character, belief is a phase of our active nature, otherwise
    called the will.” Nash, Ethics and Revelation, 257—“Faith is the
    creative human answer to the creative divine offer. It is not the
    passive acceptance of a divine favor.... By faith man, laying hold
    of the personality of God in Christ, becomes a true person. And by
    the same faith he becomes, under God, a creator and founder of
    true society.” Inge, Christian Mysticism, 52—“Faith begins with an
    experiment and ends with an experience. But even the power to make
    the experiment is given from above. Eternal life is not γνῶσις,
    but the state of acquiring knowledge—ἴνα γιγνώσκωσιν. It is
    significant that John, who is so fond of the verb ‘to know,’ never
    uses the substantive γνῶσις.” Crane, Religion of To‐morrow,
    148—“ ‘I will not obey, because I do not yet know’? But this is
    making the intellectual side the only side of faith, whereas the
    most important side is the will‐side. Let a man follow what he
    does believe, and he shall be led on to larger faith. Faith is the
    reception of the personal influence of a living Lord, and a
    corresponding action.”

    William James, Will to Believe, 61—“This life is worth living,
    since it is what we make it, from the moral point of view....
    Often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the
    only thing that makes the result come true.... If your heart does
    not _want_ a world of moral reality, your head will assuredly
    never make you believe in one.... Freedom to believe covers only
    living options which the intellect cannot by itself resolve.... We
    are not to put a stopper on our heart, and meantime act as if
    religion were not true”; Psychology, 2:282, 321—“Belief is
    consent, willingness, turning of our disposition. It is the mental
    state or function of cognizing reality. We never disbelieve
    anything except for the reason that we believe something else
    which contradicts the first thing. We give higher reality to
    whatever things we select and emphasize and turn to with a
    will.... We need only in cold blood act as if the thing in
    question were real, and keep acting as if it were real, and it
    will infallibly end by growing into such a connection with our
    life that it will become real. Those to whom God and duty are mere
    names, can make them much more than that, if they make a little
    sacrifice to them every day.”

    E. G. Robinson: “Campbellism makes intellectual belief to be
    saving faith. But saving faith is consent of the heart as well as
    assent of the intellect. On the one hand there is the intellectual
    element: faith is belief upon the ground of evidence; faith
    without evidence is credulity. But on the other hand faith has an
    element of affection; the element of love is always wrapped up in
    it. So Abraham’s faith made Abraham like God; for we always become
    like that which we trust.” Faith therefore is not chronologically
    subsequent to regeneration, but is its accompaniment. As the
    soul’s appropriation of Christ and his salvation, it is not the
    result of an accomplished renewal, but rather the medium through
    which that renewal is effected. Otherwise it would follow that one
    who had not yet believed (_i. e._, received Christ) might still be
    regenerate, whereas the Scripture represents the privilege of
    sonship as granted only to believers. See _John 1:12, 13_—“_But as
    many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children
    of God, even to them that believe on his name: who were born, not
    of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man,
    but of God_”; also _3:5, 6, 10‐15_; _Gal. 3:26_; _2 Pet. 1:3_;
    _cf._ _1 John 5:1_.


(_b_) That the object of saving faith is, in general, the whole truth of
God, so far as it is objectively revealed or made known to the soul; but,
in particular, the person and work of Jesus Christ, which constitutes the
centre and substance of God’s revelation (Acts 17:18; 1 Cor. 1:23; Col.
1:27; Rev. 19:10).

The patriarchs, though they had no knowledge of a personal Christ, were
saved by believing in God so far as God had revealed himself to them; and
whoever among the heathen are saved, must in like manner be saved by
casting themselves as helpless sinners upon God’s plan of mercy, dimly
shadowed forth in nature and providence. But such faith, even among the
patriarchs and heathen, is implicitly a faith in Christ, and would become
explicit and conscious trust and submission, whenever Christ were made
known to them (Mat. 8:11, 12; John 10:16; Acts 4:12; 10:31, 34, 35, 44;
16:31).


    _Acts 17:18_—“_he preached Jesus and the resurrection_”; _1 Cor.
    1:23_—“_we preach Christ crucified_”; _Col. 1:27_—“_this mystery
    among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
    whom we proclaim_”; _Rev. 19:10_—“_the testimony of Jesus is the
    spirit of prophecy._” Saving faith is not belief in a dogma, but
    personal trust in a personal Christ. It is, therefore, possible to
    a child. Dorner: “The object of faith is the Christian
    revelation—God in Christ.... Faith is union with objective
    Christianity—appropriation of the real contents of Christianity.”
    Dr. Samuel Hopkins, the great uncle, defined faith as “an
    understanding, cordial receiving of the divine testimony
    concerning Jesus Christ and the way of salvation by him, in which
    the heart accords and conforms to the gospel.” Dr. Mark Hopkins,
    the great nephew, defined it as “confidence in a personal being.”
    Horace Bushnell: “Faith rests on a person. Faith is that act by
    which one person, a sinner, commits himself to another person, a
    Savior.” In _John 11:25_—“_I am the resurrection and the
    life_”—Martha is led to substitute belief in a person for belief
    in an abstract doctrine. Jesus is “_the resurrection_,” because he
    is “_the life_.” All doctrine and all miracle is significant and
    important only because it is the expression of the living Christ,
    the Revealer of God.

    The object of faith is sometimes represented in the N. T., as
    being God the Father. _John 5:24_—“_He that heareth my word, and
    believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life_”; _Rom. 4:5_—“_to
    him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the
    ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness._” We can explain
    these passages only when we remember that Christ is God
    “_manifested in the flesh_” (_1 Tim. 3:16_), and that “_he that
    hath seen me hath seen the Father_” (_John 14:9_). Man may receive
    a gift without knowing from whom it comes, or how much it has
    cost. So the heathen, who casts himself as a sinner upon God’s
    mercy, may receive salvation from the Crucified One, without
    knowing who is the giver, or that the gift was purchased by agony
    and blood. Denney, Studies in Theology, 154—“No N. T. writer ever
    _remembered_ Christ. They never thought of him as belonging to the
    past. Let us not preach about the _historical_ Christ, but rather,
    about the _living_ Christ; nay, let us preach _him_, present and
    omnipotent. Jesus could say: ‘_Whither I go, ye know the way_’
    (_John 14:4_); for they knew _him_, and he was both the _end_ and
    the _way_.”

    Dr. Charles Hodge unduly restricts the operations of grace to the
    preaching of the incarnate Christ: Syst. Theol., 2:648—“There is
    no faith where the gospel is not heard; and where there is no
    faith, there is no salvation. This is indeed an awful doctrine.”
    And yet, in 2:668, he says most inconsistently: “As God is
    everywhere present in the material world, guiding its operations
    according to the laws of nature; so he is everywhere present with
    the minds of men, as the Spirit of truth and goodness, operating
    on them according to laws of their free moral agency, inclining
    them to good and restraining them from evil.” This presence and
    revelation of God we hold to be through Christ, the eternal Word,
    and so we interpret the prophecy of Caiaphas as referring to the
    work of the personal Christ: _John 11:51, 52_—“_he prophesied that
    Jesus should die for the nation; and not for the nation only, but
    that he might also gather together into one the children of God
    that are scattered abroad._”

    Since Christ is the Word of God and the Truth of God, he may be
    received even by those who have not heard of his manifestation in
    the flesh. A proud and self‐righteous morality is inconsistent
    with saving faith; but a humble and penitent reliance upon God, as
    a Savior from sin and a guide of conduct, is an implicit faith in
    Christ; for such reliance casts itself upon God, so far as God has
    revealed himself,—and the only Revealer of God is Christ. We have,
    therefore, the hope that even among the heathen there may be some,
    like Socrates, who, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit working
    through the truth of nature and conscience, have found the way of
    life and salvation.

    The number of such is so small as in no degree to weaken the
    claims of the missionary enterprise upon us. But that there are
    such seems to be intimated in Scripture: _Mat. 8:11, 12_—“_many
    shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with
    Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven: but the
    sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness_”;
    _John 10:16_—“_And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
    them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and they
    shall become one flock, one shepherd_”; _Acts 4:12_—“_And in none
    other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name
    under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved_”;
    _10:31, 34, 35, 44_—“_Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine
    alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.... Of a truth I
    perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation
    he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to
    him.... While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on
    all them that heard the word_”; _16:31_—“_Believe on the Lord
    Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house._”

    And instances are found of apparently regenerated heathen; see in
    Godet on _John 7:17_, note (vol. 2:277), the account of the so‐
    called “Chinese hermit,” who accepted Christ, saying: “This is the
    only Buddha whom men ought to worship!” Edwards, Life of Brainard,
    173‐175, gives an account “of one who was a devout and zealous
    reformer, or rather restorer, of what he supposed was the ancient
    religion of the Indians.” After a period of distress, he says that
    God “comforted his heart and showed him what he should do, and
    since that time he had known God and tried to serve him; and loved
    all men, be they who they would, so as he never did before.” See
    art. by Dr. Lucius E. Smith, in Bib. Sac., Oct. 1881:622‐645, on
    the question: “Is salvation possible without a knowledge of the
    gospel?” H. B. Smith, System, 323, note, rightly bases hope for
    the heathen, not on morality, but on sacrifice.

    A chief of the Camaroons in S. W. Africa, fishing with many of his
    tribe long before the missionaries came, was overtaken by a storm,
    and while almost all the rest were drowned, he and a few others
    escaped. He gathered his people together afterwards and told the
    story of disaster. He said: “When the canoes upset and I found
    myself battling with the waves, I thought: To whom shall I cry for
    help? I knew that the god of the hills could not help me; I knew
    that the evil spirit would not help me. So I cried to the Great
    Father, Lord, save me! At that moment my feet touched the sand of
    the beach, and I was safe. Now let all my people honor the Great
    Father, and let no man speak a word against him, for he can help
    us.” This chief afterwards used every effort to prevent strife and
    bloodshed, and was remembered by those who came after as a peace‐
    maker. His son told this story to Alfred Saker, the missionary,
    saying “Why did you not come sooner? My father longed to know what
    you have told us; he thirsted for the knowledge of God.” Mr. Saker
    told this in England in 1879.

    John Fiske appends to his book, The Idea of God, 168, 169, the
    following pathetic words of a Kafir, named Sekese, in conversation
    with a French traveler, M. Arbrouseille, on the subject of the
    Christian religion: “Your tidings,” said this uncultured
    barbarian, “are what I want, and I was seeking before I knew you,
    as you shall hear and judge for yourself. Twelve years ago I went
    to feed my flocks; the weather was hazy. I sat down upon a rock,
    and asked myself sorrowful questions; yes, sorrowful, because I
    was unable to answer them. Who has touched the stars with his
    hands—on what pillars do they rest? I asked myself. The waters
    never weary, they know no other law than to flow without ceasing
    from morning till night and from night till morning; but where do
    they stop, and who makes them flow thus? The clouds also come and
    go, and burst in water over the earth. Whence come they—who sends
    them? The diviners certainly do not give us rain; for how could
    they do it? And why do I not see them with my own eyes, when they
    go up to heaven to fetch it? I cannot see the wind; but what is
    it? Who brings it, makes it blow and roar and terrify us? Do I
    know how the corn sprouts? Yesterday there was not a blade in my
    field; to‐day I returned to my field and found some; who can have
    given to the earth the wisdom and the power to produce it? Then I
    buried my head in both hands.”

    On the question whether men are ever led to faith, without
    intercourse with living Christians or preachers, see Life of
    Judson, by his son, 84. The British and Foreign Bible Society
    publish a statement, made upon the authority of Sir Bartle Frere,
    that he met with “an instance, which was carefully investigated,
    in which all the inhabitants of a remote village in the Deccan had
    abjured idolatry and caste, removed from their temples the idols
    which had been worshiped there time out of mind, and agreed to
    profess a form of Christianity which they had deduced from the
    careful perusal of a single Gospel and a few tracts.” Max Müller,
    Chips, 4:177‐189, apparently proves that Buddha is the original of
    St. Josaphat, who has a day assigned to him in the calendar of
    both the Greek and the Roman churches. “Sancte Socrates, ora pro
    nobis.”

    The Missionary Review of the World, July, 1896:519‐523, tells the
    story of Adiri, afterwards called John King, of Maripastoon in
    Dutch Guiana. The Holy Spirit wrought in him mightily years before
    he heard of the missionaries. He was a coal‐black negro, a heathen
    and a fetish worshiper. He was convicted of sin and apparently
    converted through dreams and visions. Heaven and hell were
    revealed to him. He was sick unto death, and One appeared to him
    declaring himself to be the Mediator between God and man, and
    telling him to go to the missionaries for instruction. He was
    persecuted, but he won his tribe from heathenism and transformed
    them into a Christian community.

    S. W. Hamblen, missionary to China, tells of a very earnest and
    consistent believer who lived at rather an obscure town of about
    2800 people. The evangelist went to visit him and found that he
    was a worthy example to those around him. He had become a
    Christian before he had seen a single believer, by reading a
    Chinese New Testament. Although till the evangelist went to his
    house he had never met a Baptist and did not know that there were
    any Baptist churches in existence, yet by reading the New
    Testament he had become not only a Christian but a strong Baptist
    in belief, so strong that he could argue with the missionary on
    the subject of baptism.

    The Rev. K. E. Malm, a pioneer Baptist preacher in Sweden, on a
    journey to the district as far north as Gestrikland, met a woman
    from Lapland who was on her way to Upsala in order to visit Dr.
    Fjellstedt and converse with him as to how she might obtain peace
    with God and get rid of her anxiety concerning her sins. She said
    she had traveled 60 (= 240 English) miles, and she had still far
    to go. Malm improved the opportunity to speak to her concerning
    the crucified Christ, and she found peace in believing on his
    atonement. She became so happy that she clapped her hands, and for
    joy could not sleep that night. She said later: “Now I will return
    home and tell the people what I have found.” This she did, and did
    not care to continue her journey to Upsala, in order to get
    comfort from Dr. Fjellstedt.


(_c_) That the ground of faith is the external word of promise. The ground
of assurance, on the other hand, is the inward witness of the Spirit that
we fulfil the conditions of the promise (Rom. 4:20, 21; 8:16; Eph. 1:13; 1
John 4:13; 5:10). This witness of the Spirit is not a new revelation from
God, but a strengthening of faith so that it becomes conscious and
indubitable.

True faith is possible without assurance of salvation. But if Alexander’s
view were correct, that the object of saving faith is the proposition:
“God, for Christ’s sake, now looks with reconciling love on me, a sinner,”
no one could believe, without being at the same time assured that he was a
saved person. Upon the true view, that the object of saving faith is not a
proposition, but a person, we can perceive not only the simplicity of
faith, but the possibility of faith even where the soul is destitute of
assurance or of joy. Hence those who already believe are urged to seek for
assurance (Heb. 6:11; 2 Peter 1:10).


    _Rom. 4:20, 21_—“_looking unto the promise of God, he wavered not
    through unbelief, but waxed strong through faith, giving glory to
    God, and being fully assured that what he had promised, he was
    able also to perform_”; _8:16_—“_The Spirit himself beareth
    witness with our spirit, that we are children of God_”; _Eph.
    1:13_—“_in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the
    Holy Spirit of promise_”; _1 John 4:13_—“_hereby we know that we
    abide in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his
    Spirit_”; _5:10_—“_He that believeth on the Son of God hath the
    witness in him._” This assurance is not of the essence of faith,
    because believers are exhorted to attain to it: _Heb. 6:11_—“_And
    we desire that each one of you may show the same diligence unto
    the fulness of hope_ [marg.—‘_full assurance_’] _even to the
    end_”; _2 Pet. 1:10_—“_Wherefore, brethren, give the more
    diligence to make your calling and election sure._” _Cf._ _Prov.
    14:14_—“_a good man shall be satisfied from himself._”

    There is need to guard the doctrine of assurance from mysticism.
    The witness of the Spirit is not a new and direct revelation from
    God. It is a strengthening of previously existing faith until he
    who possesses this faith cannot any longer doubt that he possesses
    it. It is a general rule that all our emotions, when they become
    exceedingly strong, also become conscious. Instance affection
    between man and woman.

    Edwards, Religious Affections, in Works, 3:83‐91, says the witness
    of the Spirit is not a new word or suggestion from God, but an
    enlightening and sanctifying influence, so that the heart is drawn
    forth to embrace the truth already revealed, and to perceive that
    it embraces it. “Bearing witness” is not in this case to declare
    and assert a thing to be true, but to hold forth evidence from
    which a thing may be proved to be true: God “_beareth witness ...
    by signs and wonders_” (_Heb. 2:4_). So the “seal of the Spirit”
    is not a voice or suggestion, but a work or effect of the Spirit,
    left as a divine mark upon the soul, to be an evidence by which
    God’s children may be known. Seals had engraved upon them the
    image or name of the persons to whom they belonged. The “seal of
    the Spirit,” the “earnest of the Spirit,” the “witness of the
    Spirit,” are all one thing. The childlike spirit, given by the
    Holy Spirit, is the Holy Spirit’s witness or evidence in us.

    See also illustration of faith and assurance, in C. S. Robinson’s
    Short Studies for S. S. Teachers, 179, 180. Faith should be
    distinguished not only from assurance, but also from feeling or
    joy. Instance Abraham’s faith when he went to sacrifice Isaac; and
    Madame Guyon’s faith, when God’s face seemed hid from her. See, on
    the witness of the Spirit, Short, Bampton Lectures for 1846;
    British and For. Evan. Rev., 1888:617‐631. For the view which
    confounds faith with assurance, see Alexander, Discourses on
    Faith, 63‐118.

    It is important to distinguish saving faith from assurance of
    faith, for the reason that lack of assurance is taken by so many
    real Christians as evidence that they know nothing of the grace of
    God. To use once more a well‐worn illustration: It is getting into
    the boat that saves us, and not our comfortable feelings about the
    boat. What saves us is faith in _Christ_, not faith in _our_
    faith, or faith in _the_ faith. The astronomer does not turn his
    telescope to the reflection of the sun or moon in the water, when
    he can turn it to the sun or moon itself. Why obscure our faith,
    when we can look to Christ?

    The faith in a distant Redeemer was the faith of Christian, in
    Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. Only at the end of his journey does
    Christian have Christ’s presence. This representation rests upon a
    wrong conception of faith as laying hold of a promise or a
    doctrine, rather than as laying hold of the living and present
    Christ. The old Scotch woman’s direction to the inquirer to “grip
    the promise” is not so good as the direction to “grip Christ.” Sir
    Francis Drake, the great English sailor, had for his crest an
    anchor with a cable running up into the sky. A poor boy, taught in
    a mission school in Ireland, when asked what was meant by saving
    faith, replied: “It is grasping God with the heart.”

    The view of Charles Hodge, like that of Alexander, puts doctrine
    before Christ, and makes the formal principle, the supremacy of
    Scripture, superior to the material principle, justification by
    faith. The Shorter Catechism is better: “Faith in Christ is a
    saving grace, whereby we receive and rest _on him alone_ for
    salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel.” If this relation
    of faith to the personal Christ had been kept in mind, much
    religious despondency might have been avoided. Murphy, Natural
    Selection and Spiritual Freedom, 30, 31, tells us that Frances
    Ridley Havergal could never fix the date of her conversion. From
    the age of six to that of fourteen she suffered from religious
    fears, and did not venture to call herself a Christian. It was the
    result of confounding _being_ at peace with God and being
    _conscious_ of that peace. So the mother of Frederick Denison
    Maurice, an admirable and deeply religious woman, endured long and
    deep mental suffering from doubts as to her personal election.

    There is a witness of the Spirit, with some sinners, that they are
    _not_ children of God, and this witness is through the truth,
    though the sinner does not know that it is the Spirit who reveals
    it to him. We call this work of the Spirit conviction of sin. The
    witness of the Spirit that we are children of God, and the
    assurance of faith of which Scripture speaks, are one and the same
    thing, the former designation only emphasizing the source from
    which the assurance springs. False assurance is destitute of
    humility, but true assurance is so absorbed in Christ that self is
    forgotten. Self‐consciousness, and desire to display one’s faith,
    are not marks of true assurance. When we say: “That man has a
    great deal of assurance,” we have in mind the false and self‐
    centered assurance of the hypocrite or the self‐deceiver.

    Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 231—“It has been said that any one who
    can read Edwards’s Religious Affections, and still believe in his
    own conversion, may well have the highest assurance of its
    reality. But how few there were in Edwards’s time who gained the
    assurance, may be inferred from the circumstance that Dr. Hopkins
    and Dr. Emmons, disciples of Edwards and religious leaders in New
    England, remained to the last uncertain of their conversion.” He
    can attribute this only to the semi‐deistic spirit of the time,
    with its distant God and imperfect apprehension of the
    omnipresence and omnipotence of Christ. Nothing so clearly marks
    the practical progress of Christianity as the growing faith in
    Jesus, the only Revealer of God in nature and history as well as
    in the heart of the believer. As never before, faith comes
    directly to Christ, abides in him, and finds his promise true:
    “_Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world_”
    (_Mat. 28:20_). “Nothing before, nothing behind; The steps of
    faith Fall on the seeming void and find The Rock beneath.”


(_d_) That faith necessarily leads to good works, since it embraces the
whole truth of God so far as made known, and appropriates Christ, not only
as an external Savior, but as an internal sanctifying power (Heb. 7:15,
16; Gal. 5:6).

Good works are the proper evidence of faith. The faith which does not lead
men to act upon the commands and promises of Christ, or, in other words,
does not lead to obedience, is called in Scripture a “dead,” that is, an
unreal, faith. Such faith is not saving, since it lacks the voluntary
element—actual appropriation of Christ (James 2:14‐26).


    _Heb. 7:15, 16_—“_another priest, who hath been made, not after
    the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless
    life_”; _Gal. 5:6_—“_For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision
    availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through
    love_”; _James 2:14, 26_—“_What doth it profit, my brethren, if a
    man say he hath faith, but have not works? Can that faith save
    him?... For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so
    faith apart from works is dead._”

    The best evidence that I believe a man’s word is that I act upon
    it. Instance the bank‐cashier’s assurance to me that a sum of
    money is deposited with him to my account. If I am a millionaire,
    the communication may cause me no special joy. My faith in the
    cashier’s word is tested by my going, or not going, for the money.
    So my faith in Christ is evidenced by my acting upon his commands
    and promises. We may illustrate also by the lifting of the trolley
    to the wire, and the resulting light and heat and motion to the
    car that before stood dark and cold and motionless upon the track.
    Salvation by works is like getting to one’s destination by pushing
    the car. True faith depends upon God for energy, but it results in
    activity of all our powers. _Rom. 3:28_—“_We reckon therefore that
    a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law._” We
    are saved only by faith, yet this faith will be sure to bring
    forth good works; see _Gal. 5:6_—“_faith working through love._”
    Dead faith might be illustrated by Abraham Lincoln’s Mississippi
    steamboat, whose whistle was so big that, when it sounded, the
    boat stopped. Confession exhausts the energy, so that none is left
    for action.

    A. J. Gordon, The First Thing in the World, or The Primacy of
    Faith: “David Brainard speaks with a kind of suppressed
    astonishment of what he observed among the degraded North American
    Indians; how, preaching to them the good news of salvation through
    the atonement of Christ and persuading them to accept it by faith,
    and then hastening on in his rapid missionary tours, he found, on
    returning upon his track a year or two later, that the fruits of
    righteousness and sobriety and virtue and brotherly love were
    everywhere visible, though it had been possible to impart to them
    only the slightest moral or ethical teaching.”


(_e_) That faith, as characteristically the inward act of reception, is
not to be confounded with love or obedience, its fruit.

Faith is, in the Scriptures, called a work, only in the sense that man’s
active powers are engaged in it. It is a work which God requires, yet
which God enables man to perform (John 6:29—ἔργον τοῦ Θεοῦ. _Cf._ Rom.
1:17—δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ). As the gift of God and as the mere taking of
undeserved mercy, it is expressly excluded from the category of works upon
the basis of which man may claim salvation (Rom. 3:28; 4:4, 5, 16). It is
not the act of the full soul bestowing, but the act of an empty soul
receiving. Although this reception is prompted by a drawing of heart
toward God inwrought by the Holy Spirit, this drawing of heart is not yet
a conscious and developed love: such love is the result of faith (Gal.
5:6). What precedes faith is an unconscious and undeveloped tendency or
disposition toward God. Conscious and developed affection toward God, or
love proper, must always follow faith and be the product of faith. So,
too, obedience can be rendered only after faith has laid hold of Christ,
and with him has obtained the spirit of obedience (Rom. 1:5—ὑπακοὴν
πίστεως = “obedience resulting from faith”). Hence faith is not the
procuring cause of salvation, but is only the instrumental cause. The
procuring cause is the Christ, whom faith embraces.


    _John 6:29_—“_This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom
    he hath sent_”; _cf._ _Rom. 1:17_—“_For therein is revealed a
    righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But
    the righteous shall live by faith_”; _Rom. 3:28_—“_We reckon
    therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of
    the law_”; _4:4, 5, 16_—“_Now to him that worketh, the reward is
    not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt. But to him that worketh
    not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith
    is reckoned for righteousness.... For this cause it is of faith,
    that it may be according to grace_”; _Gal. 5:6_—“_For in Christ
    Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision;
    but faith working through love_”; _Rom. 1:5_—“_through whom we
    received grace and apostleship, unto obedience of faith among all
    the nations._”

    Faith stands as an intermediate factor between the unconscious and
    undeveloped tendency or disposition toward God inwrought in the
    soul by God’s regenerating act, on the one hand, and the conscious
    and developed affection toward God which is one of the fruits and
    evidences of conversion, on the other. Illustrate by the motherly
    instinct shown in a little girl’s care for her doll,—a motherly
    instinct which becomes a developed mother’s love, only when a
    child of her own is born. This new love of the Christian is an
    activity of his own soul, and yet it is a “_fruit of the Spirit_”
    (_Gal. 5:22_). To attribute it wholly to himself would be like
    calling the walking and leaping of the lame man (_Acts 3:8_)
    merely a healthy activity of his own. For illustration of the
    priority of faith to love, see Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:533, note;
    on the relation of faith to love, see Julius Müller, Doct. Sin,
    1:116, 117.

    The logical order is therefore: 1. Unconscious and undeveloped
    love; 2. Faith in Christ and his truth; 3. Conscious and developed
    love; 4. Assurance of faith. Faith and love act and react upon one
    another. Each advance in the one leads to a corresponding advance
    in the other. But the source of all is in God. God loves, and
    therefore he gives love to us as well as receives love from us.
    The unconscious and undeveloped love which he imparts in
    regeneration is the root of all Christian faith. The Roman
    Catholic is right in affirming the priority of love to faith, if
    he means by love only this unconscious and undeveloped affection.
    But the Protestant is also right in affirming the priority of
    faith to love, if he means by love a conscious and developed
    affection. Stevens, Johannine Theology, 368—“Faith is not a mere
    passive receptivity. As the acceptance of a divine life, it
    involves the possession of a new moral energy. Faith works by
    love. In faith a new life‐force is received, and new life‐powers
    stir within the Christian man.”

    We must not confound repentance with fruits meet for repentance,
    nor faith with fruits meet for faith. A. J. Gordon, The First
    Thing in the World: “Love is the greatest thing in the world, but
    faith is the first. The tree is greater than the root, but let it
    not boast: ‘_if thou gloriest, it is not thou that bearest the
    root, but the root thee_’ (_Rom. 11:18_). Love has no power to
    branch out and bear fruit, except as, through faith, it is rooted
    in Christ and draws nourishment from him. _1 Pet. 1:5_—‘_who by
    the power of God are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready
    to be revealed in the last time_’; _1 Cor. 13:13_—‘_now abideth
    faith, hope, love_’; _Heb. 10:19‐25_—‘_draw near ... in fulness of
    faith ... hold fast the confession of our hope ... provoke unto
    love and good works_’; _Rom. 5:1‐5_—‘_justified by faith ...
    rejoice in hope ... love of God hath been shed abroad in our
    hearts_’; _1 Thess. 1:1, 2_—‘_work of faith and labor of love and
    patience of hope._’ Faith is the actinic ray, hope the
    luminiferous ray, love the calorific ray. But faith contains the
    principle of the divine likeness, as the life of the parent given
    to the child contains the principle of likeness to the father, and
    will insure moral and physical resemblance in due time.”

    A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 112—“ ‘_The love of the
    Spirit_’ (_Rom. 15:30_) is the love of the Spirit of Christ, and
    it is given us for overcoming the world. The divine life is the
    source of the divine love. Therefore the love of God is ‘_shed
    abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given unto us_’
    (_Rom. 5:5_). Because we are by nature so wholly without heavenly
    affection, God, through the indwelling Spirit, gives us his own
    love with which to love himself.” A. H. Strong, Christ in
    Creation, 286, 287, points out that in _2 Cor. 5:14_—“_the love of
    Christ constraineth us_”—the love of Christ is “not our love to
    Christ, for that is a very weak and uncertain thing; nor even
    Christ’s love to us, for that is still something external to us.
    Each of these leaves a separation between Christ and us, and fails
    to act as a moving power within.... Not simply our love to Christ,
    nor simply Christ’s love to us, but rather Christ’s love _in_ us,
    is the love that constrains. This is the thought of the apostle.”
    The first fruit of this love, in its still unconscious and
    undeveloped state, is faith.


(_f_) That faith is susceptible of increase.

This is evident, whether we consider it from the human or from the divine
side. As an act of man, it has an intellectual, an emotional, and a
voluntary element, each of which is capable of growth. As a work of God in
the soul of man, it can receive, through the presentation of the truth and
the quickening agency of the Holy Spirit, continually new accessions of
knowledge, sensibility, and active energy. Such increase of faith,
therefore, we are to seek, both by resolute exercise of our own powers,
and above all, by direct application to the source of faith in God (Luke
17:5).


    _Luke 17:5_—“_And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our
    faith._” The adult Christian has more faith than he had when a
    child,—evidently there has been increase. _1 Cor. 12:8, 9_—“_For
    to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom ... to
    another faith, in the same Spirit._” In this latter passage, it
    seems to be intimated that for special exigencies the Holy Spirit
    gives to his servants special faith, so that they are enabled to
    lay hold of the general promise of God and make special
    application of it. _Rom. 8:26, 27_—“_the Spirit also helpeth our
    infirmity ... maketh intercession for us ... maketh intercession
    for the saints according to the will of God_”; _1 John 5:14,
    15_—“_And this is the boldness which we have toward him, that, if
    we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us: and if we
    know that he heareth us whatsoever we ask, we know that we have
    the petitions which we have asked of him._” Only when we begin to
    believe, do we appreciate our lack of faith, and the great need of
    its increase. The little beginning of light makes known the
    greatness of the surrounding darkness. _Mark 9:24_—“_I believe;
    help thou mine unbelief_”—was the utterance of one who recognized
    both the need of faith and the true source of supply.

    On the general subject of Faith, see Köstlin, Die Lehre von dem
    Glauben, 13‐85, 301‐341, and in Jahrbuch f. d. Theol., 4:177
    _sq._; Romaine on Faith, 9‐89; Bishop of Ossory, Nature and
    Effects of Faith, 1‐40; Venn, Characteristics of Belief,
    Introduction; Nitzsch, System of Christ. Doct., 294.


IV. Justification.


1. Definition of Justification.


By justification we mean that judicial act of God by which, on account of
Christ, to whom the sinner is united by faith, he declares that sinner to
be no longer exposed to the penalty of the law, but to be restored to his
favor. Or, to give an alternative definition from which all metaphor is
excluded: Justification is the reversal of God’s attitude toward the
sinner, because of the sinner’s new relation to Christ. God did condemn;
he now acquits. He did repel; he now admits to favor.

Justification, as thus defined, is therefore a declarative act, as
distinguished from an efficient act; an act of God external to the sinner,
as distinguished from an act within the sinner’s nature and changing that
nature; a judicial act, as distinguished from a sovereign act; an act
based upon and logically presupposing the sinner’s union with Christ, as
distinguished from an act which causes and is followed by that union with
Christ.


    The word “declarative” does not imply a “spoken” word on God’s
    part,—much less that the sinner hears God speak. That
    justification is sovereign, is held by Arminians, and by those who
    advocate a governmental theory of the atonement. On any such
    theory, justification must be sovereign; since Christ bore, not
    the penalty of the law, but a substituted suffering which God
    graciously and sovereignly accepts in place of our suffering and
    obedience.

    Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1100, wrote a tract for the
    consolation of the dying, who were alarmed on account of sin. The
    following is an extract from it: “_Question_. Dost thou believe
    that the Lord Jesus died for thee? _Answer._ I believe it. _Qu._
    Dost thou thank him for his passion and death? _Ans._ I do thank
    him. _Qu._ Dost thou believe that thou canst not be saved except
    by his death? _Ans._ I believe it.” And then Anselm addresses the
    dying man: “Come then, while life remaineth in thee; in his death
    alone place thy whole trust; in naught else place any trust; to
    his death commit thyself wholly; with this alone cover thyself
    wholly; and if the Lord thy God will to judge thee, say, ‘Lord,
    between thy judgment and me I present the death of our Lord Jesus
    Christ; no otherwise can I contend with thee.’ And if he shall say
    that thou art a sinner, say thou: ‘Lord, I interpose the death of
    our Lord Jesus Christ between my sins and thee.’ If he say that
    thou hast deserved condemnation, say: ‘Lord, I set the death of
    our Lord Jesus Christ between my evil deserts and thee, and his
    merits I offer for those which I ought to have and have not.’ If
    he say that he is wroth with thee, say: ‘Lord, I oppose the death
    of our Lord Jesus Christ between thy wrath and me.’ And when thou
    hast completed this, say again: ‘Lord, I set the death of our Lord
    Jesus Christ between thee and me.’ ” See Anselm, Opera (Migne),
    1:686, 687. The above quotation gives us reason to believe that
    the New Testament doctrine of justification by faith was
    implicitly, if not explicitly, held by many pious souls through
    all the ages of papal darkness.


2. Proof of the Doctrine of Justification.


A. Scripture proofs of the doctrine as a whole are the following:


    _Rom. 1:17_—“_a righteousness of God from faith unto faith_”;
    _3:24‐30_—“_being justified freely by his grace through the
    redemption that is in Christ Jesus ... the justifier of him that
    hath faith in Jesus.... We reckon therefore that a man is
    justified by faith apart from the works of the law ... justify the
    circumcision by faith, and the uncircumsion through faith_”; _Gal.
    3:11_—“_Now that no man is justified by the law before God, is
    evident: for, The righteous shall live by faith; and the law is
    not of faith; but, He that doeth them shall live in them_”; _Eph.
    1:7_—“_in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the
    forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his
    grace_”; _Heb. 11:4, 7_—“_By faith Abel offered unto God a more
    excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he had witness borne
    to him that he was righteous.... By faith Noah ... moved with
    godly fear, prepared an ark ... became heir of the righteousness
    which is according to faith_”; _cf._ _Gen. 15:6_—“_And he believed
    in Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness_”; _Is.
    7:9_—“_If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be
    established_”; _28:16_—“_he that believeth shall not be in
    haste_”; _Hab. 2:4_—“_the righteous shall live by his faith._”

    _Ps. 85:8_—“_He will speak peace unto his people._” God’s great
    word of pardon includes all else. Peace with him implies all the
    covenant privileges resulting therefrom. _1 Cor. 3:21‐23_—“_all
    things are yours,_” because “_ye are Christ’s; and Christ is
    God’s_.” This is not salvation by law, nor by ideals, nor by
    effort, nor by character; although obedience to law, and a loftier
    ideal, and unremitting effort, and a pure character, are
    consequences of justification. Justification is the change in
    God’s attitude toward the sinner which makes all these
    consequences possible. The only condition of justification is the
    sinner’s faith in Jesus, which merges the life of the sinner in
    the life of Christ. Paul expresses the truth in _Gal. 2:16,
    20_—“_Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law
    but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ
    Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by
    the works of the law ... I have been crucified with Christ; and it
    is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that life
    which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is
    in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me._”

    With these observations and qualifications we may assent to much
    that is said by Whiton, Divine Satisfaction, 64, who distinguishes
    between forgiveness and remission: “Forgiveness is the righting of
    disturbed personal relations. Remission is removal of the
    consequences which in the natural order of things have resulted
    from our fault. God forgives all that is strictly personal, but
    remits nothing that is strictly natural in sin. He imparts to the
    sinner the power to bear his burden and work off his debt of
    consequences. Forgiveness is not remission. It is introductory to
    remission, just as conversion is not salvation, but introductory
    to salvation. The prodigal was received by his father, but he
    could not recover his lost patrimony. He could, however, have been
    led by penitence to work so hard that he earned more than he had
    lost.

    “Here is an element in justification which Protestantism has
    ignored, and which Romanism has tried to retain. Debts must be
    paid to the uttermost farthing. The scars of past sins must remain
    forever. Forgiveness converts the persistent energy of past sin
    from a destructive to a constructive power. There is a
    transformation of energy into a new form. Genuine repentance spurs
    us up to do what we can to make up for time lost and for wrong
    done. The sinner is clothed anew with moral power. We are all to
    be judged by our works. That Paul had been a blasphemer was ever
    stimulating him to Christian endeavor. The faith which receives
    Christ is a peculiar _spirit_, a certain moral activity of love
    and obedience. It is not mere reliance on what Christ was and did,
    but active endeavor to become and to do like him. Human justice
    takes hold of _deeds_; divine righteousness deals with
    _character_. Justification by faith is justification by spirit and
    inward principle, apart from the merit of works or performances,
    but never without these. God’s charity takes the will for the
    deed. This is not justification by outward conduct, as the
    Judaizers thought, but by the godly spirit.” If this new spirit be
    the Spirit of Christ to whom faith has united the soul, we can
    accept the statement. There is danger however of conceiving this
    spirit as purely man’s own, and justification as not external to
    the sinner nor as the work of God, but as the mere name for a
    subjective process by which man justifies himself.


B. Scripture use of the special words translated “justify” and
“justification” in the Septuagint and in the New Testament.

(_a_) δικαιόω—uniformly, or with only a single exception, signifies, not
to make righteous, but to declare just, or free from guilt and exposure to
punishment. The only O. T. passage where this meaning is questionable is
Dan. 12:3. But even here the proper translation is, in all probability,
not “they that turn many to righteousness,” but “they that justify many,”
_i. e._, cause many to be justified. For the Hiphil force of the verb, see
Girdlestone, O. T. Syn., 257, 258, and Delitzsch on Is. 53:11; _cf._ James
5:19, 20.


    O. T. texts: _Ex. 23:7_—“_I will not justify the wicked_”; _Deut.
    25:1_—“_they_ [the judges] _shall justify the righteous, and
    condemn the wicked_”; _Job 27:5_—“_Far be it from me that I should
    justify you_”; _Ps. 143:2_—“_in thy sight no man living is
    righteous_”; _Prov. 17:15_—“_He that justifieth the wicked, and he
    that condemneth the righteous, Both of them alike are an
    abomination to Jehovah_”; _Is. 5:23_—“_that justify the wicked for
    a bribe, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from
    him_”; _50:8_—“_He is near that justifieth me_”; _53:11_—“_by the
    knowledge of __ himself shall my righteous servant justify many;
    and he shall bear their iniquities_”; _Dan. 12:3_—“_and they that
    turn many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever_”
    (“they that justify many,” _i. e._, cause many to be justified);
    _cf._ _James 5:19, 20_—“_My brethren, if any among you err from
    the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that he who
    converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul
    from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins._”

    The Christian minister absolves from sin, only as he marries a
    couple: he does not join them,—he only declares them joined. So he
    declares men forgiven, if they have complied with the appointed
    divine conditions. Marriage may be invalid where these conditions
    are lacking, but the minister’s absolution is of no account where
    there is no repentance of sin and faith in Christ; see G. D.
    Boardman, The Church, 178. We are ever to remember that the term
    justification is a forensic term which presents the change of
    God’s attitude toward the sinner in a pictorial way derived from
    the procedure of earthly tribunals. The fact is larger and more
    vital than the figure used to describe it.

    McConnell, Evolution of Immortality, 134, 135—“Christ’s terms are
    biological; those of many theologians are legal. It may be ages
    before we recover from the misfortune of having had the truth of
    Christ interpreted and fixed by jurists and logicians, instead of
    by naturalists and men of science. It is much as though the
    rationale of the circulation of the blood had been wrought out by
    Sir Matthew Hale, or the germ theory of disease interpreted by
    Blackstone, or the doctrine of evolution formulated by a
    legislative council.... The Christ is intimately and vitally
    concerned with the eternal life of men, but the question involved
    is of their living or perishing, not of a system of judicial
    rewards and penalties.” We must remember however that even biology
    gives us only one side of the truth. The forensic conception of
    justification furnishes its complement and has its rights also.
    The Scriptures represent both sides of the truth. Paul gives us
    the judicial aspect, John the vital aspect, of justification.


In Rom. 6:7—ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας = “he that once
died with Christ was acquitted from the service of sin considered as a
penality.” In 1 Cor. 4:4—οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐμαυτῷ σύνοιδα. ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐν τούτῳ
δεδικαίωμαι = “I am conscious of no fault, but that does not in itself
make certain God’s acquittal as respects this particular charge.” The
usage of the epistle of James does not contradict this; the doctrine of
James is that we are justified only by such faith as makes us faithful and
brings forth good works. “He uses the word exclusively in a judicial
sense; he combats a mistaken view of πίστις, not a mistaken view of
δικαιόω”; see James 2:21, 23, 24, and Cremer, N. T. Lexicon, Eng. trans.,
182, 183. The only N. T. passage where this meaning is questionable is
Rev. 22:11; but here Alford, with א, A and B, reads δικαιοσύνην ποιησάτω.


    N. T. texts: _Mat. 12:37_—“_For by thy words thou shalt be
    justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned_”; _Luke
    7:29_—“_And all the people ... justified God, being baptized with
    the baptism of John_”; _10:29_—“_But he, desiring to justify
    himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor?_” _16:15_—“_Ye
    are they that justify yourselves in the sight of men; but God
    knoweth your hearts_”; _18:14_—“_This man went down to his house
    justified rather than the other_”; _cf._ _13_ (lit.) “_God, be
    thou propitiated toward me the sinner_”; _Rom. 4:6‐8_—“_Even as
    David also pronounceth blessing upon the man, unto whom God
    reckoneth righteousness apart from works, saying, Blessed are they
    whose iniquities are forgiven, And whose sins are covered. Blessed
    is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin_”; _cf._ _Ps.
    32:1, 2_,—“_Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, Whose
    sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom Jehovah imputeth not
    iniquity, And in whose spirit there is no guile._”

    _Rom. 5:18, 19_—“_So then as through one trespass the judgment
    came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of
    righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of
    life. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made
    sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many
    be made righteous_”; _8:33, 34_—“_Who shall lay anything to the
    charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth; who is he that
    condemneth?_” _2 Cor. 5:19, 21_—“_God was in Christ reconciling
    the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their
    trespasses.... Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our
    behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God_ [God’s
    justified persons] _in him_”; _Rom. 6:7_—“_he that hath died is
    justified from sin_”; _1 Cor. 4:4_—“_For I know nothing against
    myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is
    the Lord_” (on this last text, see Expositor’s Greek Testament,
    _in loco_).

    _James 2:21, 23, 24_—“_Was not Abraham our father justified by
    works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?...
    Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for
    righteousness.... Ye see that by works __ a man is justified, and
    not only by faith._” James is denouncing a dead faith, while Paul
    is speaking of the necessity of a living faith; or, rather, James
    is describing the nature of faith, while Paul is describing the
    instrument of justification. “They are like two men beset by a
    couple of robbers. Back to back each strikes out against the
    robber opposite him,—each having a different enemy in his eye”
    (Wm. M. Taylor). Neander on _James 2:14‐26_—“James is denouncing
    mere adhesion to an external law, trust in intellectual possession
    of it. With him, law means an inward principle of life. Paul,
    contrasting law as he does with faith, commonly means by law mere
    external divine requisition.... James does not deny salvation to
    him who _has_ faith, but only to him who falsely _professes_ to
    have. When he says that ‘_by works a man is justified_,’ he takes
    into account the outward manifestation only, speaks from the point
    of view of human consciousness. In works only does faith show
    itself as genuine and complete.” _Rev. 22:11_—“_he that is
    righteous, let him do righteousness still_”—not, as the A. V.
    seemed to imply, “he that is just, let him be justified still”—_i.
    e._, made subjectively holy.

    Christ is the great Physician. The physician says: “If you wish to
    be cured, you must trust me.” The patient replies: “I do trust you
    fully.” But the physician continues: “If you wish to be cured, you
    must take my medicines and do as I direct.” The patient objects:
    “But I thought I was to be cured by trust in you. Why lay such
    stress on what I do?” The physician answers: “You must show your
    trust in me by your action. Trust in me, without action in proof
    of trust, amounts to nothing” (S. S. Times). Doing without a
    physician is death; hence Paul says works cannot save. Trust in
    the physician implies obedience; hence James says faith without
    works is dead. Crane, Religion of To‐morrow, 152‐155—“Paul insists
    on apple‐tree righteousness, and warns us against Christmas‐tree
    righteousness.” Sagebeer, The Bible in Court, 77,78—“By works,
    Paul means works of law; James means by works, works of faith.”
    Hovey, in The Watchman, Aug. 27, 1891—“A difference of emphasis,
    occasioned chiefly by the different religious perils to which
    readers were at the time exposed.”


(_b_) δικαίωσις—is the act, in process, of declaring a man just,—that is,
acquitted from guilt and restored to the divine favor (Rom. 4:25; 5:18).


    _Rom. 4:25_—“_who was delivered up for our trespasses, and was
    raised for our justification_”; _5:18_—“_unto all men to
    justification of life._” Griffith‐Jones, Ascent through Christ,
    367, 368—“Raised for our justification” = Christ’s death made our
    justification possible, but it did not consummate it. Through his
    rising from the dead he was able to come into that relationship to
    the believer which restores the lost or interrupted sonship. In
    the church the fact of the resurrection is perpetuated, and the
    idea of the resurrection is realized.


(_c_) δικαίωμα—is the act, as already accomplished, of declaring a man
just,—that is, no longer exposed to penalty, but restored to God’s favor
(Rom. 5:16, 18; _cf._ 1 Tim. 3:16). Hence, in other connections, δικαίωμα
has the meaning of statute, legal decision, act of justice (Luke 1:6; Rom.
2:26; Heb. 9:1).


    _Rom. 5:16, 18_—“_of many trespasses unto justification ...
    through one act of righteousness_”; _cf._ _1 Tim.
    3:16_—“_justified in the spirit._” The distinction between
    δικαίωσις and δικαίωμα may be illustrated by the distinction
    between poesy and poem,—the former denoting something in process,
    an ever‐working spirit; the latter denoting something fully
    accomplished, a completed work. Hence δικαίωμα is used in _Luke
    1:6_—“_ordinances of the Lord_”; _Rom. 2:26_—“_ordinances of the
    law_”; _Heb. 9:1_—“_ordinances of divine service._”


(_d_) δικαιοσύνη—is the state of one justified, or declared just (Rom.
8:10; 1 Cor. 1:30). In Rom. 10:3, Paul inveighs against τὴν ἰδίαν
δικαιοσύνην as insufficient and false, and in its place would put τὴν τοῦ
Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην,—that is, a δικαιοσύνη which God not only requires, but
provides; which is not only acceptable to God, but proceeds from God, and
is appropriated by faith,—hence called δικαιοσύνη πίστεως or ἐκ πίστεως.
“The primary signification of the word, in Paul’s writings, is therefore
that state of the believer which is called forth by God’s act of
acquittal,—the state of the believer as justified,” that is, freed from
punishment and restored to the divine favor.


    _Rom. 8:10_—“_the spirit is life because of righteousness_”; _1
    Cor. 1:30_—“_Christ Jesus, who was made unto us ...
    righteousness_”; _Rom. 10:3_—“_being ignorant of God’s
    righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not
    subject themselves to the righteousness of God._” Shedd, Dogm.
    Theol., 2:542—“The ‘_righteousness of God_’ is the active and
    passive obedience of incarnate God.” See, on δικαιοσύνη, Cremer,
    N. T. Lexicon, Eng. trans., 174; Meyer on Romans, trans.,
    68‐70—“δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ (gen. of origin, emanation from) =
    rightness which proceeds from God—the relation of being right into
    which man is put by God (by an act of God declaring him
    righteous).”

    E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 304—“When Paul addressed those
    who trusted in their own righteousness, he presented salvation as
    attainable only through faith in another; when he addressed
    Gentiles who were conscious of their need of a helper, the
    forensic imagery is not employed. Scarce a trace of it appears in
    his discourses as recorded in the Acts, and it is noticeably
    absent from all the epistles except the Romans and the Galatians.”


Since this state of acquittal is accompanied by changes in the character
and conduct, δικαιοσύνη comes to mean, secondarily, the moral condition of
the believer as resulting from this acquittal and inseparably connected
with it (Rom. 14:17; 2 Cor. 5:21). This righteousness arising from
justification becomes a principle of action (Mat. 3:15; Acts 10:35; Rom.
6:13, 18). The term, however, never loses its implication of a justifying
act upon which this principle of action is based.


    _Rom. 14:17_—“_the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but
    righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit_”; _2 Cor.
    5:21_—“_that we might become the righteousness of God in him_”;
    _Mat. 3:15_—“_Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all
    righteousness_”; _Acts 10:35_—“_in every nation he that feareth
    him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him_”; _Rom.
    6:13_—“_present yourselves unto God, as alive from the dead, and
    your members as instruments of righteousness unto God._” Meyer on
    _Rom. 3:23_—“Every mode of conception which refers redemption and
    the forgiveness of sins, not to a real atonement through the death
    of Christ, but subjectively to the dying and reviving with him
    guaranteed and produced by that death (Schleiermacher, Nitzsch,
    Hofmann), is opposed to the N. T.,—a mixing up of justification
    and sanctification.”

    On these Scripture terms, see Bp. of Ossory, Nature and Effects of
    Faith, 436‐496; Lange, Com., on _Romans 3:24_; Buchanan on
    Justification, 226‐249. _Versus_ Moehler, Symbolism, 102—“The
    forgiveness of sins ... is undoubtedly a remission of the guilt
    and the punishment which Christ hath taken and borne upon himself;
    but it is _likewise_ the transfusion of his Spirit into us”;
    Newman, Lectures on Justification, 68‐143; Knox, Remains; N. W.
    Taylor, Revealed Theology, 310‐372.

    It is a great mistake in method to derive the meaning of δίκαιος
    from that of δικαιοσύνη, and not _vice versa_. Wm. Arnold Stevens,
    in Am. Jour. Theology, April, 1897—“δικαιοσύνη, righteousness, in
    all its meanings, whether ethical or forensic, has back of it the
    idea of _law_; also the idea of _violated_ law; it derives its
    forensic sense from the verb δικαιόω and its cognate noun
    δικαίωσις; δικαιοσύνη therefore is legal acceptableness, _the
    status before the law of a pardoned sinner_.”

    Denney, in Expos. Gk. Test., 2:565—“In truth, ‘sin,’ ‘the law,’
    ‘the curse of the law,’ ‘death,’ are names for something which
    belongs not to the Jewish but to the human conscience; and it is
    only because this is so that the gospel of Paul is also a gospel
    for us. Before Christ came and redeemed the world, all men were at
    bottom on the same footing: Pharisaism, legalism, moralism, or
    whatever it is called, is in the last resort the attempt to be
    good without God, to achieve a righteousness of our own, without
    an initial all‐inclusive immeasurable debt to him; in other words,
    without submitting, as sinful men must submit, to be justified by
    faith apart from works of our own, and to find in that
    justification, and in that only, the spring and impulse of all
    good.”


It is worthy of special observation that, in the passages cited above, the
terms “justify” and “justification” are contrasted, not with the process
of depraving or corrupting, but with the outward act of condemning; and
that the expressions used to explain and illustrate them are all derived,
not from the inward operation of purifying the soul or infusing into it
righteousness, but from the procedure of courts in their judgments, or of
offended persons in their forgiveness of offenders. We conclude that these
terms, wherever they have reference to the sinner’s relation to God,
signify a declarative and judicial act of God, external to the sinner, and
not an efficient and sovereign act of God changing the sinner’s nature and
making him subjectively righteous.


    In the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, session 6,
    chap. 9 is devoted to the refutation of the “inanis hæreticorum
    fiducia”; and Canon 12 of the session anathematizes those who say:
    “fidem justificantem nihil aliud esse quam fiduciam divinæ
    misericordiæ, peccata remittentis propter Christum”; or that
    “justifying faith is nothing but trust in the divine mercy which
    pardons sins for Christ’s sake.” The Roman Catholic doctrine on
    the contrary maintains that the ground of justification is not
    simply the faith by which the sinner appropriates Christ and his
    atoning work, but is also the new love and good works wrought
    within him by Christ’s Spirit. This introduces a subjective
    element which is foreign to the Scripture doctrine of
    justification.

    Dr. E. G. Robinson taught that justification consists of three
    elements: 1. Acquittal; 2. Restoration to favor; 3. Infusion of
    righteousness. In this he accepted a fundamental error of
    Romanism. He says: “Justification and sanctification are not to be
    distinguished as chronologically and statically different.
    Justification and righteousness are the same thing from different
    points of view. Pardon is not a mere declaration of forgiveness—a
    merely arbitrary thing. Salvation introduces a new law into our
    sinful nature which annuls the law of sin and destroys its penal
    and destructive consequences. Forgiveness of sins must be in
    itself a gradual process. The final consequences of a man’s sins
    are written indelibly upon his nature and remain forever. When
    Christ said: ‘Thy sins are forgiven thee’, it was an objective
    statement of a subjective fact. The person was already in a state
    of living relation to Christ. The gospel is damnation to the
    damnable, and invitation, love and mercy to those who feel their
    need of it. We are saved through the enforcement of law on every
    one of us. Forgiveness consists in the removal from consciousness
    of a sense of ill‐desert. Justification, aside from its forensic
    use, is a transformation and a promotion. Sense of forgiveness is
    a sense of relief from a hated habit of mind.” This seems to us
    dangerously near to a denial that justification is an act of God,
    and to an affirmation that it is simply a subjective change in
    man’s condition.

    E. H. Johnson: “If Dr. Robinson had been content to say that the
    divine fiat of justification had the manward effect of
    regeneration, he would have been correct; for the verdict would be
    empty without this manward efficacy. But unfortunately, he made
    the effect a part of the cause, identifying the divine
    justification with its human fruition, the clearance of the past
    with the provision for the future.” We must grant that the words
    _inward_ and _outward_ are misleading, for God is not under the
    law of space, and the soul itself is not in space. Justification
    takes place just as much in man as outside of him. Justification
    and regeneration take place at the same moment, but logically
    God’s act of renewing is the cause and God’s act of approving is
    the effect. Or we may say that regeneration and justification are
    both of them effects of our union with Christ. _Luke 1:37_—“_For
    no word from God shall be void of power._” Regeneration and
    justification may be different aspects of God’s turning—his
    turning us, and his turning himself. But it still is true that
    justification is a change in God and not in the creature.


3. Elements of Justification.


These are two:

A. Remission of punishment.

(_a_) God acquits the ungodly who believe in Christ, and declares them
just. This is not to declare them innocent,—that would be a judgment
contrary to truth. It declares that the demands of the law have been
satisfied with regard to them, and that they are now free from its
condemnation.


    _Rom. 4:5_—“_But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him
    that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for
    righteousness_”; _cf._ _John 3:16_—“_gave his only begotten Son,
    that whosoever believeth on him should not perish_”; see page 856,
    (_a_), and Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:549. _Rom. 5:1_—“_Being
    therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God_”—not
    subjective peace or quietness of mind, but objective peace or
    reconciliation, the opposite of the state of war, in which we are
    subject to the divine wrath. Dale, Ephesians, 67—“Forgiveness may
    be defined: 1. in _personal_ terms, as a cessation of the anger or
    moral resentment of God against sin; 2. in _ethical_ terms, as a
    release from the guilt of sin which oppresses the conscience; 3.
    in _legal_ terms, as a remission of the punishment of sin, which
    is eternal death.”


(_b_) This acquittal, in so far as it is the act of God as judge or
executive, administering law, may be denominated pardon. In so far as it
is the act of God as a father personally injured and grieved by sin, yet
showing grace to the sinner, it is denominated forgiveness.


    _Micah 7:18_—“_Who is a God like into thee, that pardoneth
    iniquity, and passeth over the transgression of the remnant of his
    heritage?_” _Ps. 130:4_—“_But there is forgiveness with thee, That
    thou mayst be feared._” It is hard for us to understand God’s
    feeling toward sin. Forgiveness seems easy to us, largely because
    we are indifferent toward sin. But to the holy One, to whom sin is
    the abominable thing which he hates, forgiveness involves a
    fundamental change of relation, and nothing but Christ’s taking
    the penalty of sin upon him can make it possible. B. Fay Mills: “A
    tender spirited follower of Jesus Christ said to me, not long ago,
    that it had taken him twelve years to forgive an injury that had
    been committed against him.” How much harder for God to forgive,
    since he can never become indifferent to the nature of the
    transgression!


(_c_) In an earthly tribunal, there is no acquittal for those who are
proved to be transgressors,—for such there is only conviction and
punishment. But in God’s government there is remission of punishment for
believers, even though they are confessedly offenders; and, in
justification, God declares this remission.


    There is no forgiveness in nature. F. W. Robertson preached this.
    But he ignored the _vis medicatrix_ of the gospel, in which
    forgiveness is offered to all. The natural conscience says: “I
    must pay my debt.” But the believer finds that “Jesus paid it
    all.” Illustrate by the poor man, who on coming to pay his
    mortgage finds that the owner at death had ordered it to be
    burned, so that now there is nothing to pay. _Ps. 34:22_—“_Jehovah
    redeemeth the soul of his servants, And none of them that take
    refuge in him shall be condemned._”

    A child disobeys his father and breaks his arm. His sin involves
    two penalties, the alienation from his father and the broken arm.
    The father, on repentance, may forgive his child. The personal
    relation is re‐established, but the broken bone is not therefore
    at once reknit. The father’s forgiveness, however, will assure the
    father’s help toward complete healing. So justification does not
    ensure the immediate removal of all the natural consequences of
    our sins. It does ensure present reconciliation and future
    perfection. Clarke, Christian Theology, 364—“Justification is not
    equivalent to acquittal, for acquittal declares that the man has
    not done wrong. Justification is rather the acceptance of a man,
    on sufficient grounds, although he has done wrong.” As the
    Plymouth Brethren say: “It is not the _sin_‐question, but the
    _Son_‐question.” “_Their sins and their iniquities will I remember
    no more_” (_Heb. 10:17_). The father did not allow the prodigal to
    complete the confession he had prepared to make, but interrupted
    him, and dwelt only upon his return home (_Luke 15:22_).


(_d_) The declaration that the sinner is no longer exposed to the penalty
of law, has its ground, not in any satisfaction of the law’s demand on the
part of the sinner himself, but solely in the bearing of the penalty by
Christ, to whom the sinner is united by faith. Justification, in its first
element, is therefore that act by which God, for the sake of Christ,
acquits the transgressor and suffers him to go free.


    _Acts 13:38, 39_—“_Be it known unto you therefore, brethren, that
    through this man is proclaimed unto you remission of sins: and by
    him_ [lit.: ‘in him’] _every one that believeth is justified from
    all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of
    Moses_”; _Rom. 3:24, 26_—“_being justified freely by his grace
    through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ... that he might
    himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in
    Jesus_”; _1 Cor. 6:11_—“_but ye were justified in the name of the
    Lord Jesus_”; _Eph. 1:7_—“_in whom we have our redemption through
    his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the
    riches of his grace._”

    This acquittal is not to be conceived of as the sovereign act of a
    Governor, but rather as a judicial procedure. Christ secures a new
    trial for those already condemned—a trial in which he appears for
    the guilty, and sets over against their sin his own righteousness,
    or rather shows them to be righteous in him. C. H. M.: “When Balak
    seeks to curse the seed of Abraham, it is said of Jehovah: ‘_He
    hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, Neither hath he seen
    perverseness in Israel_’ (_Num. 23:21_). When Satan stands forth
    to rebuke Joshua, the word is: ‘_Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan ...
    is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?_’ (_Zech. 3:2_). Thus
    he ever puts himself between his people and every tongue that
    would accuse them. ‘_Touch not mine anointed ones_,’ he says,
    ‘_and do my prophets no harm_’ (_Ps. 105:15_). ‘_It is God that
    justifieth; who is he that condemneth?_’ (_Rom. 8:33, 34_).” It is
    not sin, then, that condemns,—it is the failure to ask pardon for
    sin, through Christ. Illustrate by the ring presented by Queen
    Elizabeth to the Earl of Essex. Queen Elizabeth did not forgive
    the penitent Countess of Nottingham for withholding the ring of
    Essex which would have purchased his pardon. She shook the dying
    woman and cursed her, even while she was imploring forgiveness.
    There is no such failure of mercy in God’s administration.

    Kaftan, in Am. Jour. Theology, 4:698—“The peculiar characteristic
    of Christian experience is the forgiveness of sins, or
    reconciliation—a forgiveness which is conceived as an unmerited
    gift of God, which is bestowed on man independently of his own
    moral worthiness. Other religions have some measure of revelation,
    but Christianity alone has the clear revelation of this
    forgiveness, and this is accepted by faith. And forgiveness leads
    to a better ethics than any religion of works can show.”


B. Restoration to favor.

(_a_) Justification is more than remission or acquittal. These would leave
the sinner simply in the position of a discharged criminal,—law requires a
positive righteousness also. Besides deliverance from punishment,
justification implies God’s treatment of the sinner as if he were, and had
been, personally righteous. The justified person receives not only
remission of penalty, but the rewards promised to obedience.


    _Luke 15:22‐24_—“_Bring forth quickly the best robe, and put it on
    him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: and bring
    the fatted calf, and kill it, and let us eat, and make merry: for
    this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is
    found_”; _John 3:16_—“_gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
    believeth on him should ... have eternal life_”; _Rom. 5:1,
    2_—“_Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God
    through our Lord Jesus Christ; through whom also we have had our
    access by faith into this grace wherein we stand; and we rejoice
    in hope of the glory of God_”—“_this grace_” being a permanent
    state of divine favor; _1 Cor. 1:30_—“_But of him are ye in Christ
    Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and
    sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written,
    He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord_”; _2 Cor.
    5:21_—“_that we might become the righteousness of God in him._”

    _Gal. 3:6_—“_Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned
    unto him for righteousness_”; _Eph. 2:7_—“_the exceeding riches of
    his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus_”; _3:12_—“_in
    whom we have boldness and access in confidence through our faith
    in him_”; _Phil. 3:8, 9_—“_I count all things to be loss for the
    excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord ... the
    righteousness which is from God by faith_”; _Col.
    1:22_—“_reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to
    present you holy and without blemish and unreprovable before
    him_”; _Tit. 3:4, 7_—“_the kindness of God our Savior ... that,
    being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to
    the hope of eternal life_”; _Rev. 19:8_—“_And it was given unto
    her that she should array herself in fine linen, bright and pure:
    for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints._”

    Justification is setting one right before law. But law requires
    not merely freedom from offence negatively, but all manner of
    obedience and likeness to God positively. Since justification is
    in Christ and by virtue of the believer’s union with Christ, it
    puts the believer on the same footing before the law that Christ
    is on, namely, not only acquittal but favor. _1 Tim. 3:16_—Christ
    was himself “_justified in the spirit_,” and the believer partakes
    of _his_ justification and of the whole of it, _i. e._, not only
    acquittal but favor. _Acts 13:39_—“_in him every one that
    believeth is justified_” _i. e._, in Christ; _1 Cor.
    6:11_—“_justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ_”; _Gal.
    4:5_—“_that we might receive the adoption of sons_”—a part of
    justification; _Rom. 5:11_—“_through whom we have now received the
    reconciliation_”—in justification; _2 Cor. 5:21_—“_that we might
    become the righteousness of God in him_”; _Phil. 3:9_—“_the
    righteousness which is from God by faith_”; _John 1:12_—“_to them
    gave he the right to become children of God_”—emphasis on
    “_gave_”—intimation that the “_becoming children_” is not
    subsequent to the justification, but is a part of it.

    Ellicott on _Tit. 3:7_—“δικαιοθέντες, ‘_justified_,’ in the usual
    and more strict theological sense; not however as implying only a
    mere outward non‐imputation of sin, but as involving a ‘mutationem
    status,’ an acceptance into new privileges, and an enjoyment of
    the benefits thereof (Waterland, Justif, vol. vi, p. 5); in the
    words of the same writer: ‘Justification cannot be conceived
    without some work of the Spirit in conferring a title to
    salvation.’ ” The prisoner who has simply served out his term
    escapes without further punishment and that is all. But the
    pardoned man receives back in his pardon the full rights of
    citizenship, can again vote, serve on juries, testify in court,
    and exercise all his individual liberties, as the discharged
    convict cannot. The Society of Friends is so called, not because
    they are friends to one another, but because they regard
    themselves as friends of God. So, in the Middle Ages, Master
    Eckart, John Tauler, Henry Suso, called themselves the friends of
    God, after the pattern of Abraham; _2 Chron. 20:7_—“_Abraham thy
    friend_”; _James 2:23_—“_Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned
    unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God_”,
    _i. e._, one not merely acquitted from the charge of sin, but also
    admitted into favor and intimacy with God.


(_b_) This restoration to favor, viewed in its aspect as the renewal of a
broken friendship, is denominated reconciliation; viewed in its aspect as
a renewal of the soul’s true relation to God as a father, it is
denominated adoption.


    _John 1:12_—“_But as many as received him, to them gave he the
    right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his
    name_”; _Rom. 5:11_—“_and not only so, but we also rejoice in God
    through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received
    the reconciliation_”; _Gal. 4:4, 5_—“_born under the law, that he
    might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive
    the adoption of sons_”; _Eph. 1:5_—“_having foreordained us unto
    adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself_”; _cf._ _Rom.
    8:23_—“_even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for our
    adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body_”—that is, this
    adoption is completed, so far as the body is concerned, at the
    resurrection.

    Luther called _Psalms 32, 51, 130, 143_, “the Pauline Psalms,”
    because these declare forgiveness to be granted to the believer
    without law and without works. _Ps. 130:3, 4_—“_If thou, Jehovah,
    shouldst mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But there is
    forgiveness with thee, That thou mayest be feared_” is followed by
    _verses 7, 8_—“_O Israel, hope in Jehovah; For with Jehovah there
    is lovingkindness, And with him is plenteous redemption. And he
    will redeem Israel From all his iniquities._” Whitefield was
    rebuked for declaring in a discourse that Christ would receive
    even the devil’s castaways; but that very day, while at dinner at
    Lady Huntington’s, he was called out to meet two women who were
    sinners, and to whose broken hearts and blasted lives that remark
    gave hope and healing.


(_c_) In an earthly pardon there are no special helps bestowed upon the
pardoned. There are no penalties, but there are also no rewards; law
cannot claim anything of the discharged, but then they also can claim
nothing of the law. But what, though greatly needed, is left unprovided by
human government, God does provide. In justification, there is not only
acquittal, but approval; not only pardon, but promotion. Remission is
never separated from restoration.


    After serving a term in the penitentiary, the convict goes out
    with a stigma upon him and with no friends. His past conviction
    and disgrace follow him. He cannot obtain employment. He cannot
    vote. Want often leads him to commit crime again; and then the old
    conviction is brought up as proof of bad character, and increases
    his punishment. Need of Friendly Inns and Refuges for discharged
    criminals. But the justified sinner is differently treated. He is
    not only delivered from God’s wrath and eternal death, but he is
    admitted to God’s favor and eternal life. The discovery of this is
    partly the cause of the convert’s joy. Expecting pardon, at most,
    he is met with unmeasured favor. The prodigal finds the father’s
    house and heart open to him, and more done for him than if he had
    never wandered. This overwhelms and subdues him. The two elements,
    acquittal and restoration to favor, are never separated. Like the
    expulsion of darkness and restoration of light, they always go
    together. No one can have, even if he would have, an incomplete
    justification. Christ’s justification is ours; and, as Jesus’ own
    seamless tunic could not be divided, so the robe of righteousness
    which he provides cannot be cut in two.

    Failure to apprehend this positive aspect of justification as
    restoration to favor is the reason why so many Christians have
    little joy and little enthusiasm in their religious lives. The
    preaching of the magnanimity and generosity of God makes the
    gospel “_the power of God unto salvation_” (_Rom. 1:16_). Edwin M.
    Stanton had ridden roughshod over Abraham Lincoln in the conduct
    of a case at law in which they had been joint counsel. Stanton had
    become vindictive and even violent when Lincoln was made
    President. But Lincoln invited Stanton to be Secretary of War, and
    he sent the invitation by Harding, who knew of all this former
    trouble. When Stanton heard it, he said with streaming eyes: “Do
    you tell me, Harding, that Mr. Lincoln sent this message to me?
    Tell him that such magnanimity will make me work with him as man
    was never served before!”


(_d_) The declaration that the sinner is restored to God’s favor, has its
ground, not in the sinner’s personal character or conduct, but solely in
the obedience and righteousness of Christ, to whom the sinner is united by
faith. Thus Christ’s work is the procuring cause of our justification, in
both its elements. As we are acquitted on account of Christ’s suffering of
the penalty of the law, so on account of Christ’s obedience we receive the
rewards of law.


    All this comes to us in Christ. We participate in the rewards
    promised to his obedience: _John 20:31_—“_that believing ye may
    have life in his name_”; _1 Cor. 3:21‐23_—“_For all things are
    yours; ... all are yours; and ye are Christ’s; and Christ is
    God’s._” Denovan, Toronto Baptist, Dec. 1883, maintains that
    “grace operates in two ways: (1) for the _rebel_ it provides a
    scheme of _justification_,—this is judicial, matter of debt; (2)
    for the _child_ it provides pardon,—fatherly forgiveness on
    repentance.” _Heb. 7:19_—“_the law made nothing perfect ... a
    bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw nigh
    unto God._” This “_better hope_” is offered to us in Christ’s
    death and resurrection. The veil of the temple was the symbol of
    separation from God. The rending of that veil was the symbol on
    the one hand that sin had been atoned for, and on the other hand
    that unrestricted access to God was now permitted us in Christ the
    great forerunner. Bonar’s hymn, “Jesus, whom angel hosts adore,”
    has for its concluding stanza: “’T is finished all: the veil is
    rent. The welcome sure, the access free:—Now then, we leave our
    banishment, O Father, to return to thee!” See pages 749 (_b_), 770
    (_h_).

    James Russell Lowell: “At the devil’s booth all things are sold.
    Each ounce of dross costs its ounce of gold; For a cap and bells
    our lives we pay: Bubbles we buy with a whole soul’s tasking; ’T
    is heaven alone that is given away, ’T is only God may be had for
    the asking.” John G. Whittier: “The hour draws near, howe’er
    delayed and late, When at the Eternal Gate, We leave the words and
    works we call our own, And lift void hands alone For love to fill.
    Our nakedness of soul Brings to that gate no toll; Giftless we
    come to him who all things gives, And live because he lives.”

    H. B. Smith, System of Christian Doctrine, 523, 524—“Justification
    and pardon are not the same in Scripture. We object to the view of
    Emmons (Works, vol. 5), that ‘justification is no more nor less
    than pardon,’ and that ‘God rewards men for their own, and not
    Christ’s, obedience,’ for the reason that the words, as used in
    common life, relate to wholly different things. If a man is
    declared just by a human tribunal, he is not pardoned, he is
    acquitted; his own inherent righteousness, as respects the charge
    against him, is recognized and declared. The gospel proclaims both
    pardon and justification. There is no significance in the use of
    the word ‘justify,’ if pardon be all that is intended....

    “Justification involves what pardon does not, a righteousness
    which is the ground of the acquittal and favor; not the mere favor
    of the sovereign, but the merit of Christ, is at the basis—the
    righteousness which is of God. The ends of the law are so far
    satisfied by what Christ has done, that the sinner can be
    pardoned. The law is not merely set aside, but its great ends are
    answered by what Christ has done in our behalf. God might pardon
    as a sovereign, from mere benevolence (as regard to happiness);
    but in the gospel he does more,—he pardons in consistency with his
    holiness,—upholding that as the main end of all his dealings and
    works. Justification involves acquittal from all the penalty of
    the law, and the inheritance of all the blessings of the redeemed
    state. The penalty of the law—spiritual, temporal, eternal
    death—is all taken away; and the opposite blessings are conferred,
    in and through Christ—the resurrection to blessedness, the gift of
    the Spirit, and eternal life....

    “If justification is forgiveness simply, it applies only to the
    _past_. If it is also a title to life, it includes the future
    condition of the soul. The latter alone is consistent with the
    plan and decrees of God respecting redemption—his seeing the end
    from the beginning. The reason why justification has been taken as
    pardon is two‐fold: first, it _does_ involve pardon,—this is its
    negative side, while it has a positive side also—the title to
    eternal life; secondly, the tendency to resolve the gospel into an
    ethical system. Only our acts of choice as meritorious could
    procure a title to favor, a positive reward. Christ might remove
    the obstacle, but the title to heaven is derived only from what we
    ourselves do.

    “Justification is, therefore, not a merely governmental provision,
    as it must be on any scheme that denies that Christ’s work has
    direct respect to the ends of the law. Views of the atonement
    determine the views on justification, if logical sequence is
    observed. We have to do here, not with views of natural justice,
    but with divine methods. If we regard the atonement simply as
    answering the ends of a governmental scheme, our view must be that
    justification merely removes an obstacle, and the end of it is
    only pardon, and not eternal life.”

    But upon the true view, that the atonement is a complete
    satisfaction to the holiness of God, justification embraces not
    merely pardon, or acquittal from the punishments of law, but also
    restoration to favor, or the rewards promised to actual obedience.
    See also Quenstedt, 3:524; Philippi, Active Obedience of Christ;
    Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:432, 433.


4. Relation of Justification to God’s Law and Holiness.


A. Justification has been shown to be a forensic term. A man may, indeed,
be conceived of as just, in either of two senses: (_a_) as just in moral
character,—that is, absolutely holy in nature, disposition, and conduct;
(_b_) as just in relation to law,—or as free from all obligation to suffer
penalty, and as entitled to the rewards of obedience.

So, too, a man may be conceived of as justified, in either of two senses:
(_a_) made just in moral character; or, (_b_) made just in his relation to
law. But the Scriptures declare that there does not exist on earth a just
man, in the first of these senses (Eccl. 7:20). Even in those who are
renewed in moral character and united to Christ, there is a remnant of
moral depravity.

If, therefore, there be any such thing as a just man, he must be just, not
in the sense of possessing an unspotted holiness, but in the sense of
being delivered from the penalty of law, and made partaker of its rewards.
If there be any such thing as justification, it must be, not an act of God
which renders the sinner absolutely holy, but an act of God which declares
the sinner to be free from legal penalties and entitled to legal rewards.


    _Justus_ is derived from _jus_, and suggests the idea of courts
    and legal procedures. The fact that “justify” is derived from
    _justus_ and _facio_, and might therefore seem to imply the making
    of a man subjectively righteous, should not blind us to its
    forensic use. The phrases “_sanctify the Holy One of Jacob_” (_Is.
    29:23_; _cf._ _1 Pet. 3:15_—“_sanctify in your hearts Christ as
    Lord_”) and “_glorify God_” (_1 Cor. 6:20_) do not mean, to _make_
    God subjectively holy or glorious, for this he _is_, whatever we
    may do; they mean rather, to _declare_, or _show_, him to be holy
    or glorious. So justification is not making a man righteous, or
    even pronouncing him righteous, for no man _is_ subjectively
    righteous. It is rather to count him righteous so far as respects
    his relations to law, to treat him as righteous, or to declare
    that God will, for reasons assigned, so treat him (Payne). So long
    as any remnant of sin exists, no justification, in the sense of
    making holy, can be attributed to man: _Eccl. 7:20_—“_Surely there
    is not a righteous man upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth
    not._” If no man is just, in this sense, then God cannot pronounce
    him just, for God cannot lie. Justification, therefore, must
    signify a deliverance from legal penalties, and an assignment of
    legal rewards. O. P. Gifford: There is no such thing as “salvation
    _by_ character”; what men need is salvation _from_ character. The
    only sense in which salvation by character is rational or
    Scriptural is that suggested by George Harris, Moral Evolution,
    409—“Salvation by character is not self‐righteousness, but Christ
    in us.” But even here it must be remembered that Christ _in_ us
    presupposes Christ _for_ us. The objective atonement for sin must
    come before the subjective purification of our natures. And
    justification is upon the ground of that objective atonement, and
    not upon the ground of the subjective cleansing.

    The Jews had a proverb that if only one man could perfectly keep
    the whole law even for one day, the kingdom of Messiah would at
    once come upon the earth. This is to state in another form the
    doctrine of Paul, in _Rom. 7:9_—“_When the commandment came, sin
    revived, and I died._” To recognize the impossibility of being
    justified by Pharisaic works was a preparation for the gospel; see
    Bruce, Apologetics, 419. The Germans speak of Werk‐, Lehre‐,
    Buchstaben‐, Negations‐, Parteigerechtigkeit; but all these are
    forms of self‐righteousness. Berridge: “A man may steal some gems
    from the crown of Jesus and be guilty only of petty larceny, ...
    but the man who would justify himself by his own works steals the
    crown itself, puts it on his own head, and proclaims himself by
    his own conquests a king in Zion.”


B. The difficult feature of justification is the declaration, on the part
of God, that a sinner whose remaining sinfulness seems to necessitate the
vindicative reaction of God’s holiness against him, is yet free from such
reaction of holiness as is expressed in the penalties of the law.

The fact is to be accepted on the testimony of Scripture. If this
testimony be not accepted, there is no deliverance from the condemnation
of law. But the difficulty of conceiving of God’s declaring the sinner no
longer exposed to legal penalty is relieved, if not removed, by the three‐
fold consideration:

(_a_) That Christ has endured the penalty of the law in the sinner’s
stead.


    _Gal. 3:13_—“_Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having
    become a curse for us._” Denovan: “We are justified by faith,
    instrumentally, in the same sense as a debt is paid by a good note
    or a check on a substantial account in a distant bank. It is only
    the intelligent and honest acceptance of justification already
    provided.” _Rom. 8:3_—“_God, sending his own Son ... condemned sin
    in the flesh_” = the believer’s sins were judged and condemned on
    Calvary. The way of pardon through Christ honors God’s justice as
    well as God’s mercy; _cf._ _Rom. 3:26_—“_that he might himself be
    just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus._”


(_b_) That the sinner is so united to Christ, that Christ’s life already
constitutes the dominating principle within him.


    _Gal. 2:20_—“_I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no
    longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me._” God does not
    justify any man whom he does not foresee that he can and will
    sanctify. Some prophecies produce their own fulfilment. Tell a man
    he is brave, and you help him to become so. So declaratory
    justification, when published in the heart by the Holy Spirit,
    helps to make men just. Harris, God the Creator, 2:332—“The
    objection to the doctrine of justification by faith insists that
    justification must be conditioned, not on faith, but on right
    character. But justification by faith is itself the doctrine of a
    justification conditioned on right character, because faith in God
    is the only possible beginning of right character, either in men
    or angels.” Gould, Bib. Theol. N. T., 67‐79, in a similar manner
    argues that Paul’s emphasis is on the spiritual effect of the
    death of our Lord, rather than on its expiatory effect. The course
    of thought in the Epistle to the Romans seems to us to contradict
    this view. Sin and the objective atonement for sin are first
    treated; only after justification comes the sanctification of the
    believer. Still it is true that justification is never the sole
    work of God in the soul. The same Christ in union with whom we are
    justified does at that same moment a work of regeneration which is
    followed by sanctification.


(_c_) That this life of Christ is a power in the soul which will
gradually, but infallibly, extirpate all remaining depravity, until the
whole physical and moral nature is perfectly conformed to the divine
holiness.


    _Phil. 3:21_—“_who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation,
    that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, according to
    the working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto
    himself_”; _Col. 3:1‐4_—“_If then ye were raised together with
    Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated on
    the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things that are above,
    not on the things that are upon the earth. For ye died, and your
    life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life,
    shall be manifested, then shall ye also with him be manifested in
    glory._”

    Truth of fact, and ideal truth, are not opposed to each other. F.
    W. Robertson, Lectures and Addresses, 256—“When the agriculturist
    sees a small, white, almond‐like thing rising from the ground, he
    calls that an oak; but this is not a truth of fact, it is an ideal
    truth. The oak is a large tree, with spreading branches and leaves
    and acorns; but that is only a thing an inch long, and
    imperceptible in all its development; yet the agriculturist sees
    in it the idea of what it shall be, and, if I may borrow a
    Scriptural phrase, he _imputes_ to it the majesty, and excellence,
    and glory, that is to be hereafter.” This method of representation
    is effective and unobjectionable, so long as we remember that the
    force which is to bring about this future development and
    perfection is not the force of unassisted human nature, but rather
    the force of Christ and his indwelling Spirit. See Philippi,
    Glaubenslehre, v, 1:201‐208.

    Gore, Incarnation, 224—“’Looking at the mother,’ wrote George
    Eliot of Mrs. Garth in The Mill on the Floss, ‘you might hope that
    the daughter would become like her—which is a prospective
    advantage equal to a dowry—the mother too often standing behind
    the daughter like a malignant prophecy: Such as I am, she will
    shortly be.’ George Eliot imputes by anticipation to the daughter
    the merits of the mother, because her life is, so to speak, of the
    same piece. Now, by new birth and spiritual union, our life is of
    the same piece with the life of Jesus. Thus he, our elder brother,
    stands behind us, his people, as a prophecy of all good. Thus God
    accepts us, deals with us, ‘_in the Beloved_,’ rating us at
    something of his value, imputing to us his merits, because in
    fact, except we be reprobates, he himself is the most powerful and
    real force at work in us.”


5. Relation of Justification to Union with Christ and the Work of the
Spirit.


A. Since the sinner, at the moment of justification, is not yet completely
transformed in character, we have seen that God can declare him just, not
on account of what he is in himself, but only on account of what Christ
is. The ground of justification is therefore not, (_a_) as the Romanists
hold, a new righteousness and love infused into us, and now constituting
our moral character; nor, (_b_) as Osiander taught, the essential
righteousness of Christ’s divine nature, which has become ours by faith;
but (_c_) the satisfaction and obedience of Christ, as the head of a new
humanity, and as embracing in himself all believers as his members.


    Ritschl regarded justification as primarily an endowment of the
    church, in which the individual participated only so far as he
    belonged to the church; see Pfleiderer, Die Ritschl’sche
    Theologie, 70. Here Ritschl committed an error like that of the
    Romanist,—the church is the door to Christ, instead of Christ
    being the door to the church. Justification belongs primarily to
    Christ, then to all who join themselves to Christ by faith, and
    the church is the natural and voluntary aggregation of those who
    in Christ are thus justified. Hence the necessity for the
    resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus. “For as the ministry
    of Enoch was sealed by his reception into heaven, and as the
    ministry of Elijah was also abundantly proved by his translation,
    so also the righteousness and innocence of Christ. But it was
    necessary that the ascension of Christ should be more fully
    attested, because upon his righteousness, so fully proved by his
    ascension, we must depend for all our righteousness. For if God
    had not approved him after his resurrection, and he had not taken
    his seat at his right hand, we could by no means be accepted of
    God” (Cartwright).

    A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 46, 193, 195, 206—“Christ
    must be justified in the spirit and received up into glory, before
    he can be made righteousness to us and we can become the
    righteousness of God in him. Christ’s coronation is the
    indispensable condition of our justification.... Christ the High
    Priest has entered the Holy of Holies in heaven for us. Until he
    comes forth again at the second advent, how can we be assured that
    his sacrifice for us is accepted? We reply: By the gift of the
    Holy Spirit. The presence of the Spirit in the church is the proof
    of the presence of Christ before the throne.... The Holy Spirit
    convinces of righteousness, ‘_because I go unto the Father, and ye
    see me no more_’ (_John 16:10_). We can only know that ‘_we have a
    Paraclete with the Father, even Jesus Christ the Righteous_’ (_1
    John 2:1_), by that ‘_other Paraclete_’ sent forth from the
    Father, even the Holy Spirit (_John 14:25, 26; 15:26_). The
    church, having the Spirit, reflects Christ to the world. As Christ
    manifests the Father, so the church through the Spirit manifests
    Christ. So Christ gives to us his name, ‘Christians,’ as the
    husband gives his name to the wife.”


As Adam’s sin is imputed to us, not because Adam is in us, but because we
were in Adam; so Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us, not because
Christ is in us, but because we are in Christ,—that is, joined by faith to
one whose righteousness and life are infinitely greater than our power to
appropriate or contain. In this sense, we may say that we are justified
through a Christ outside of us, as we are sanctified through a Christ
within us. Edwards: “The justification of the believer is no other than
his being admitted to communion in, or participation of, this head and
surety of all believers.”


    _1 Tim. 1:14_—“_faith and love which is in Christ Jesus_”;
    _3:16_—“_He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the
    spirit_”; _Acts 13:39_—“_and by him_ [lit.: ‘_in him_’] _every one
    that believeth is justified from all things, from which ye could
    not be justified by the law of Moses_”; _Rom. 4:25_—“_who was
    delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised for our
    justification_”; _Eph. 1:6_—“_accepted in the Beloved_”—Rev.
    Vers.: “_freely bestowed on us in the Beloved_”; _1 Cor.
    6:11_—“_justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ._” “We in
    Christ” is the formula of our justification; “Christ in us” is the
    formula of our sanctification. As the water which the shell
    contains is little compared with the great ocean which contains
    the shell, so the actual change wrought within us by God’s
    sanctifying grace is slight compared with the boundless freedom
    from condemnation and the state of favor with God into which we
    are introduced by justification; _Rom. 5:1, 2_—“_Being therefore
    justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus
    Christ; through whom also we have had our access by faith into
    this grace wherein we stand; and we rejoice in hope of the glory
    of God._”

    Here we have the third instance of imputation. The first was the
    imputation of Adam’s sin to us; and the second was the imputation
    of our sins to Christ. The third is now the imputation of Christ’s
    righteousness to us. In each of the former cases, we have sought
    to show that the legal relation presupposes a natural relation.
    Adam’s sin is imputed to us, because we are one with Adam; our
    sins are imputed to Christ, because Christ is one with humanity.
    So here, we must hold that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to
    us, because we are one with Christ. Justification is not an
    arbitrary transfer to us of the merits of another with whom we
    have no real connection. This would make it merely a legal
    fiction; and there are no legal fictions in the divine government.

    Instead of this external and mechanical method of conception, we
    should first set before us the fact of Christ’s justification,
    after he had borne our sins and risen from the dead. In him,
    humanity, for the first time, is acquitted from punishment and
    restored to the divine favor. But Christ’s new humanity is the
    germinal source of spiritual life for the race. He was justified,
    not simply as a private person, but as our representative and
    head. By becoming partakers of the new life in him, we share in
    all he is and all he has done; and, first of all, we share in his
    justification. So Luther gives us, for substance, the formula: “We
    in Christ = justification; Christ in us = sanctification.” And in
    harmony with this formula is the statement quoted in the text
    above from Edwards, Works, 4:66.

    See also H. B. Smith, Presb. Rev., July, 1881—“Union with Adam and
    with Christ is the ground of imputation. But the parallelism is
    incomplete. While the sin of Adam is imputed to us because it is
    ours, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us simply because
    of our union with him, not at all because of our personal
    righteousness. In the one case, character is taken into the
    account; in the other, it is not. In sin, our demerits are
    included; in justification, our merits are excluded.” For further
    statements of Dr. Smith, see his System of Christian Theology,
    524‐552.

    C. H. M. on Genesis, page 78—“The question for every believer is
    not ‘What am I?’ but ‘What is Christ?’ Of Abel it is said: ‘_God
    testified of his gifts_’ (_Heb. 11:4_, A. V.). So God testifies,
    not of the believer, but of his gift,—and his gift is Christ. Yet
    Cain was angry because he was not received _in his sins_, while
    Abel was accepted _in his gift_. This was right, if Abel was
    justified in himself; it was wrong, because Abel was justified
    only in Christ.” See also Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 384‐388,
    392; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 448.


B. The relation of justification to regeneration and sanctification,
moreover, delivers it from the charges of externality and immorality. God
does not justify ungodly men in their ungodliness. He pronounces them just
only as they are united to Christ, who is absolutely just, and who, by his
Spirit, can make them just, not only in the eye of the law, but in moral
character. The very faith by which the sinner receives Christ is an act in
which he ratifies all that Christ has done, and accepts God’s judgment
against sin as his own (John 16:11).


    _John 16:11_—“_of judgment, because the prince of this world hath
    been judged_”—the Holy Spirit leads the believer to ratify God’s
    judgment against sin and Satan. Accepting Christ, the believer
    accepts Christ’s death for sin, and resurrection to life for his
    own. If it were otherwise, the first act of the believer, after
    his discharge, might be a repetition of his offences. Such a
    justification would offend against the fundamental principles of
    justice and the safety of government. It would also fail to
    satisfy the conscience. This clamors not only for pardon, but for
    renewal. Union with Christ has one legal fruit—justification; but
    it has also one moral fruit—sanctification.

    A really guilty man, when acquitted by judge and jury, does not
    cease to be the victim of remorse and fear. Forgiveness of sin is
    not in itself a deliverance from sin. The outward acquittal needs
    to be accompanied by an inward change to be really effective.
    Pardon for sin without power to overcome sin would be a mockery of
    the criminal. Justification for Christ’s sake therefore goes into
    effect through regeneration by the Holy Spirit; see E. H. Johnson,
    in Bib. Sac., July, 1892:362.

    A Buddhist priest who had studied some years in England printed in
    Shanghai not long ago a pamphlet entitled “Justification by Faith
    the only true Basis of Morality.” It argues that any other
    foundation is nothing but pure selfishness, but that morality, to
    have any merit, must be unselfish. Justification by faith supplies
    an unselfish motive, because we accept the work done for us by
    another, and we ourselves work from gratitude, which is not a
    selfish motive. After laying down this Christian foundation, the
    writer erects the structure of faith in the Amida incarnation of
    Buddha. Buddhism opposes to the Christian doctrine of a creative
    Person, only a creative process; sin has relation only to the man
    sinning, and has no relation to Amida Buddha or to the eternal law
    of causation; salvation by faith in Amida Buddha is faith in one
    who is the product of a process, and a product may perish.
    Tennyson: “They are but broken lights of Thee, And thou, O Christ,
    art more than they.”


Justification is possible, therefore, because it is always accompanied by
regeneration and union with Christ, and is followed by sanctification. But
this is a very different thing from the Romanist confounding of
justification and sanctification, as different stages of the same process
of making the sinner actually holy. It holds fast to the Scripture
distinction between justification as a declarative act of God, and
regeneration and sanctification as those efficient acts of God by which
justification is accompanied and followed.


    Both history and our personal observation show that nothing can
    change the life and make men moral, like the gospel of free pardon
    in Jesus Christ. Mere preaching of morality will effect nothing of
    consequence. There never has been more insistence upon morality
    than in the most immoral times, like those of Seneca, and of the
    English deists. As to their moral fruits, we can safely compare
    Protestant with Roman Catholic systems and leaders and countries.
    We do not become right by doing right, for only those can do right
    who have become right. The prodigal son is forgiven before he
    actually confesses and amends (_Luke 15:20, 21_). Justification is
    always accompanied by regeneration, and is followed by
    sanctification; and all three are results of the death of Christ.
    But the sin‐offering must precede the thank‐offering. We must
    first be accepted ourselves before we can offer gifts; _Heb.
    11:4_—“_By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice
    than Cain, through which he had witness borne to him that he was
    righteous, God bearing witness in respect of his gifts._”

    Hence we read in _Eph. 5:25, 26_—“_Christ also loved the church,
    and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having
    cleansed_ = [after he had cleansed] _it by the washing of water
    with the word_” [= regeneration]; _1 Pet. 1:1, 2_—“_elect ...
    according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in
    sanctification of the Spirit_ [regeneration], _unto obedience_
    [conversion] _and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ_
    [justification]”; _1 John 1:7_—“_if we walk in the light, as he is
    in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood
    of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin_”—here the “cleansing”
    refers primarily and mainly to justification, not to
    sanctification; for the apostle himself declares in _verse 8_—“_If
    we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
    not in us._”

    Quenstedt says well, that “justification, since it is an act,
    outside of man, in God, cannot produce an intrinsic change in us.”
    And yet, he says, “although faith alone justifies, yet faith is
    not alone.” Melanchthon: “Sola fides justificat; sed fides non est
    sola.” With faith go all manner of gifts of the Spirit and
    internal graces of character. But we should let go all the
    doctrinal gains of the Reformation if we did not insist that these
    gifts and graces are accompaniments and consequences of
    justification, instead of being a part or a ground of
    justification. See Girdlestone, O. T. Synonyms, 104,
    note—“Justification is God’s declaration that the individual
    sinner, on account of the faith which unites him to Christ, is
    taken up into the relation which Christ holds to the Father, and
    has applied to him personally the objective work accomplished for
    humanity by Christ.”


6. Relation of Justification to Faith.


A. We are justified by faith, rather than by love or by any other grace:
(_a_) not because faith is itself a work of obedience by which we merit
justification,—for this would be a doctrine of justification by works;
(_b_) nor because faith is accepted as an equivalent of obedience,—for
there is no equivalent except the perfect obedience of Christ; (_c_) nor
because faith is the germ from which obedience may spring hereafter,—for
it is not the faith which accepts, but the Christ who is accepted, that
renders such obedience possible; but (_d_) because faith, and not
repentance, or love, or hope, is the medium or instrument by which we
receive Christ and are united to him. Hence we are never said to be
justified διὰ πίστιν, = on account of faith, but only διὰ πίστεως, =
through faith, or ἐκ πίστεως, = by faith. Or, to express the same truth in
other words, while the grace of God is the efficient cause of
justification, and the obedience and sufferings of Christ are the
meritorious or procuring cause, faith is the mediate or instrumental
cause.


    Edwards, Works, 4:69‐73—“Faith justifies, because faith includes
    the whole act of unition to Christ as a Savior. It is not the
    nature of any other graces or virtues directly to close with
    Christ as a mediator, any further than they enter into the
    constitution of justifying faith, and do belong to its nature”;
    Observations on Trinity, 64‐67—“Salvation is not offered to us
    upon any condition, but freely and for nothing. We are to do
    nothing for it,—we are only to take it. This taking and receiving
    is faith.” H. B. Smith, System, 524—“An internal change is a _sine
    qua non_ of justification, but not its meritorious ground.” Give a
    man a gold mine. It is _his_. He has not to work _for_ it; he has
    only to work _it_. Working _for_ life is one thing; working _from_
    life is quite another. The marriage of a poor girl to a wealthy
    proprietor makes her possessor of his riches despite her former
    poverty. Yet her acceptance has not _purchased_ wealth. It is
    hers, not because of what she is or has done, but because of what
    her husband is and has done. So faith is the condition of
    justification, only because through it Christ becomes ours, and
    with him his atonement and righteousness. Salvation comes not
    because our faith saves us, but because it links us to the Christ
    who saves; and believing is only the link. There is no more merit
    in it than in the beggar’s stretching forth his hand to receive
    the offered purse, or the drowning man’s grasping the rope that is
    thrown to him.

    The Wesleyan scheme is inclined to make faith a work. See Dabney,
    Theology, 637. This is to make faith _the_ cause and ground, or at
    least to add it to Christ’s work as a _joint_ cause and ground, of
    justification; as if justification were διὰ πίστιν, instead of διὰ
    πίστεως or ἐκ πίστεως. Since faith is never perfect, this is to go
    back to the Roman Catholic uncertainty of salvation. See Dorner,
    Glaubenslehre, 2:744, 745 (Syst. Doct., 4:206, 207). C. H. M. on
    _Gen. 3:7_—“They made themselves aprons of fig‐leaves, before God
    made them coats of skin. Man ever tries to clothe himself in
    garments of his own righteousness, before he will take the robe of
    Christ’s. But Adam felt himself naked when God visited him, even
    though he had his fig‐leaves on him.”

    We are justified efficiently by the grace of God, meritoriously by
    Christ, instrumentally by faith, evidentially by works. Faith
    justifies, as roots bring plant and soil together. Faith connects
    man with the source of life in Christ. “When the boatman with his
    hook grapples the rock, he does not pull the shore to the boat,
    but the boat to the shore; so, when we by faith lay hold on
    Christ, we do not pull Christ to us, but ourselves to him.” Faith
    is a coupling; the train is drawn, not by the coupling, but by the
    locomotive; yet without the coupling it would not be drawn. Faith
    is the trolley that reaches up to the electric wire; when the
    connection is sundered, not only does the car cease to move, but
    the heat dies and the lights go out. Dr. John Duncan: “I have
    married the Merchant and all his wealth is mine!”

    H. C. Trumbull: “If a man wants to cross the ocean, he can either
    try swimming, or he can trust the captain of a ship to carry him
    over in his vessel. By or through his faith in that captain, the
    man is carried safely to the other shore; yet it is the ship’s
    captain, not the passenger’s faith, which is to be praised for the
    carrying.” So the sick man trusts his case in the hands of his
    physician, and his life is saved by the physician,—yet by or
    through the patient’s faith. This faith is indeed an inward act of
    allegiance, and no mere outward performance. Whiton, Divine
    Satisfaction, 92—“The Protestant Reformers saw that it was by an
    inward act, not by penances or sacraments that men were justified.
    But they halted in the crude notion of a legal court room process,
    a governmental procedure external to us, whereas it is an
    educational, inward process, the awakening through Christ of the
    filial spirit in us, which in the midst of imperfections strives
    for likeness more and more to the Son of God. Justification by
    principle apart from performance makes Christianity the religion
    of the spirit.” We would add that such justification excludes
    education, and is an act rather than a process, an act external to
    the sinner rather than internal, an act of God rather than an act
    of man. The justified person can say to Christ, as Ruth said to
    Boaz: “_Why have I found favor in thy sight, that thou shouldest
    take knowledge of me, seeing I am a foreigner?_” (_Ruth 2:10_).


B. Since the ground of justification is only Christ, to whom we are united
by faith, the justified person has peace. If it were anything in
ourselves, our peace must needs be proportioned to our holiness. The
practical effect of the Romanist mingling of works with faith, as a joint
ground of justification, is to render all assurance of salvation
impossible. (Council of Trent, 9th chap.: “Every man, by reason of his own
weakness and defects, must be in fear and anxiety about his state of
grace. Nor can any one know, with infallible certainty of faith, that he
has received forgiveness of God.”). But since justification is an
instantaneous act of God, complete at the moment of the sinner’s first
believing, it has no degrees. Weak faith justifies as perfectly as strong
faith; although, since justification is a secret act of God, weak faith
does not give so strong assurance of salvation.


    Foundations of our Faith, 216—“The Catholic doctrine declares that
    justification is not dependent upon faith and the righteousness of
    Christ imputed and granted thereto, but on the actual condition of
    the man himself. But there remain in the man an undeniable amount
    of fleshly lusts or inclinations to sin, even though the man be
    regenerate. The Catholic doctrine is therefore constrained to
    assert that these lusts are not in themselves sinful, or objects
    of the divine displeasure. They are allowed to remain in the man,
    that he may struggle against them; and, as they say, Paul
    designates them as sinful, only because they are derived from sin,
    and incite to sin; but they only become sin by the positive
    concurrence of the human will. But is not internal lust
    displeasing to God? Can we draw the line between lust and will?
    The Catholic favors self here, and makes many things _lust_, which
    are really _will_. A Protestant is necessarily more earnest in the
    work of salvation, when he recognizes even the evil desire as sin,
    according to Christ’s precept.”

    All systems of religion of merely human origin tend to make
    salvation, in larger or smaller degree, the effect of human works,
    but only with the result of leaving man in despair. See, in
    Ecclesiasticus 3:30, an Apocryphal declaration that alms make
    atonement for sin. So Romanism bids me doubt God’s grace and the
    forgiveness of sins. See Dorner, Gesch. prot. Theol., 228, 229,
    and his quotations from Luther. “But if the Romanist doctrine is
    true, that a man is justified only in such measure as he is
    sanctified, then: 1. Justification must be a matter of degrees,
    and so the Council of Trent declares it to be. The sacraments
    which sanctify are therefore essential, that one may be
    increasingly justified. 2. Since justification is a continuous
    process, the redeeming death of Christ, on which it depends, must
    be a continuous process also; hence its prolonged reiteration in
    the sacrifice by the Mass. 3. Since sanctification is obviously
    never completed in this life, no man ever dies completely
    justified; hence the doctrine of Purgatory.” For the substance of
    Romanist doctrine, see Moehler, Symbolism, 79‐190; Newman,
    Lectures on Justification, 253‐345; Ritschl, Christian Doctrine of
    Justification, 121‐226.

    A better doctrine is that of the Puritan divine: “It is not the
    quantity of thy faith that shall save thee. A drop of water is as
    true water as the whole ocean. So a little faith is as true faith
    as the greatest. It is not the measure of thy faith that saves
    thee,—it is the blood that it grips to that saves thee. The weak
    hand of the child, that leads the spoon to the mouth, will feed as
    well as the strong arm of a man; for it is not the hand that
    feeds, but the meat. So, if thou canst grip Christ ever so weakly,
    he will not let thee perish.” I am troubled about the money I owe
    in New York, until I find that a friend has paid my debt there.
    When I find that the objective account against me is cancelled,
    then and only then do I have subjective peace.

    A child may be heir to a vast estate, even while he does not know
    it; and a child of God may be an heir of glory, even while,
    through the weakness of his faith, he is oppressed with painful
    doubts and fears. No man is lost simply because of the greatness
    of his sins; however ill‐deserving he may be, faith in Christ will
    save him. Luther’s climbing the steps of St. John Lateran, and the
    voice of thunder: “The just shall live by faith,” are not certain
    as historical facts; but they express the substance of Luther’s
    experience. Not obeying, but receiving, is the substance of the
    gospel. A man cannot merit salvation; he cannot buy it; but one
    thing he must do,—he must take it. And the least faith makes
    salvation ours, because it makes Christ ours.

    Augustine conceived of justification as a continuous process,
    proceeding until love and all Christian virtues fill the heart.
    There is his chief difference from Paul. Augustine believes in sin
    and grace. But he has not the freedom of the children of God, as
    Paul has. The influence of Augustine upon Roman Catholic theology
    has not been wholly salutary. The Roman Catholic, mixing man’s
    subjective condition with God’s grace as a ground of
    justification, continually wavers between self‐righteousness and
    uncertainty of acceptance with God, each of these being fatal to a
    healthful and stable religious life. High‐church Episcopalians,
    and Sacramentalists generally, are afflicted with this distemper
    of the Romanists. Dr. R. W. Dale remarks with regard to Dr. Pusey:
    “The absence of joy in his religious life was only the inevitable
    effect of his conception of God’s method of saving men; in parting
    with the Lutheran truth concerning justification, he parted with
    the springs of gladness.” Spurgeon said that a man might get from
    London to New York provided he took a steamer; but it made much
    difference in his comfort whether he had a first class or a second
    class ticket. A new realization of the meaning of justification in
    our churches would change much of our singing from the minor to
    the major key; would lead us to pray, not _for_ the presence of
    Christ, but _from_ the presence of Christ; would abolish the
    mournful upward inflections at the end of sentences which give
    such unreality to our preaching; and would replace the pessimistic
    element in our modern work and worship with the notes of praise
    and triumph. In the Pilgrim’s Progress, the justification of the
    believer is symbolized by Christian’s lodging in the Palace
    Beautiful whose window opened toward the sunrising.

    Even Luther did not fully apprehend and apply his favorite
    doctrine of justification by faith. Harnack, Wesen des
    Christenthums, 168 _sq._, states the fundamental principles of
    Protestantism as: “1. The Christian religion is wholly given in
    the word of God and in the inner experience which answers to that
    word. 2. The assured belief that the Christian has a gracious God.
    ‘Nun weisz und glaub’ ich’s feste, Ich rühm’s auch ohne Scheu,
    Dasz Gott, der höchst’ und beste, Mein Freund und Vater sei; Und
    dasz in allen Fällen Er mir zur Rechten steh’, Und dampfe Sturm
    und Wellen, Und was mir bringet Weh’.’ 3. Restoration of simple
    and believing worship, both public and private. But Luther took
    too much dogma into Christianity; insisted too much on the
    authority of the written word; cared too much for the _means_ of
    grace, such as the Lord’s Supper; identified the church too much
    with the organized body.” Yet Luther talked of beating the heads
    of the Wittenbergers with the Bible, so as to get the great
    doctrine of justification by faith into their brains. “Why do you
    teach your child the same thing twenty times?” he said. “Because I
    find that nineteen times is not sufficient.”


C. Justification is instantaneous, complete, and final: instantaneous,
since otherwise there would be an interval during which the soul was
neither approved nor condemned by God (Mat. 6:24); complete, since the
soul, united to Christ by faith, becomes partaker of his complete
satisfaction to the demands of law (Col. 2:9, 10); and final, since the
union with Christ is indissoluble (John 10:28, 29). As there are many acts
of sin in the life of the Christian, so there are many acts of pardon
following them. But all these acts of pardon are virtually implied in that
first act by which he was finally and forever justified; as also
successive acts of repentance and faith, after such sins, are virtually
implied in that first repentance and faith which logically preceded
justification.


    _Mat. 6:24_—“_No man can serve two masters_”; _Col. 2:9, 10_—“_in
    him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and in him ye
    are made full, who is the head of all principality and power_”;
    _John 10:28, 29_—“_they shall never perish, and no one shall
    snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who hath given them unto
    me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of
    the Father’s hand._”

    Plymouth Brethren say truly that the Christian has sin in him, but
    not on him, because Christ had sin on him, but not in him. The
    Christian has sin but not guilt, because Christ had guilt but not
    sin. All our sins are buried in the grave with Christ, and
    Christ’s resurrection is our resurrection. Toplady: “From whence
    this fear and unbelief? Hast thou, O Father, put to grief Thy
    spotless Son for me? And will the righteous Judge of men Condemn
    me for that debt of sin, Which, Lord, was laid on thee? If thou
    hast my discharge procured, And freely in my room endured The
    whole of wrath divine, Payment God cannot twice demand, First at
    my bleeding Surety’s hand, And then again at mine. Complete
    atonement thou hast made, And to the utmost farthing paid Whate’er
    thy people owed; How then can wrath on me take place, If sheltered
    in thy righteousness And sprinkled with thy blood? Turn, then, my
    soul, unto thy rest; The merits of thy great High‐priest Speak
    peace and liberty; Trust in his efficacious blood, Nor fear thy
    banishment from God, Since Jesus died for thee!”

    Justification, however, is not eternal in the past. We are to
    repent unto the remission of our sins (_Act 2:38_). Remission
    comes after repentance. Sin is not pardoned before it is
    committed. In justification God grants us actual pardon for past
    sin, but virtual pardon for future sin. Edwards, Works,
    4:104—“Future sins are respected, in that first justification, no
    otherwise than as future faith and repentance are respected in it;
    and future faith and repentance are looked upon by him that
    justifies as virtually implied in that first repentance and faith,
    in the same manner that justification from future sins is implied
    in that first justification.”

    A man is not justified from his sins before he has committed them,
    nor is he saved before he is born. A remarkable illustration of
    the extreme to which hyper‐Calvinism may go is found in Tobias
    Crisp, Sermons, 1:358—“The Lord hath no more to lay to the charge
    of an elect person, yet in the height of iniquity, and in the
    excess of riot, and committing all the abomination that can be
    committed ... than he has to the charge of the saint triumphant in
    glory.” A far better statement is found in Moberly, Atonement and
    Personality, 61—“As there is upon earth no consummated penitence,
    so neither is there any forgiveness consummated.... Forgiveness is
    the recognition, by anticipation, of something which is to be,
    something toward which it is itself a mighty quickening of
    possibilities, but something which is not, or at least is not
    perfectly, yet.... Present forgiveness is inchoate, is
    educational.... It reaches its final and perfect consummation only
    when the forgiven penitent has become at last personally and
    completely righteous. If the consummation is not reached but
    reversed, then forgiveness is forfeited (_Mat. 18:32‐35_).” This
    last exception, however, as we shall see in our discussion of
    Perseverance, is only a hypothetical one. The truly forgiven do
    not finally fall away.


7. Advice to Inquirers demanded by a Scriptural View of Justification.


(_a_) Where conviction of sin is yet lacking, our aim should be to show
the sinner that he is under God’s condemnation for his past sins, and that
no future obedience can ever secure his justification, since this
obedience, even though perfect, could not atone for the past, and even if
it could, he is unable, without God’s help, to render it.


    With the help of the Holy Spirit, conviction of sin may be roused
    by presentation of the claims of God’s perfect law, and by drawing
    attention, first to particular overt transgressions, and then to
    the manifold omissions of duty, the general lack of supreme and
    all‐pervading love to God, and the guilty rejection of Christ’s
    offers and commands. “Even if the next page of the copy book had
    no blots or erasures, its cleanness would not alter the smudges
    and misshapen letters on the earlier pages.” God takes no notice
    of the promise “_Have patience with me, and I will pay thee_”
    (_Mat. 18:29_), for he knows it can never be fulfilled.


(_b_) Where conviction of sin already exists, our aim should be, not, in
the first instance, to secure the performance of external religious
duties, such as prayer, or Scripture‐reading, or uniting with the church,
but to induce the sinner, as his first and all‐inclusive duty, to accept
Christ as his only and sufficient sacrifice and Savior, and, committing
himself and the matter of his salvation entirely to the hands of Christ,
to manifest this trust and submission by entering at once upon a life of
obedience to Christ’s commands.


    A convicted sinner should be exhorted, not first to prayer and
    then to faith, but first to faith, and then to the immediate
    expression of that faith in prayer and Christian activity. He
    should pray, not _for_ faith, but _in_ faith. It should not be
    forgotten that the sinner never sins against so much light, and
    never is in so great danger, as when he is convicted but not
    converted, when he is moved to turn but yet refuses to turn. No
    such sinner should be allowed to think that he has the right to do
    any other thing whatever before accepting Christ. This accepting
    Christ is not an outward act, but an inward act of mind and heart
    and will, although believing is naturally evidenced by immediate
    outward action. To teach the sinner, however apparently well
    disposed, how to believe on Christ, is beyond the power of man.
    God is the only giver of faith. But Scripture instances of faith,
    and illustrations drawn from the child’s taking the father at his
    word and acting upon it, have often been used by the Holy Spirit
    as means of leading men themselves to put faith in Christ.

    Bengel: “Those who are secure Jesus refers to the law; those who
    are contrite he consoles with the gospel.” A man left work and
    came home. His wife asked why. “Because I am a sinner.” “Let me
    send for the preacher.” “I am too far gone for preachers. If the
    Lord Jesus Christ does not save me I am lost.” That man needed
    only to be pointed to the Cross. There he found reason for
    believing that there was salvation for him. In surrendering
    himself to Christ he was justified. On the general subject of
    Justification, see Edwards, Works, 4:64‐132; Buchanan on
    Justification, 250‐411; Owen on Justification, in Works, vol. 5;
    Bp. of Ossory, Nature and Effects of Faith, 48‐152; Hodge, Syst.
    Theol., 3:114‐212; Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 3:133‐200;
    Herzog, Encyclopädie, art.: Rechtfertigung; Bushnell, Vicarious
    Sacrifice, 416‐420, 435.



Section III.—The Application Of Christ’s Redemption In Its Continuation.


Under this head we treat of Sanctification and of Perseverance. These two
are but the divine and the human sides of the same fact, and they bear to
each other a relation similar to that which exists between Regeneration
and Conversion.


I. Sanctification.


1. Definition of Sanctification.


Sanctification is that continuous operation of the Holy Spirit, by which
the holy disposition imparted in regeneration is maintained and
strengthened.


    Godet: “The work of Jesus in the world is twofold. It is a work
    accomplished _for us_, destined to effect _reconciliation_ between
    God and man; it is a work accomplished _in us_, with the object of
    effecting our _sanctification_. By the one, a right _relation_ is
    established between God and us; by the other, the _fruit_ of the
    reëstablished order is secured. By the former, the condemned
    sinner is received into the state of grace; by the latter, the
    pardoned sinner is associated with the life of God.... How many
    express themselves as if, when forgiveness with the peace which it
    procures has been once obtained, all is finished and the work of
    salvation is complete! They seem to have no suspicion that
    salvation consists in the health of the soul, and that the health
    of the soul consists in holiness. Forgiveness is not the
    reëstablishment of health; it is the crisis of convalescence. If
    God thinks fit to declare the sinner righteous, it is in order
    that he may by that means restore him to holiness.” O. P. Gifford:
    “The steamship whose machinery is broken may be brought into port
    and made fast to the dock. She is _safe_, but not _sound_. Repairs
    may last a long time. Christ designs to make us both safe and
    sound. Justification gives the first—safety; sanctification gives
    the second—soundness.”

    Bradford, Heredity and Christian Problems, 220—“To be conscious
    that one is forgiven, and yet that at the same time he is so
    polluted that he cannot beget a child without handing on to that
    child a nature which will be as bad as if his father had never
    been forgiven, is not salvation in any _real_ sense.” We would
    say: Is not salvation in any _complete_ sense. Justification needs
    sanctification to follow it. Man needs God to continue and
    preserve his spiritual life, just as much as he needed God to
    begin it at the first. Creation in the spiritual, as well as in
    the natural world, needs to be supplemented by preservation; see
    quotation from Jonathan Edwards, in Allen’s biography of him, 371.

    Regeneration is instantaneous, but sanctification takes time. The
    “developing” of the photographer’s picture may illustrate God’s
    process of sanctifying the regenerate soul. But it is development
    by new access of truth or light, while the photographer’s picture
    is usually developed in the dark. This development cannot be
    accomplished in a moment. “We try in our religious lives to
    practise instantaneous photography. One minute for prayer will
    give us a vision of God, and we think that is enough. Our pictures
    are poor because our negatives are weak. We do not give God a long
    enough sitting to get a good likeness.”

    Salvation is something past, something present, and something
    future; a past fact, justification; a present process,
    sanctification; a future consummation, redemption and glory.
    David, in Ps. 51:1, 2, prays not only that God will blot out his
    transgressions (justification), but that God will wash him
    thoroughly from his iniquity (sanctification). E. G. Robinson:
    “Sanctification consists _negatively_, in the removal of the penal
    consequences of sin from the moral nature; _positively_, in the
    progressive implanting and growth of a new principle of life....
    The Christian church is a succession of copies of the character of
    Christ. Paul never says: ‘_be ye imitators of me_’ (_1 Cor.
    4:16_), except when writing to those who had no copies of the New
    Testament or of the Gospels.”

    Clarke, Christian Theology, 366—“Sanctification does not mean
    perfection reached, but the progress of the divine life toward
    perfection. Sanctification is the Christianizing of the
    Christian.” It is not simply deliverance from the penalty of sin,
    but the development of a divine life that conquers sin. A. A.
    Hodge, Popular Lectures, 343—“Any man who thinks he is a
    Christian, and that he has accepted Christ for justification, when
    he did not at the same time accept him for sanctification, is
    miserably deluded in that very experience.”


This definition implies:

(_a_) That, although in regeneration the governing disposition of the soul
is made holy, there still remain tendencies to evil which are unsubdued.


    _John 13:10_—“_He that is bathed needeth not save to wash his
    feet, but is clean every whit_ [_i. e._, as a whole]”; _Rom.
    6:12_—“_Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye
    should obey the lusts thereof_”—sin _dwells_ in a believer, but it
    _reigns_ in an unbeliever (C. H. M.). Subordinate volitions in the
    Christian are not always determined in character by the
    fundamental choice; eddies in the stream sometimes run counter to
    the general course of the current.

    This doctrine is the opposite of that expressed in the phrase:
    “the essential divinity of the human.” Not culture, but
    crucifixion, is what the Holy Spirit prescribes for the natural
    man. There are two natures in the Christian, as Paul shows in
    _Romans 7_. The one flourishes at the other’s expense. The vine
    dresser has to cut the rank shoots from self, that all our force
    may be thrown into growing fruit. Deadwood must be cut out; living
    wood must be cut back (_John 15:2_). Sanctification is not a
    matter of course, which will go on whatever we do, or do not do.
    It requires a direct superintendence and surgery on the one hand,
    and, on the other hand a practical hatred of evil on our part that
    coöperates with the husbandry of God.


(_b_) That the existence in the believer of these two opposing principles
gives rise to a conflict which lasts through life.


    _Gal. 5:17_—“_For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the
    Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the
    other; that ye may not do the things that ye would_”—not, as the
    A. V. had it, “_so that ye cannot do the things that ye would_”;
    the Spirit who dwells in believers is represented as enabling them
    successfully to resist those tendencies to evil which naturally
    exist within them; _James 4:5_ (the marginal and better
    reading)—“_That spirit which he made to dwell in us yearneth for
    us even unto jealous envy_”—_i. e._, God’s love, like all true
    love, longs to have its objects wholly for its own. The Christian
    is two men in one; but he is to “_put away the old man_” and “_put
    on the new man_” (_Eph. 4:22, 23_). Compare Ecclesiasticus 2:1—“My
    son, if thou dost set out to serve the Lord, prepare thy soul for
    temptation.”

    _1 Tim. 6:12_—“_fight the good fight of the faith_”—ἀγωνίζου τὸν
    καλὸν ἀγῶνα τῆς πίστεως = the beautiful, honorable, glorious
    fight; since it has a noble helper, incentive, and reward. It is
    the commonest of all struggles, but the issue determines our
    destiny. An Indian received as a gift some tobacco in which he
    found a half dollar hidden. He brought it back next day, saying
    that good Indian had fought all night with bad Indian, one telling
    him to keep, the other telling him to return.


(_c_) That in this conflict the Holy Spirit enables the Christian, through
increasing faith, more fully and consciously to appropriate Christ, and
thus progressively to make conquest of the remaining sinfulness of his
nature.


    _Rom. 8:13, 14_—“_for if ye live after the flesh, ye must die; but
    if by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall
    live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons
    of God_”; _1 Cor. 6:11_—“_but ye were washed, but ye were
    sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus
    Christ, and in the Spirit of our God_”; _James 1:26_—“_If any man
    thinketh himself to be religious, while he bridleth not his tongue
    but deceiveth his heart, this man’s religion is vain_”—see Com. of
    Neander, _in loco_—“That religion is merely imaginary, seeming,
    unreal, which allows the continuance of the moral defects
    originally predominant in the character.” The Christian is
    “_crucified with Christ_” (_Gal. 2:20_); but the crucified man
    does not die at once. Yet he is as good as dead. Even after the
    old man is crucified we are still to mortify him, or put him to
    death (_Rom. 8:13; Col. 3:5_). We are to cut down the old rosebush
    and cultivate only the new shoot that is grafted into it. Here is
    our probation as Christians. So “die Scene wird zum Tribunal”—the
    play of life becomes God’s judgment.

    Dr. Hastings: “When Bourdaloue was probing the conscience of Louis
    XIV, applying to him the words of St. Paul and intending to
    paraphrase them: ‘_For the good which I would, I do not, but the
    evil which I would not, that I do,_’ ‘_I find two men in me_’—the
    King interrupted the great preacher with the memorable
    exclamation: ‘Ah, these two men, I know them well!’ Bourdaloue
    answered: ‘It is already something to _know_ them, Sire; but it is
    not enough,—one of the two must perish.’ ” And, in the genuine
    believer, the old does little by little die, and the new takes its
    place, as “_David waxed stronger and stronger, but the house of
    Saul waxed weaker and weaker_” (_2 Sam. 3:1_). As the Welsh
    minister found himself after awhile thinking and dreaming in
    English, so the language of Canaan becomes to the Christian his
    native and only speech.


2. Explanations and Scripture Proof.


(_a_) Sanctification is the work of God.


    _1 Thess. 5:23_—“_And the God of peace himself sanctify you
    wholly._” Much of our modern literature ignores man’s dependence
    upon God, and some of it seems distinctly intended to teach the
    opposite doctrine. Auerbach’s “On the Heights,” for example,
    teaches that man can make his own atonement; and “The Villa on the
    Rhine,” by the same author, teaches that man can sanctify himself.
    The proper inscription for many modern French novels is:
    “Entertainment here for man and beast.” The _Tendenznovelle_ of
    Germany has its imitators in the sceptical novels of England. And
    no doctrine in these novels is so common as the doctrine that man
    needs no Savior but himself.


(_b_) It is a continuous process.


    _Phil. 1:6_—“_being confident of this very thing, that he who
    began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Jesus
    Christ_”; _3:15_—“_Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be
    thus minded: and if in anything ye are otherwise minded, this also
    shall God reveal unto you_”; _Col. 3:9, 10_—“_lie not one to
    another; seeing that ye have put off the old man with his doings,
    and have put on the new man, that is being renewed unto knowledge
    after the image of him that created him_”; _cf._ _Acts
    2:47_—“_those that were being saved_”; _1 Cor. 1:18_—“_unto us who
    are being saved_”; _2 Cor. 2:15_—“_in them that are being saved_”;
    _1 Thess. 2:12_—“_God, who calleth you into his own kingdom and
    glory._”

    C. H. Parkhurst: “The yeast does not strike through the whole lump
    of dough at a flash. We keep finding unsuspected lumps of meal
    that the yeast has not yet seized upon. We surrender to God in
    instalments. We may not mean to do it, but we do it. Conversion
    has got to be brought down to date.” A student asked the President
    of Oberlin College whether he could not take a shorter course than
    the one prescribed. “Oh yes,” replied the President, “but then it
    depends on what you want to make of yourself. When God wants to
    make an oak, he takes a hundred years, but when he wants to make a
    squash, he takes six months.”


(_c_) It is distinguished from regeneration as growth from birth, or as
the strengthening of a holy disposition from the original impartation of
it.


    _Eph. 4:15_—“_speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all
    things into him, who is the head, even Christ_”; _1 Thess.
    3:12_—“_the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one
    toward another, and toward all men_”; _2 Pet. 3:18_—“_But grow in
    the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ_”;
    _cf._ _1 Pet. 1:23_—“_begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but
    of incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and
    abideth_”; _1 John 3:9_—“_Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no
    sin, because his seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because
    he is begotten of God._” Not sin only, but holiness also, is a
    germ whose nature is to grow. The new love in the believer’s heart
    follows the law of all life, in developing and extending itself
    under God’s husbandry. George Eliot: “The reward of one duty done
    is the power to do another.” J. W. A. Stewart: “When the 21st of
    March has come, we say ‘The back of the winter is broken.’ There
    will still be alternations of frost, but the progress will be
    towards heat. The coming of summer is sure,—in germ the summer is
    already here.” Regeneration is the crisis of a disease;
    sanctification is the progress of convalescence.

    Yet growth is not a uniform thing in the tree or in the Christian.
    In some single months there is more growth than in all the year
    besides. During the rest of the year, however, there is
    solidification, without which the green timber would be useless.
    The period of rapid growth, when woody fibre is actually deposited
    between the bark and the trunk, occupies but four to six weeks in
    May, June, and July. _2 Pet. 1:5_—“_adding on your part all
    diligence, in your faith supply virtue; and in your virtue
    knowledge_”—adding to the central grace all those that are
    complementary and subordinate, till they attain the harmony of a
    chorus (ἐπιχορηγήσατε).


(_d_) The operation of God reveals itself in, and is accompanied by,
intelligent and voluntary activity of the believer in the discovery and
mortification of sinful desires, and in the bringing of the whole being
into obedience to Christ and conformity to the standards of his word.


    _John 17:17_—“_Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth_”; _2
    Cor. 10:5_—“_casting down imaginations, and every high thing that
    is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every
    thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ_”; _Phil. 2:12,
    13_—“_work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it
    is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good
    pleasure_”; _1 Pet. 2:2_—“_as new‐born babes, long for the
    spiritual milk which is without guile, that ye may grow thereby
    unto salvation._” _John 15:3_—“_Already ye are clean because of
    the word which I have spoken unto you._” Regeneration through the
    word is followed by sanctification through the word. _Eph.
    5:1_—“_Be ye therefore imitators of God, as beloved children._”
    Imitation is at first a painful effort of will, as in learning the
    piano; afterwards it becomes pleasurable and even unconscious.
    Children unconsciously imitate the handwriting of their parents.
    Charles Lamb sees in the mirror, as he is shaving, the apparition
    of his dead father. So our likeness to God comes out as we advance
    in years. _Col. 3:4_—“_When Christ who is our life, shall be
    manifested, then shall ye also with him be manifested in glory._”

    Horace Bushnell said that, if the stars did not move, they would
    rot in the sky. The man who rides the bicycle must either go on,
    or go off. A large part of sanctification consists in the
    formation of proper habits, such as the habit of Scripture
    reading, of secret prayer, of church going, of efforts to convert
    and benefit others. Baxter: “Every man must grow, as trees grow,
    downward and upward at once. The visible outward growth must be
    accompanied by an invisible inward growth.” Drummond: “The
    spiritual man having passed from death to life, the natural man
    must pass from life to death.” There must be increasing sense of
    sin: “My sins gave sharpness to the nails, And pointed every
    thorn.” There must be a bringing of new and yet newer regions of
    thought, feeling, and action, under the sway of Christ and his
    truth. There is a grain of truth even in Macaulay’s jest about
    “essentially Christian cookery.”

    A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 63, 109‐111—“The church is
    Christian no more than as it is the organ of the continuous
    passion of Christ. We must suffer with sinning and lost humanity,
    and so ‘_fill up ... that which is lacking of the afflictions of
    Christ_’ (_Col. 1:24_). Christ’s crucifixion must be prolonged
    side by side with his resurrection. There are three deaths: 1.
    death in sin, our natural condition; 2. death for sin, our
    judicial condition; 3. death to sin, our sanctified condition....
    As the ascending sap in the tree crowds off the dead leaves which
    in spite of storm and frost cling to the branches all the winter
    long, so does the Holy Spirit within us, when allowed full sway,
    subdue and expel the remnants of our sinful nature.”


(_e_) The agency through which God effects the sanctification of the
believer is the indwelling Spirit of Christ.


    _John 14:17, 18_—“_the Spirit of truth ... he abideth with you,
    and shall be in you. I will not leave you desolate; I come unto
    you_”; _15:3‐5_—“_Already ye are clean.... Abide in me ... apart
    from me ye can do nothing_”; _Rom. 8:9, 10_—“_the Spirit of God
    dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he
    is none of his. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because
    of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness_”; _1 Cor.
    1:2, 30_—“_sanctified in Christ Jesus ... Christ Jesus, who was
    made unto us ... sanctification_”; _6:19_—“_know ye not that your
    body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have
    from God?_” _Gal. 5:16_—“_Walk by the Spirit, and ye shall not
    fulfil the lust of the flesh_”; _Eph. 5:18_—“_And be not drunken
    with wine, wherein is riot, but be filled with the Spirit_”; _Col.
    1:27‐29_—“_the riches of the glory of this mystery among the
    Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: whom we
    proclaim, admonishing every man and teaching every man in all
    wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ; whereunto
    I labor also, striving according to his working, which worketh in
    me mightily_”; _2 Tim. 1:14_—“_That good thing which was committed
    unto thee guard through the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in us._”

    Christianity substitutes for the old sources of excitement the
    power of the Holy Spirit. Here is a source of comfort, energy, and
    joy, infinitely superior to any which the sinner knows. God does
    not leave the soul to fall back upon itself. The higher up we get
    in the scale of being, the more does the new life need nursing and
    tending,—compare the sapling and the babe. God gives to the
    Christian, therefore, an abiding presence and work of the Holy
    Spirit,—not only regeneration, but sanctification. C. E. Smith,
    Baptism of Fire: “The soul needs the latter as well as the former
    rain, the sealing as well as the renewing of the Spirit, the
    baptism of fire as well as the baptism of water. Sealing gives
    something additional to the document, an evidence plainer than the
    writing within, both to one’s self and to others.”

    “Few flowers yield more honey than serves the bee for its daily
    food.” So we must first live ourselves off from our spiritual
    diet; only what is over can be given to nourish others. Thomas à
    Kempis, Imitation of Christ: “Have peace in thine own heart; else
    thou wilt never be able to communicate peace to others.” Godet:
    “Man is a vessel destined to receive God, a vessel which must be
    enlarged in proportion as it is filled, and filled in proportion
    as it is enlarged.” Matthew Arnold, Morality: “We cannot kindle
    when we will The fire which in the heart resides; The Spirit
    bloweth and is still; In mystery our soul abides. But tasks in
    hours of insight willed Can be in hours of gloom fulfilled. With
    aching hands and bleeding feet, We dig and heap, lay stone on
    stone; We bear the burden and the heat Of the long day, and wish
    ’t were done. Not till the hours of light return All we have built
    do we discern.”


(_f_) The mediate or instrumental cause of sanctification, as of
justification, is faith.


    _Acts 15:9_—“_cleansing their hearts by faith_”; _Rom. 1:17_—“_For
    therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith:
    as it is written, But the righteous shall live from faith._” The
    righteousness includes sanctification as well as justification;
    and the subject of the epistle to the Romans is not simply
    justification by faith, but rather righteousness by faith, or
    salvation by faith. Justification by faith is the subject of
    _chapters 1‐7_; sanctification by faith is the subject of
    _chapters 8‐16_. We are not sanctified by efforts of our own, any
    more than we are justified by efforts of our own.

    God does not share with us the glory of sanctification, any more
    than he shares with us the glory of justification. He must do all,
    or nothing. William Law: “A root set in the finest soil, in the
    best climate, and blessed with all that sun and air and rain can
    do for it, is not in so sure a way of its growth to perfection, as
    every man may be whose spirit aspires after all that which God is
    ready and infinitely desirous to give him. For the sun meets not
    the springing bud that stretches toward him with half that
    certainty as God, the source of all good, communicates himself to
    the soul that longs to partake of him.”


(_g_) The object of this faith is Christ himself, as the head of a new
humanity and the source of truth and life to those united to him.


    _2 Cor. 3:18_—“_we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a
    mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image
    from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit_”; _Eph.
    4:13_—“_till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the
    knowledge of the Son of God, unto a fullgrown man, unto the
    measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ._” Faith here is
    of course much more than intellectual faith,—it is the reception
    of Christ himself. As Christianity furnishes a new source of life
    and energy—in the Holy Spirit: so it gives a new object of
    attention and regard—the Lord Jesus Christ. As we get air out of a
    vessel by pouring in water, so we can drive sin out only by
    bringing Christ in. See Chalmers’ Sermon on The Expulsive Power of
    a New Affection. Drummond, Nat. Law in the Spir. World,
    123‐140—“Man does not grow by making efforts to grow, but by
    putting himself into the conditions of growth by living in
    Christ.”

    _1 John 3:3_—“_every one that hath this hope set on him_ (ἐπ᾽
    αὐτῷ) _purifieth himself, even as he is pure._” Sanctification
    does not begin from within. The objective Savior must come first.
    The hope based on him must give the motive and the standard of
    self‐purification. Likeness comes from liking. We grow to be like
    that which we like. Hence we use the phrase “I like,” as a synonym
    for “I love.” We cannot remove frost from our window by rubbing
    the pane; we need to kindle a fire. Growth is not the product of
    effort, but of life. “_Taking thought_,” or “_being anxious_”
    (_Mat. 6:27_), is not the way to grow. Only take the hindrances
    out of the way, and we grow without care, as the tree does. The
    moon makes no effort to shine, nor has it any power of its own to
    shine. It is only a burnt out cinder in the sky. It shines only as
    it reflects the light of the sun. So we can shine “_as lights in
    the world_” (_Phil. 2:15_), only as we reflect Christ, who is
    “_the Sun of Righteousness_” (_Mal. 4:2_) and “_the Light of the
    world_” (_John 8:12_).


(_h_) Though the weakest faith perfectly justifies, the degree of
sanctification is measured by the strength of the Christian’s faith, and
the persistence with which he apprehends Christ in the various relations
which the Scriptures declare him to sustain to us.


    _Mat. 9:29_—“_According to your faith be it done unto you_”; _Luke
    17:5_—“_Lord, increase our faith_”; _Rom. 12:2_—“_be not fashioned
    according to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of
    your mind, that ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and
    perfect will of God_”; _13:14_—“_But put ye on the Lord Jesus
    Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts
    thereof_”; _Eph. 4:24_—“_put on the new man, that after God hath
    been created in righteousness and holiness of truth_”; _1 Tim.
    4:7_—“_exercise thyself unto godliness._” Leighton: “None of the
    children of God are born dumb.” Milton: “Good, the more
    communicated, the more abundant grows.” Faith can neither be
    stationary nor complete (Westcott, Bible Com. on _John 15:8_—“_so
    shall ye become my disciples_”). Luther: “He who _is_ a Christian
    is _no_ Christian”; “Christianus non in esse, sed in fieri.” In a
    Bible that belonged to Oliver Cromwell is this inscription: “O. C.
    1644. Qui cessat esse melior cessat esse bonus”—“He who ceases to
    be better ceases to be good.” Story, the sculptor, when asked
    which of his works he valued most, replied: “My next.” The
    greatest work of the Holy Spirit is the perfecting of Christian
    character.

    _Col. 1:10_—“_Increasing by the knowledge of God_”—here the
    instrumental dative represents the knowledge of God as the dew or
    rain which nurtures the growth of the plant (Lightfoot). Mr.
    Gladstone had the habit of reading the Bible every Sunday
    afternoon to old women on his estate. Tholuck: “I have but one
    passion, and that is Christ.” This is an echo of Paul’s words:
    “_to me to live is Christ_” (_Phil. 1:21_). But Paul is far from
    thinking that he has already obtained, or is already made perfect.
    He prays “_that I may gain Christ, ... that I may know him_”
    (_Phil. 3:8, 10_).


(_i_) From the lack of persistence in using the means appointed for
Christian growth—such as the word of God, prayer, association with other
believers, and personal effort for the conversion of the
ungodly—sanctification does not always proceed in regular and unbroken
course, and it is never completed in this life.


    _Phil. 3:12_—“_Not that I have already obtained, or am already
    made perfect: but I press on, if so be that I may lay hold on that
    for which also I was laid hold on by Jesus Christ_”; _1 John
    1:8_—“_If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and
    the truth is not in us._” Carlyle, in his Life of John Sterling,
    chap. 8, says of Coleridge, that “whenever natural obligation or
    voluntary undertaking made it his duty to do anything, the fact
    seemed a sufficient reason for his _not_ doing it.” A regular,
    advancing sanctification is marked, on the other hand, by a
    growing habit of instant and joyful obedience. The intermittent
    spring depends upon the reservoir in the mountain cave,—only when
    the rain fills the latter full, does the spring begin to flow. So
    to secure unbroken Christian activity, there must be constant
    reception of the word and Spirit of God.

    Galen: “If diseases take hold of the body, there is nothing so
    certain to drive them out as diligent exercise.” Williams,
    Principles of Medicine: “Want of exercise and sedentary habits not
    only predispose to, but actually cause, disease.” The little girl
    who fell out of bed at night was asked how it happened. She
    replied that she went to sleep too near where she got in. Some
    Christians lose the joy of their religion by ceasing their
    Christian activities too soon after conversion. Yet others
    cultivate their spiritual lives from mere selfishness. Selfishness
    follows the line of least resistance. It is easier to pray in
    public and to attend meetings for prayer, than it is to go out
    into the unsympathetic world and engage in the work of winning
    souls. This is the fault of monasticism. Those grow most who
    forget themselves in their work for others. The discipline of life
    is ordained in God’s providence to correct tendencies to
    indolence. Even this discipline is often received in a rebellious
    spirit. The result is delay in the process of sanctification.
    Bengel: “Deus habet horas et moras”—“God has his hours and his
    delays.” German proverb: “Gut Ding will Weile haben”—“A good thing
    requires time.”


(_j_) Sanctification, both of the soul and of the body of the believer, is
completed in the life to come,—that of the former at death, that of the
latter at the resurrection.


    _Phil. 3:21_—“_who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation,
    that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, according to
    the working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto
    himself_”; _Col. 3:4_—“_When Christ, who is our life, shall be
    manifested, then shall we also with him be manifested in glory_”;
    _Heb. 12:14, 23_—“_Follow after peace with all men, and the
    sanctification without which no man shall see the Lord ... spirits
    of just men made perfect_”; _1 John 3:2_—“_Beloved, now are we
    children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be.
    We know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for
    we shall see him even as he is_”; _Jude 24_—“_able to guard you
    from stumbling, and to set you before the presence of his glory
    without blemish in exceeding joy_”; _Rev. 14:5_—“_And in their
    mouth was found no lie: they are without blemish._”

    A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 121, puts the completion of
    our sanctification, not at death, but at the appearing of the Lord
    “_a second time, apart from sin, ... unto salvation_” (_Heb. 9:28;
    1 Thess. 3:13; 5:23_). When we shall see him as he is,
    instantaneous photographing of his image in our souls will take
    the place of the present slow progress from glory to glory (_2
    Cor. 3:18; 1 John 3:2_). If by sanctification we mean, not a
    sloughing off of remaining depravity, but an ever increasing
    purity and perfection, then we may hold that the process of
    sanctification goes on forever. Our relation to Christ must always
    be that of the imperfect to the perfect, of the finite to the
    infinite; and for finite spirits, progress must always be
    possible. Clarke, Christian Theology, 373—“Not even at death can
    sanctification end.... The goal lies far beyond deliverance from
    sin.... There is no such thing as bringing the divine life to such
    completion that no further progress is possible to it.... Indeed,
    free and unhampered progress can scarcely begin until sin is left
    behind.” “O snows so pure, O peaks so high! I shall not reach you
    till I die!”

    As Jesus’ resurrection was prepared by holiness of life, so the
    Christian’s resurrection is prepared by sanctification. When our
    souls are freed from the last remains of sin, then it will not be
    possible for us to be holden by death (_cf._ _Acts 2:24_). See
    Gordon, The Twofold Life, or Christ’s Work for us and in us; Brit.
    and For. Evang. Rev., April, 1884:205‐229; Van Oosterzee,
    Christian Dogmatics, 657‐662.


3. Erroneous Views refuted by these Scripture Passages.


A. The Antinomian,—which holds that, since Christ’s obedience and
sufferings have satisfied the demands of the law, the believer is free
from obligation to observe it.


    The Antinomian view rests upon a misinterpretation of _Rom.
    6:14_—“_Ye are not under law, but under grace._” Agricola and
    Amsdorf (1559) were representatives of this view. Amsdorf said
    that “good works are hurtful to salvation.” But Melanchthon’s
    words furnish the reply: “Sola fides justificat, sed fides non est
    sola.” F. W. Robertson states it: “Faith alone justifies, but not
    the faith that is alone.” And he illustrates: “Lightning alone
    strikes, but not the lightning which is without thunder; for that
    is summer lightning and harmless.” See Browning’s poem, Johannes
    Agricola in Meditation, in Dramatis Personæ, 300—“I have God’s
    warrant, Could I blend All hideous sins as in a cup, To drink the
    mingled venoms up, Secure my nature will convert The draught to
    blossoming gladness.” Agricola said that Moses ought to be hanged.
    This is Sanctification without Perseverance.

    Sandeman, the founder of the sect called Sandemanians, asserted as
    his fundamental principle the deadliness of all doings, the
    necessity for inactivity to let God do his work in the soul. See
    his essay, Theron and Aspasia, referred to by Allen, in his Life
    of Jonathan Edwards, 114. Anne Hutchinson was excommunicated and
    banished by the Puritans from Massachusetts, in 1637, for holding
    “two dangerous errors: 1. The Holy Spirit personally dwells in a
    justified person; 2. No sanctification can evidence to us our
    justification.” Here the latter error almost destroyed the
    influence of the former truth. There is a little Antinomianism in
    the popular hymn: “Lay your deadly doings down, Down at Jesus’
    feet; Doing is a deadly thing; Doing ends in death.” The colored
    preacher’s poetry only presented the doctrine in the concrete:
    “You may rip and te‐yar, You may cuss and swe‐yar, But you’re jess
    as sure of heaven, ’S if you’d done gone de‐yar.” Plain Andrew
    Fuller in England (1754‐1815) did excellent service in
    overthrowing popular Antinomianism.


To this view we urge the following objections:

(_a_) That since the law is a transcript of the holiness of God, its
demands as a moral rule are unchanging. Only as a system of penalty and a
method of salvation is the law abolished in Christ’s death.


    _Mat. 5:17‐19_—“_Think not that I came to destroy the law or the
    prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say
    unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle
    shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be
    accomplished. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
    commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the
    kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall
    be called great in the kingdom of heaven_”; _48_—“_Ye therefore
    shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect_”; _1 Pet.
    1:16_—“_Ye shall be holy; for I am holy_”; _Rom. 10:4_—“_For
    Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that
    believeth_”; _Gal. 2:20_—“_I have been crucified with Christ_”;
    _3:13_—“_Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having
    become a curse for us_”; _Col. 2:14_—“_having blotted out the bond
    written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to
    us: and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the
    cross_”; _Heb. 2:15_—“_deliver all them who through fear of death
    were all their lifetime subject to bondage._”


(_b_) That the union between Christ and the believer secures not only the
bearing of the penalty of the law by Christ, but also the impartation of
Christ’s spirit of obedience to the believer,—in other words, brings him
into communion with Christ’s work, and leads him to ratify it in his own
experience.


    _Rom. 8:9, 10, 15_—“_ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if
    so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath
    not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ is in
    you, the body is dead because of sin; but __ the spirit is life
    because of righteousness.... For ye received not the spirit of
    bondage again unto fear: but ye received the spirit of adoption,
    whereby we cry, Abba, Father_”; _Gal. 5:22‐25_—“_But the fruit of
    the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness,
    faithfulness, meekness, self‐control; against such there is no
    law. And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh
    with the passions and the lusts thereof_”; _1 John 1:6_—“_If we
    say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness, we
    lie, and do not the truth_”; _3:6_—“_Whosoever abideth in him
    sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth
    him._”


(_c_) That the freedom from the law of which the Scriptures speak, is
therefore simply that freedom from the constraint and bondage of the law,
which characterizes those who have become one with Christ by faith.


    _Ps. 119:97_—“_O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the
    day_”; _Rom. 3:8, 31_—“_and why not (as we are slanderously
    reported, and as some affirm that we say), Let us do evil, that
    good may come? whose condemnation is just.... Do we then make the
    law of none effect through faith? God forbid: nay, we establish
    the law_”; _6:14, 15, 22_—“_For sin shall not have dominion over
    you: for ye are not under law, but under grace. What then? shall
    we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace? God forbid
    ... now being made free from sin and become servants to God, ye
    have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end eternal life_”;
    _7:6_—“_But now we have been discharged from the law, having died
    to that wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of the
    spirit, and not in oldness of the letter_”; _8:4_—“_that the
    ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after
    the flesh, but after the Spirit_”; _1 Cor. 7:22_—“_he that was
    called in the Lord being a bondservant, is the Lord’s freedman_”;
    _Gal. 5:1_—“_For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast
    therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage_”; _1
    Tim. 1:9_—“_law is not made for a righteous man, but for the
    lawless and unruly_”; _James 1:25_—“_the perfect law, the law of
    liberty_.”


To sum up the doctrine of Christian freedom as opposed to Antinomianism,
we may say that Christ does not free us, as the Antinomian believes, from
the law as a rule of life. But he does free us (1) from the law as a
system of curse and penalty; this he does by bearing the curse and penalty
himself. Christ frees us (2) from the law with its claims as a method of
salvation; this he does by making his obedience and merits ours. Christ
frees us (3) from the law as an outward and foreign compulsion; this he
does by giving to us the spirit of obedience and sonship, by which the law
is progressively realized within.


    Christ, then, does not free us, as the Antinomian believes, from
    the law as a rule of life. But he does free us (1) from the law as
    a system of curse and penalty. This he does by bearing the curse
    and penalty himself. Just as law can do nothing with a man after
    it has executed its death‐penalty upon him, so law can do nothing
    with us, now that its death‐penalty has been executed upon Christ.
    There are some insects that expire in the act of planting their
    sting; and so, when the law gathered itself up and planted its
    sting in the heart of Christ, it expended all its power as a judge
    and avenger over us who believe. In the Cross, the law as a system
    of curse and penalty exhausted itself; so we were set free.

    Christ frees us (2) from the law with its claims as a method of
    salvation: in other words, he frees us from the necessity of
    trusting our salvation to an impossible future obedience. As the
    sufferings of Christ, apart from any sufferings of ours, deliver
    us from eternal death, so the merits of Christ, apart from any
    merits of ours, give us a title to eternal life. By faith in what
    Christ has done and simple acceptance of his work for us, we
    secure a right to heaven. Obedience on our part is no longer
    rendered painfully, as if our salvation depended on it, but freely
    and gladly, in gratitude for what Christ has done for us.
    Illustrate by the English nobleman’s invitation to his park, and
    the regulations he causes to be posted up.

    Christ frees us (3) from the law as an outward and foreign
    compulsion. In putting an end to legalism, he provides against
    license. This he does by giving the spirit of obedience and
    sonship. He puts love in the place of fear; and this secures an
    obedience more intelligent, more thorough, and more hearty, than
    could have been secured by mere law. So he frees us from the
    burden and compulsion of the law, by realizing the law within us
    by his Spirit. The freedom of the Christian is freedom _in_ the
    law, such as the musician experiences when the scales and
    exercises have become easy, and work has turned to play. See John
    Owen, Works, 3:366‐651; 6:1‐313; Campbell, The Indwelling Christ,
    73‐81.

    Gould, Bib. Theol. N. T., 195—“The supremacy of those books which
    contain the words of Jesus himself [_i. e._, the Synoptic Gospels]
    is that they incorporate, with the other elements of the religious
    life, the regulative will. Here for instance [in John] is the
    gospel of the contemplative life, which, ‘_beholding as in a
    mirror the glory of the Lord is changed into the same image from
    glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord_’ (_2 Cor. 3:18_).
    The belief is that, with this beholding, life will take care of
    itself. Life will never take care of itself. Among other things,
    after the most perfect vision, it has to ask what aspirations,
    principles, affections, belong to life, and then to cultivate the
    will to embody these things. Here is the common defect of all
    religions. They fail to marry religion to the common life. Christ
    did not stop short of this final word; but if we leave him for
    even the greatest of his disciples, we are in danger of missing
    it.” This utterance of Gould is surprising in several ways. It
    attributes to John alone the contemplative attitude of mind, which
    the quotation given shows to belong also to Paul. It ignores the
    constant appeals in John to the will: “_He that hath my
    commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me_” (_John
    14:21_). It also forgets that “_life_” in John is the whole being,
    including intellect, affection, and will, and that to have Christ
    for one’s life is absolutely to exclude Antinomianism.


B. The Perfectionist,—which holds that the Christian may, in this life,
become perfectly free from sin. This view was held by John Wesley in
England, and by Mahan and Finney in America.


    Finney, Syst. Theol., 500, declares regeneration to be “an
    instantaneous change from entire sinfulness to entire holiness.”
    The claims of Perfectionists, however, have been modified from
    “freedom from all sin,” to “freedom from all known sin,” then to
    “entire consecration,” and finally to “Christian assurance.” H. W.
    Webb‐Peploe, in S. S. Times, June 25, 1898—“The Keswick teaching
    is that no true Christian need wilfully or knowingly sin. Yet this
    is not sinless perfection. It is simply according to our faith
    that we receive, and faith only draws from God according to our
    present possibilities. These are limited by the presence of
    indwelling corruption; and, while never needing to sin within the
    sphere of the light we possess, there are to the last hour of our
    life upon the earth powers of corruption within every man, which
    defile his best deeds and give to even his holiest efforts that
    ‘nature of sin’ of which the 9th Article in the Church of England
    Prayerbook speaks so strongly.” Yet it is evident that this
    corruption is not regarded as real sin, and is called “nature of
    sin” only in some non‐natural sense.

    Dr. George Peck says: “In the life of the most perfect Christian
    there is every day renewed occasion for self‐abhorrence, for
    repentance, for renewed application of the blood of Christ, for
    application of the rekindling of the Holy Spirit.” But why call
    this a state of perfection? F. B. Meyer: “We never say that self
    is dead; were we to do so, self would be laughing at us round the
    corner. The teaching of _Romans 6_ is, not that self is dead, but
    that the renewed will is dead to self, the man’s will saying Yes
    to Christ, and No to self; through the Spirit’s grace it
    constantly repudiates and mortifies the power of the flesh.” For
    statements of the Perfectionist view, see John Wesley’s Christian
    Theology, edited by Thornley Smith, 265‐273; Mahan, Christian
    Perfection, and art. in Bib. Repos. 2d Series, vol. IV, Oct.
    1840:408‐428; Finney, Systematic Theology, 586‐766; Peck,
    Christian Perfection; Ritschl, Bib. Sac., Oct. 1878:656; A. T.
    Pierson, The Keswick Movement.


In reply, it will be sufficient to observe:

(_a_) That the theory rests upon false conceptions: first, of the law,—as
a sliding‐scale of requirement graduated to the moral condition of
creatures, instead of being the unchangeable reflection of God’s holiness;
secondly, of sin,—as consisting only in voluntary acts instead of
embracing also those dispositions and states of the soul which are not
conformed to the divine holiness; thirdly, of the human will,—as able to
choose God supremely and persistently at every moment of life, and to
fulfil at every moment the obligations resting upon it, instead of being
corrupted and enslaved by the Fall.


    This view reduces the debt to the debtor’s ability to pay,—a short
    and easy method of discharging obligations. I can leap over a
    church steeple, if I am only permitted to make the church steeple
    low enough; and I can touch the stars, if the stars will only come
    down to my hand. The Philistines are quite equal to Samson, if
    they may only cut off Samson’s locks. So I can obey God’s law, if
    I may only make God’s law what I want it to be. The fundamental
    error of perfectionism is its low view of God’s law; the second is
    its narrow conception of sin. John Wesley: “I believe a person
    filled with love of God is still liable to involuntary
    transgressions. Such transgressions you may call sins, if you
    please; I do not.” The third error of perfectionism is its
    exaggerated estimate of man’s power of contrary choice. To say
    that, whatever may have been the habits of the past and whatever
    may be the evil affections of the present, a man is perfectly able
    at any moment to obey the whole law of God, is to deny that there
    are such things as character and depravity. Finney, Gospel Themes,
    383, indeed, disclaimed “all expectations of attaining this state
    ourselves, and by our own independent, unaided efforts.” On the
    Law of God, see pages 537‐544.

    Augustine: “Every lesser good has an essential element of sin.”
    Anything less than the perfection that belongs normally to my
    present stage of development is a coming short of the law’s
    demand. R. W. Dale, Fellowship with Christ, 359—“For us and in
    this world, the divine is always the impossible. Give me a law for
    individual conduct which requires a perfection that is within my
    reach, and I am sure that the law does not represent the divine
    thought. ‘_Not that I have already obtained, or am already made
    perfect: but I press on, if so be that I may lay hold on that for
    which also I was laid hold on by Christ Jesus_’ (_Phil.
    3:12_)—this, from the beginning, has been the confession of
    saints.” The Perfectionist is apt to say that we must “take Christ
    twice, once for justification and once for sanctification.” But no
    one can take Christ for justification without at the same time
    taking him for sanctification. Dr. A. A. Hodge calls this doctrine
    “Neonomianism,” because it holds not to one unchanging, ideal, and
    perfect law of God, but to a second law given to human weakness
    when the first law has failed to secure obedience.

    (1) The law of God demands perfection. It is a transcript of God’s
    nature. Its object is to reveal God. Anything less than the demand
    of perfection would misrepresent God. God could not give a law
    which a sinner could obey. In the very nature of the case there
    can be no sinlessness in this life for those who have once sinned.
    Sin brings incapacity as well as guilt. All men have squandered a
    part of the talent intrusted to them by God, and therefore no man
    can come up to the demands of that law which requires all that God
    gave to humanity at its creation together with interest on the
    investment. (2) Even the best Christian comes short of perfection.
    Regeneration makes only the dominant disposition holy. Many
    affections still remain unholy and require to be cleansed. Only by
    lowering the demands of the law, making shallow our conceptions of
    sin, and mistaking temporary volition for permanent bent of the
    will, can we count ourselves to be perfect. (3) Absolute
    perfection is attained not in this world but in the world to come.
    The best Christians count themselves still sinners, strive most
    earnestly for holiness, have imputed but not inherent
    sanctification, are saved by hope.


(_b_) That the theory finds no support in, but rather is distinctly
contradicted by, Scripture.

First, the Scriptures never assert or imply that the Christian may in this
life live without sin; passages like 1 John 3:6, 9, if interpreted
consistently with the context, set forth either the ideal standard of
Christian living or the actual state of the believer so far as respects
his new nature.


    _1 John 3:6_—“_Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not; whosoever
    sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him_”; _9_—“_Whosoever
    is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him:
    and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God._” Ann. Par.
    Bible, _in loco_:—“John is contrasting the states in which sin and
    grace severally predominate, without reference to degrees in
    either, showing that all men are in one or the other.” Neander:
    “John recognizes no intermediate state, no gradations. He seizes
    upon the radical point of difference. He contrasts the two states
    in their essential nature and principle. It is either love or
    hate, light or darkness, truth or a lie. The Christian life in its
    essential nature is the opposite of all sin. If there be sin, it
    must be the afterworking of the old nature.” Yet all Christians
    are required in Scripture to advance, to confess sin, to ask
    forgiveness, to maintain warfare, to assume the attitude of ill
    desert in prayer, to receive chastisement for the removal of
    imperfections, to regard full salvation as matter of hope, not of
    present experience.

    John paints only in black and white; there are no intermediate
    tints or colors. Take the words in _1 John 3:6_ literally, and
    there never was and never can be a regenerate person. The words
    are hyperbolical, as Paul’s words in _Rom. 6:2_—“_We who died to
    sin, how shall we any longer live therein_”—are metaphorical; see
    E. H. Johnson, in Bib. Sac., 1892:375, note. The Emperor William
    refused the request for an audience prepared by a German‐American,
    saying that Germans born in Germany but naturalized in America
    became Americans: “Ich kenne Amerikaner, Ich kenne Deutsche, aber
    Deutsch‐Amerikaner kenne Ich nicht”—“I know Americans, I know
    Germans, but German‐Americans I do not know.”

    Lowrie, Doctrine of St. John, 110—“St. John uses the noun _sin_
    and the verb _to sin_ in two senses: to denote the power or
    principle of sin, or to denote concrete acts of sin. The latter
    sense he generally expresses by the plural _sins_.... The
    Christian is guilty of particular acts of sin for which confession
    and forgiveness are required, but as he has been freed from the
    bondage of sin he cannot habitually practise it nor abide in it,
    still less can he be guilty of sin in its superlative form, by
    denial of Christ.”


Secondly, the apostolic admonitions to the Christians and Hebrews show
that no such state of complete sanctification had been generally attained
by the Christians of the first century.


    _Rom. 8:24_—“_For in hope were we saved: but hope that is seen is
    not hope: for who hopeth for that which he seeth?_” The party
    feeling, selfishness, and immorality found among the members of
    the Corinthian church are evidence that they were far from a state
    of entire sanctification.


Thirdly, there is express record of sin committed by the most perfect
characters of Scripture—as Noah, Abraham, Job, David, Peter.


    We are urged by perfectionists “to keep up the standard.” We do
    this, not by calling certain men perfect, but by calling Jesus
    Christ perfect. In proportion to our sanctification, we are
    absorbed in Christ, not in ourselves. Self‐consciousness and
    display are a poor evidence of sanctification. The best characters
    of Scripture put their trust in a standard higher than they have
    ever realized in their own persons, even in the righteousness of
    God.


Fourthly, the word τέλειος, as applied to spiritual conditions already
attained, can fairly be held to signify only a relative perfection,
equivalent to sincere piety or maturity of Christian judgment.


    _1 Cor. 2:6_—“_We speak wisdom, however, among the perfect,_” or,
    as the Am. Revisers have it, “_among them that are fullgrown_”;
    _Phil. 3:15_—“_Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus
    minded._” Men are often called perfect, when free from any fault
    which strikes the eyes of the world. See _Gen. 6:9_—“_Noah was a
    righteous man, and perfect_”; _Job 1:1_—“_that man was perfect and
    upright._” On τέλειος, see Trench, Syn. N. T., 1:110.

    The τέλειοι are described in _Heb. 5:14_—“_Solid food is for the
    mature_ (τελείων) _who on account of habit have their perceptions
    disciplined for the discriminating of good and evil_” (Dr.
    Kendrick’s translation). The same word “_perfect_” is used of
    Jacob in _Gen. 25:27_—“_Jacob was a quiet man, dwelling in tents_”
    = a harmless man, exemplary and well‐balanced, as a man of
    business. Genung, Epic of the Inner Life, 132—“_’Perfect’_ in Job
    = Horace’s ‘integer vitæ,’ being the adjective of which
    ‘integrity’ is the substantive.”


Fifthly, the Scriptures distinctly deny that any man on earth lives
without sin.


    _1 K. 8:46_—“_there is no man that sinneth not_”; _Eccl.
    7:20_—“_Surely there is not a righteous man upon earth, that doeth
    good, and sinneth not_”; _James 3:2_—“_For in many things we all
    stumble. If any stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man,
    able to bridle the whole body also_”; _1 John 1:8_—“_If we say
    that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in
    us._”

    T. T. Eaton, Sanctification: “1. Some mistake regeneration for
    sanctification. They have been unconverted church members. When
    led to faith in Christ, and finding peace and joy, they think they
    are sanctified, when they are simply converted. 2. Some mistake
    assurance of faith for sanctification. But joy is not
    sanctification. 3. Some mistake the baptism of the Holy Spirit for
    sanctification. But Peter sinned grievously at Antioch, after he
    had received that baptism. 4. Some think that doing the best one
    can is sanctification. But he who measures by inches, for feet,
    can measure up well. Some regard sin as only a voluntary act,
    whereas the sinful nature is the fountain. Stripping off the
    leaves of the Upas tree does not answer. 6. Some mistake the power
    of the human will, and fancy that an act of will can free a man
    from sin. They ignore the settled bent of the will, which the act
    of will does not change.”


Sixthly, the declaration: “ye were sanctified” (1 Cor. 6:11), and the
designation: “saints” (1 Cor. 1:2), applied to early believers, are, as
the whole epistle shows, expressive of a holiness existing in germ and
anticipation; the expressions deriving their meaning not so much from what
these early believers were, as from what Christ was, to whom they were
united by faith.


    When N. T. believers are said to be “_sanctified_,” we must
    remember the O. T. use of the word. “Sanctify” may have either the
    meaning “to make holy outwardly,” or “to make holy inwardly.” The
    people of Israel and the vessels of the tabernacle were made holy
    in the former sense; their sanctification was a setting apart to
    the sacred use. _Num. 8:17_—“_all the firstborn among the children
    of Israel are mine.... I sanctified them for myself_”; _Deut.
    33:3_—“_Yea, he loveth the people; all his saints are in thy
    hand_”; _2 Chron. 29:19_—“_all the vessels ... have we prepared
    and sanctified._” The vessels mentioned were first immersed, and
    then sprinkled from day to day according to need. So the Christian
    by his regeneration is set apart for God’s service, and in this
    sense is a “_saint_” and “_sanctified_.” More than this, he has in
    him the beginnings of purity,—he is “_clean as a whole_,” though
    he yet needs “_to wash his feet_” (_John 13:10_)—that is, to be
    cleansed from the recurring defilements of his daily life. Shedd,
    Dogm. Theol., 2:551—“The error of the Perfectionist is that of
    confounding _imputed_ sanctification with _inherent_
    sanctification. It is the latter which is mentioned in _1 Cor.
    1:30_—‘_Christ Jesus, who was made unto us ... sanctification._’ ”

    Water from the Jordan is turbid, but it settles in the bottle and
    seems pure—until it is shaken. Some Christians seem very free from
    sin, until you shake them,—then they get “riled.” Clarke,
    Christian Theology, 871—“Is there not a higher Christian life?
    Yes, and a higher life beyond it, and a higher still beyond. The
    Christian life is ever higher and higher. It must pass through all
    stages between its beginning and its perfection.” C. D. Case: “The
    great objection to [this theory of] complete sanctification is
    that, if possessed at all, it is not a development of our own
    character.”


(_c_) That the theory is disapproved by the testimony of Christian
experience.—In exact proportion to the soul’s advance in holiness does it
shrink from claiming that holiness has been already attained, and humble
itself before God for its remaining apathy, ingratitude, and unbelief.


    _Phil. 3:12‐14_—“_Not that I have already obtained, or am already
    made perfect: but I press on, if so be that I may lay hold on that
    for which also I was laid hold on by Christ Jesus._” Some of the
    greatest advocates of perfectionism have been furthest from
    claiming any such perfection; although many of their less
    instructed followers claimed it for them, and even professed to
    have attained it themselves.

    In _Luke 7:1‐10_, the centurion does not think himself worthy to
    go to Jesus, or to have him come under his roof, yet the elders of
    the Jews say: “_He is worthy that thou shouldest do this_”; and
    Jesus himself says of him: “_I have not found so great faith, no,
    not in Israel_.” “_Holy to Jehovah_” was inscribed upon the mitre
    of the high priest (_Ex. 28:36_). Others saw it, but he saw it
    not. Moses knew not that his face shone (_Ex. 34:29_). The truest
    holiness is that of which the possessor is least conscious; yet it
    is his real diadem and beauty (A. J. Gordon). “The nearer men are
    to being sinless, the less they talk about it” (Dwight L. Moody).
    “Always strive for perfection: never believe you have reached it”
    (Arnold of Rugby). Compare with this, Ernest Renan’s declaration
    that he had nothing to alter in his life. “I have not sinned for
    some time,” said a woman to Mr. Spurgeon. “Then you must be very
    proud of it,” he replied. “Indeed I am!” said she. A pastor says:
    “No one can attain the ‘Higher Life,’ and escape making mischief.”
    John Wesley lamented that not one in thirty retained the blessing.


Perfectionism is best met by proper statements of the nature of the law
and of sin (Ps. 119:96). While we thus rebuke spiritual pride, however, we
should be equally careful to point out the inseparable connection between
justification and sanctification, and their equal importance as together
making up the Biblical idea of salvation. While we show no favor to those
who would make sanctification a sudden and paroxysmal act of the human
will, we should hold forth the holiness of God as the standard of
attainment, and the faith in a Christ of infinite fulness as the medium
through which that standard is to be gradually but certainly realized in
us (2 Cor. 3:18).


    We should imitate Lyman Beecher’s method of opposing
    perfectionism—by searching expositions of God’s law. When men know
    what the law is, they will say with the Psalmist: “_I have seen an
    end of all perfection; thy commandment is exceeding broad_” (_Ps.
    119:96_). And yet we are earnestly and hopefully to seek in Christ
    for a continually increasing measure of sanctification: _1 Cor.
    1:30_—“_Christ Jesus, who was made unto us ... sanctification_”;
    _2 Cor. 3:18_—“_But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a
    mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image
    from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit_.” Arnold of
    Rugby: “Always expect to succeed, and never think you have
    succeeded.”

    Mr. Finney meant by entire sanctification only that it is possible
    for Christians in this life by the grace of God to consecrate
    themselves so unreservedly to his service as to live without
    conscious and wilful disobedience to the divine commands. He did
    not claim himself to have reached this point; he made at times
    very impressive confessions of his own sinfulness; he did not
    encourage others to make for themselves the claim to have lived
    without conscious fault. He held however that such a state is
    attainable, and therefore that its pursuit is rational. He also
    admitted that such a state is one, not of absolute, but only of
    relative, sinlessness. His error was in calling it a state of
    entire sanctification. See A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation,
    377‐384.

    A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 116—“It is possible that one
    may experience a great crisis in his spiritual life, in which
    there is such a total surrender of self to God and such an
    infilling of the Holy Spirit, that he is freed from the bondage of
    sinful appetites and habits, and enabled to have constant victory
    over self instead of suffering constant defeat.... If the doctrine
    of sinless perfection is a heresy, the doctrine of contentment
    with sinful imperfection is a greater heresy.... It is not an
    edifying spectacle to see a Christian worldling throwing stones at
    a Christian perfectionist.” Caird, Evolution of Religion,
    1:138—“If, according to the German proverb, it is provided that
    the trees shall not grow into the sky, it is equally provided that
    they shall always grow toward it; and the sinking of the roots
    into the soil is inevitably accompanied by a further expansion of
    the branches.”

    See Hovey, Doctrine of the Higher Christian Life, Compared with
    Scripture, also Hovey, Higher Christian Life Examined, in Studies
    in Ethics and Theology, 344‐427; Snodgrass, Scriptural Doctrine of
    Sanctification; Princeton Essays, 1:335‐365; Hodge, Syst. Theol.,
    3:213‐258; Calvin, Institutes, III, 11:6; Bib. Repos., 2d Series,
    1:44‐58; 2:143‐166; Woods, Works, 4:465‐523; H. A. Boardman, The
    “Higher Life” Doctrine of Sanctification; William Law, Practical
    Treatise on Christian Perfection; E. H. Johnson, The Highest Life.


II. Perseverance.


The Scriptures declare that, in virtue of the original purpose and
continuous operation of God, all who are united to Christ by faith will
infallibly continue in a state of grace and will finally attain to
everlasting life. This voluntary continuance, on the part of the
Christian, in faith and well‐doing we call perseverance. Perseverance is,
therefore, the human side or aspect of that spiritual process which, as
viewed from the divine side, we call sanctification. It is not a mere
natural consequence of conversion, but involves a constant activity of the
human will from the moment of conversion to the end of life.


    Adam’s holiness was mutable; God did not determine to keep him. It
    is otherwise with believers in Christ; God has determined to give
    them the kingdom (_Luke 12:32_). Yet this keeping by God, which we
    call sanctification, is accompanied and followed by a keeping of
    himself on the part of the believer, which we call perseverance.
    The former is alluded to in _John 17:11, 12_—“_keep them in thy
    name.... I kept them in thy name.... I guarded them, and not one
    of them perished, but the son of perdition_”; the latter is
    alluded to in _1 John 5:18_—“_he that was __ begotten of God
    keepeth himself._” Both are expressed in _Jude 21, 24_—“_Keep
    yourselves in the love of God.... Now unto him that is able to
    guard you from stumbling..._”

    A German treatise on Pastoral Theology is entitled: “Keep What
    Thou Hast”—an allusion to _2 Tim. 1:14_—“_That good thing which
    was committed unto thee guard through the Holy Spirit which
    dwelleth in us._” Not only the pastor, but every believer, has a
    charge to keep; and the keeping of ourselves is as important a
    point of Christian doctrine as is the keeping of God. Both are
    expressed in the motto: _Teneo, Teneor_—the motto on the front of
    the Y. M. C. A. building in Boston, underneath a stone cross,
    firmly clasped by two hands. The colored preacher said that
    “Perseverance means: 1. Take hold; 2. Hold on; 3. Never let go.”

    Physically, intellectually, morally, spiritually, there is need
    that we persevere. Paul, in _1 Cor. 9:27_, declares that he smites
    his body under the eye and makes a slave of it, lest after having
    preached to others he himself should be rejected; and in _2 Tim.
    4:7_, at the end of his career, he rejoices that he has “_kept the
    faith_.” A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 115—“The Christian
    is as ‘_a tree planted by the streams of water, that bringeth
    forth its fruit in its season_’ (_Ps. 1:3_), but to conclude that
    his growth will be as irresistible as that of the tree, coming as
    a matter of course simply because he has by regeneration been
    planted in Christ, is a grave mistake. The disciple is required to
    be consciously and intelligently active in his own growth, as the
    tree is not, ‘_to give all diligence to make his calling and
    election sure_’ (_2 Pet. 1:10_) by surrendering himself to the
    divine action.” Clarke, Christian Theology, 379—“Man is able to
    fall, and God is able to keep him from falling; and through the
    various experiences of life God will so save his child out of all
    evil that he will be morally incapable of falling.”


1. Proof of the Doctrine of Perseverance.


A. From Scripture.


    _John 10:28, 29_—“_they shall never perish, and no one shall
    snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who hath given them unto
    me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of
    the Father’s hand_”; _Rom. 11:29_—“_For the gifts and the calling
    of God are without repentance_”; _1 Cor. 13:7_—“_endureth all
    things_”; _cf._ _13_—“_But now abideth faith, hope, love_”; _Phil.
    1:6_—“_being confident of this very thing, that he who began a
    good work in you will perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ_”;
    _2 Thess. 3:3_—“_But the Lord is faithful, who shall establish
    you, and guard you from the evil one_”; _2 Tim. 1:12_—“_I know him
    whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that he is able to guard
    that which I have committed unto him against that day_”; _1 Pet.
    1:5_—“_who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto a
    salvation ready to be revealed in the last time_”; _Rev.
    3:10_—“_Because thou didst keep the word of my patience, I also
    will keep thee from the hour of trial, that hour which is to come
    upon the whole world, to try them that dwell upon the earth._”

    _2 Tim. 1:12_—τὴν παραθήκην μου—Ellicott translates: “_the trust
    committed to me_,” or “_my deposit_” = the office of preaching the
    gospel, the stewardship entrusted to the apostle; _cf._ _1 Tim.
    6:20_—“_O Timothy, keep thy deposit_”—τὴν παραθήκην; and _2 Tim.
    1:14_—“_Keep the good deposit_”—where the deposit seems to be the
    faith or doctrine delivered to him to preach. Nicoll, The Church’s
    One Foundation, 211—“Some Christians waken each morning with a
    creed of fewer articles, and those that remain they are ready to
    surrender to a process of argument that convinces them. But it is
    a duty to _keep_. ‘_Ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and ye
    know_’ (_1 John 2:20_).... Ezra gave to his men a treasure of gold
    and silver and sacrificial vessels, and he charged them: ‘_Watch
    ye, and keep them, until ye weigh them ... in thy chambers of the
    house of Jehovah_’ (_Ezra 8:29_).” See in the Autobiography of C.
    H. Spurgeon, 1:225, 256, the outline of a sermon on _John
    6:37_—“_All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me;
    and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out._” Mr.
    Spurgeon remarks that this text can give us no comfort unless we
    see: 1. that God has given us his Holy Spirit; 2. that we have
    given ourselves to him. Christ will not cast us out because of our
    great sins, our long delays, our trying other saviors, our
    hardness of heart, our little faith, our poor dull prayers, our
    unbelief, our inveterate corruptions, our frequent backslidings,
    nor finally because every one else passes us by.


B. From Reason.

(_a_) It is a necessary inference from other doctrines,—such as election,
union with Christ, regeneration, justification, sanctification.


    Election of certain individuals to salvation is election to bestow
    upon them such influences of the Spirit as will lead them not only
    to accept Christ, but to persevere and be saved. Union with Christ
    is indissoluble; regeneration is the beginning of a work of new
    creation, which is declared in justification, and completed in
    sanctification. All these doctrines are parts of a general scheme,
    which would come to naught if any single Christian were permitted
    to fall away.


(_b_) It accords with analogy,—God’s preserving care being needed by, and
being granted to, his spiritual, as well as his natural, creation.


    As natural life cannot uphold itself, but we “_live, and move, and
    have our being_” in God (_Acts 17:28_), so spiritual life cannot
    uphold itself, and God maintains the faith, love, and holy
    activity which he has originated. If he preserves our natural
    life, much more may we expect him to preserve the spiritual. _1
    Tim. 6:13_—“_I charge thee before God who preserveth all things
    alive_” (R. V. marg.)—ζωογονοῦντος τὰ πάντα = the great Preserver
    of all enables us to persist in our Christian course.


(_c_) It is implied in all assurance of salvation,—since this assurance is
given by the Holy Spirit, and is based not upon the known strength of
human resolution, but upon the purpose and operation of God.


    S. R. Mason: “If Satan and Adam both fell away from perfect
    holiness, it is a million to one that, in a world full of
    temptations and with all appetites and habits against me, I shall
    fall away from imperfect holiness, unless God by his almighty
    power keep me.” It is in the power and purpose of God, then, that
    the believer puts his trust. But since this trust is awakened by
    the Holy Spirit, it must be that there is a divine fact
    corresponding to it; namely, God’s purpose to exert his power in
    such a way that the Christian shall persevere. See Wardlaw, Syst.
    Theol., 2:550‐578; N. W. Taylor, Revealed Theology, 445‐460.

    _Job 6:11_—“_What is my strength, that I should wait? And what is
    mine end, that I should be patient?_” “Here is a note of self‐
    distrust. To be patient without any outlook, to endure without
    divine support—Job does not promise it, and he trembles at the
    prospect; but none the less he sets his feet on the toilsome way”
    (Genung). Dr. Lyman Beecher was asked whether he believed in the
    perseverance of the saints. He replied: “I do, except when the
    wind is from the East.” But the value of the doctrine is that we
    can believe it even when the wind _is_ from the East. It is well
    to hold on to God’s hand, but it is better to have God’s hand hold
    on to us. When we are weak, and forgetful and asleep, we need to
    be sure of God’s care. Like the child who thought he was driving,
    but who found, after the trouble was over, that his father after
    all had been holding the reins, we too find when danger comes that
    behind our hands are the hands of God. The Perseverance of the
    Saints, looked at from the divine side, is the Preservation of the
    Saints, and the hymn that expresses the Christian’s faith is the
    hymn: “How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord, Is laid for
    your faith in his excellent word!”


2. Objections to the Doctrine of Perseverance.


These objections are urged chiefly by Arminians and by Romanists.

A. That it is inconsistent with human freedom.—Answer: It is no more so
than is the doctrine of Election or the doctrine of Decrees.


    The doctrine is simply this, that God will bring to bear such
    influences upon all true believers, that they will freely
    persevere. Moule, Outlines of Christian Doctrine, 47—“Is grace, in
    any sense of the word, ever finally withdrawn? Yes, if by grace is
    meant any free gift of God tending to salvation; or, more
    specially, any action of the Holy Spirit tending in its nature
    thither.... But if by grace be meant the dwelling and working of
    Christ in the truly regenerate, there is no indication in
    Scripture of the withdrawal of it.”


B. That it tends to immorality.—Answer: This cannot be, since the doctrine
declares that God will save men by securing their perseverance in
holiness.


    _2 Tim. 2:19_—“_Howbeit the firm foundation of God standeth,
    having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his: and, Let
    every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from
    unrighteousness_”; that is, the temple of Christian character has
    upon its foundation two significant inscriptions, the one
    declaring God’s power, wisdom, and purpose of salvation; the other
    declaring the purity and holy activity, on the part of the
    believer, through which God’s purpose is to be fulfilled; _1 Pet.
    1:1, 2_—“_elect ... according to the foreknowledge of God the
    Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and
    sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ_”; _2 Pet. 1:10,
    11_—“_Wherefore, brethren, give the more diligence to make your
    calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall
    never stumble: for thus shall be richly supplied unto you the
    entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus
    Christ_.”


C. That it leads to indolence.—Answer: This is a perversion of the
doctrine, continuously possible only to the unregenerate; since, to the
regenerate, certainty of success is the strongest incentive to activity in
the conflict with sin.


    _1 John 5:4_—“_For whatsoever is begotten of God overcometh the
    world; and this is the victory that hath overcome the world, even
    our faith_.” It is notoriously untrue that confidence of success
    inspires timidity or indolence. Thomas Fuller: “Your salvation is
    his business; his service your business.” The only prayers God
    will answer are those we ourselves cannot answer. For the very
    reason that “_it is God who worketh in you both to will and to
    work, for his good pleasure_,” the apostle exhorts: “_work out
    your own salvation with fear and trembling_” (_Phil. 2:12, 13_).


D. That the Scripture commands to persevere and warnings against apostasy
show that certain, even of the regenerate, will fall away.—Answer:

(_a_) They show that some, who are apparently regenerate, will fall away.


    _Mat. 18:7_—“_Woe unto the world because of occasions of
    stumbling! for it must needs be that the occasions come; but woe
    to that man through whom the occasion cometh_”; _1 Cor.
    11:19_—“_For there must be also factions_ [lit. ‘_heresies_’]
    _among you, that they that are approved may be made manifest among
    you_”; _1 John 2:19_—“_They went out from us, but they were not of
    us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us:
    but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all
    are not of us_.” Judas probably experienced strong emotions, and
    received strong impulses toward good, under the influence of
    Christ. The only falling from grace which is recognized in
    Scripture is not the falling of the regenerate, but the falling of
    the unregenerate, from influences tending to lead them to Christ.
    The Rabbins said that a drop of water will suffice to purify a man
    who has accidentally touched a creeping thing, but an ocean will
    not suffice for his cleansing so long as he purposely keeps the
    creeping thing in his hand.


(_b_) They show that the truly regenerate, and those who are only
apparently so, are not certainly distinguishable in this life.


    _Mal. 3:18_—“_Then shall ye return and discern between the
    righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him
    that serveth him not_”; _Mat. 13:25, 47_—“_while men slept, his
    enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away....
    Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast
    into the sea, and gathered of every kind_”; _Rom. 9:6, 7_—“_For
    they are not all Israel, that are of Israel: neither, because they
    are Abraham’s seed, are they all children_”; _Rev. 3:1_—“_I know
    thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and thou art
    dead_.” The tares were never wheat, and the bad fish never were
    good, in spite of the fact that their true nature was not for a
    while recognized.


(_c_) They show the fearful consequences of rejecting Christ, to those who
have enjoyed special divine influences, but who are only apparently
regenerate.


    _Heb. 10:26‐29_—“_For if we sin wilfully after that we have
    received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a
    sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment,
    and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries. A man
    that hath set at nought Moses’ law dieth without compassion on the
    word of two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment,
    think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot
    the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant
    wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite
    unto the Spirit of grace?_” Here “_sanctified_” = external
    sanctification, like that of the ancient Israelites, by outward
    connection with God’s people; _cf._ _1 Cor. 7:14_—“_the
    unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife_.”

    In considering these and the following Scripture passages, much
    will depend upon our view of inspiration. If we hold that Christ’s
    promise was fulfilled and that his apostles were led into all the
    truth, we shall assume that there is unity in their teaching, and
    shall recognize in their variations only aspects and applications
    of the teaching of our Lord; in other words, Christ’s doctrine in
    _John 10:28, 29_ will be the norm for the interpretation of
    seemingly diverse and at first sight inconsistent passages. There
    was a “_faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints_,”
    and for this primitive faith we are exhorted “_to contend
    earnestly_” (_Jude 3_).


(_d_) They show what the fate of the truly regenerate would be, in case
they should not persevere.


    _Heb. 6:4‐6_—“_For as touching those who were once enlightened and
    tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy
    Spirit, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the
    world to come, and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them
    again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son
    of God afresh, and put him to an open shame._” This is to be
    understood as a hypothetical case,—as is clear from _verse 9_
    which follows: “_But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of
    you, and things which accompany salvation, though we thus speak_.”
    Dr. A. C. Kendrick, Com. _in loco_: “In the phrase ‘_once
    enlightened_,’ the ‘_once_’ is ἅπαξ = once for all. The text
    describes a condition subjectively possible, and therefore needing
    to be held up in earnest warning to the believer, while
    objectively and in the absolute purpose of God, it never
    occurs.... If passages like this teach the possibility of falling
    from grace, they teach also the impossibility of restoration to
    it. The saint who once apostatizes has apostatized forever.” So
    _Ez. 18:24_—“_when the righteous turneth away from his
    righteousness, and committeth iniquity ... in them shall he die_”;
    _2 Pet. 2:20_—“_For if, after they have escaped the defilements of
    the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus
    Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the last
    state is become worse with them than the first_.” So, in _Mat.
    5:13_—“_if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be
    salted?_”—if this teaches that the regenerate may lose their
    religion, it also teaches that they can never recover it. It
    really shows only that Christians who do not perform their proper
    functions as Christians become harmful and contemptible (Broadus,
    _in loco_).


(_e_) They show that the perseverance of the truly regenerate may be
secured by these very commands and warnings.


    _1 Cor. 9:27_—“_I buffet my body, and bring it into bondage: lest
    by any means, after that I have preached to others, I myself
    should be rejected_”—or, to bring out the meaning more fully: “_I
    beat my body blue_ [or, ‘strike it under the eye’], _and make it a
    slave, lest after having been a herald to others, I myself should
    be rejected_” (“unapproved,” “counted unworthy of the prize”);
    _10:12_—“_Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed
    lest he fall_.” Quarles, Emblems: “The way to be safe is never to
    be secure.” Wrightnour: “Warning a traveler to keep a certain
    path, and by this means keeping him in that path, is no evidence
    that he will ever fall into a pit by the side of the path simply
    because he is warned of it.”


(_f_) They do not show that it is certain, or possible, that any truly
regenerate person will fall away.


    The Christian is like a man making his way up‐hill, who
    occasionally slips back, yet always has his face set toward the
    summit. The unregenerate man has his face turned downwards, and he
    is slipping all the way. C. H. Spurgeon: “The believer, like a man
    on shipboard, may fall again and again on the deck, but he will
    never fall overboard.”


E. That we have actual examples of such apostasy.—We answer:

(_a_) Such are either men once outwardly reformed, like Judas and Ananias,
but never renewed in heart;


    But, _per contra_, instance the experience of a man in typhoid
    fever, who apparently repented, but who never remembered it when
    he was restored to health. Sick‐bed and death‐bed conversions are
    not the best. There was one penitent thief, that none might
    despair; there was but one penitent thief, that none might
    presume. The hypocrite is like the wire that gets a second‐hand
    electricity from the live wire running parallel with it. This
    second‐hand electricity is effective only within narrow limits,
    and its efficacy is soon exhausted. The live wire has connection
    with the source of power in the dynamo.


(_b_) Or they are regenerate men, who, like David and Peter, have fallen
into temporary sin, from which they will, before death, be reclaimed by
God’s discipline.


    Instance the young profligate who, in a moment of apparent
    drowning, repented, was then rescued, and afterward lived a long
    life as a Christian. If he had not been rescued, his repentance
    would never have been known, nor the answer to his mother’s
    prayers. So, in the moment of a backslider’s death, God can renew
    repentance and faith. Cromwell on his death‐bed questioned his
    Chaplain as to the doctrine of final perseverance, and, on being
    assured that it was a certain truth, said: “Then I am happy, for I
    am sure that I was once in a state of grace.” But reliance upon a
    past experience is like trusting in the value of a policy of life
    insurance upon which several years’ premiums have been unpaid. If
    the policy has not lapsed, it is because of extreme grace. The
    only conclusive evidence of perseverance is a present experience
    of Christ’s presence and indwelling, corroborated by active
    service and purity of life.

    On the general subject, see Edwards, Works, 3:509‐532, and 4:104;
    Ridgeley, Body of Divinity, 2:164‐194; John Owen, Works, vol. 11;
    Woods, Works, 3:221‐246; Van Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics,
    662‐666.



PART VII. ECCLESIOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH.



Chapter I. The Constitution Of The Church. Or Church Polity.



I. Definition of the Church.


(_a_) The church of Christ, in its largest signification, is the whole
company of regenerate persons in all times and ages, in heaven and on
earth (Mat. 16:18; Eph. 1:22, 23; 3:10; 5:24, 25; Col. 1:18; Heb. 12:23).
In this sense, the church is identical with the spiritual kingdom of God;
both signify that redeemed humanity in which God in Christ exercises
actual spiritual dominion (John 3:3, 5).


    _Mat. 16:18_—“_thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my
    church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it_”;
    _Eph. 1:22, 23_—“_and he put all things in subjection under his
    feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which
    is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all_”;
    _3:10_—“_to the intent that now unto the principalities and the
    powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the
    church the manifold wisdom of God_”; _5:24, 25_—“_But as the
    church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their
    husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ
    also loved the church, and gave himself up for it_”; _Col.
    1:18_—“_And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the
    beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he
    might have the preeminence_”; _Heb. 12:23_—“_the general assembly
    and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven_”; _John
    3:3, 5_—“_Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of
    God. ... Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot
    enter into the kingdom of God._”

    Cicero’s words apply here: “Una navis est jam bonorum omnium”—all
    good men are in one boat. Cicero speaks of the state, but it is
    still more true of the church invisible. Andrews, in Bib. Sac.,
    Jan. 1883:14, mentions the following differences between the
    church and kingdom, or, as we prefer to say, between the visible
    church and the invisible church: (1) the church began with
    Christ,—the kingdom began earlier; (2) the church is confined to
    believers in the historic Christ,—the kingdom includes all God’s
    children; (3) the church belongs wholly to this world—not so the
    kingdom; (4) the church is visible,—not so the kingdom; (5) the
    church has _quasi_ organic character, and leads out into local
    churches,—this is not so with the kingdom. On the universal or
    invisible church, see Cremer, Lexicon N. T., transl., 113, 114,
    331; Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 12.

    H. C. Vedder: “The church is a spiritual body, consisting only of
    those regenerated by the Spirit of God.” Yet the Westminster
    Confession affirms that the church “consists of all those
    throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with
    their children.” This definition includes in the church a
    multitude who not only give no evidence of regeneration, but who
    plainly show themselves to be unregenerate. In many lands it
    practically identifies the church with the world. Augustine indeed
    thought that “_the field_,” in _Mat. 13:38_, is the church,
    whereas Jesus says very distinctly that it “_is the world_.”
    Augustine held that good and bad alike were to be permitted to
    dwell together in the church, without attempt to separate them;
    see Broadus, Com. _in loco_. But the parable gives a reason, not
    why we should not try to put the wicked out of the church, but why
    God does not immediately put them out of the world, the tares
    being separated from the wheat only at the final judgment of
    mankind.

    Yet the universal church includes all true believers. It fulfils
    the promise of God to Abraham in _Gen. 15:5_—“_Look now toward
    heaven, and number the stars, if thou be able to number them: and
    he said into him, So shall thy seed be_.” The church shall be
    immortal, since it draws its life from Christ: _Is. 65:22_—“_as
    the days of a tree shall be the days of my people_”; _Zech. 4:2,
    3_—“_a candlestick all of gold ... and two olive‐trees by it_.”
    Dean Stanley, Life and Letters, 2:242, 243—“A Spanish Roman
    Catholic, Cervantes, said: ‘Many are the roads by which God
    carries his own to heaven.’ Döllinger: ‘Theology must become a
    science not, as heretofore, for making war, but for making peace,
    and thus bringing about that reconciliation of churches for which
    the whole civilized world is longing.’ In their loftiest moods of
    inspiration, the Catholic Thomas à Kempis, the Puritan Milton, the
    Anglican Keble, rose above their peculiar tenets, and above the
    limits that divide denominations, into the higher regions of a
    common Christianity. It was the Baptist Bunyan who taught the
    world that there was ‘a common ground of communion which no
    difference of external rites could efface.’ It was the Moravian
    Gambold who wrote: ‘The man That could surround the sum of things,
    and spy The heart of God and secrets of his empire, Would speak
    but love. With love, the bright result Would change the hue of
    intermediate things, And make one thing of all theology.’ ”


(_b_) The church, in this large sense, is nothing less than the body of
Christ—the organism to which he gives spiritual life, and through which he
manifests the fulness of his power and grace. The church therefore cannot
be defined in merely human terms, as an aggregate of individuals
associated for social, benevolent, or even spiritual purposes. There is a
transcendent element in the church. It is the great company of persons
whom Christ has saved, in whom he dwells, to whom and through whom he
reveals God (Eph. 1:22, 23).


    _Eph. 1:22, 23_—“_the church, which is his body, the fulness of
    him that filleth all in all._” He who is the life of nature and of
    humanity reveals himself most fully in the great company of those
    who have joined themselves to him by faith. Union with Christ is
    the presupposition of the church. This alone transforms the sinner
    into a Christian, and this alone makes possible that vital and
    spiritual fellowship between individuals which constitutes the
    organizing principle of the church. The same divine life which
    ensures the pardon and the perseverance of the believer unites him
    to all other believers. The indwelling Christ makes the church
    superior to and more permanent than all humanitarian
    organizations; they die, but because Christ lives, the church
    lives also. Without a proper conception of this sublime relation
    of the church to Christ, we cannot properly appreciate our dignity
    as church members, or our high calling as shepherds of the flock.
    Not “ubi ecclesia, ibi Christus,” but “ubi Christus, ibi
    ecclesia,” should be our motto. Because Christ is omnipresent and
    omnipotent, “_the same yesterday, and to‐day, yea and forever_”
    (_Heb. 13:8_), what Burke said of the nation is true of the
    church: It is “indeed a partnership, but a partnership not only
    between those who are living, but between those who are living,
    those who are dead, and those who are yet to be born.”

    McGiffert, Apostolic Church, 501—“Paul’s conception of the church
    as the body of Christ was first emphasized and developed by
    Ignatius. He reproduces in his writings the substance of all the
    Paulinism that the church at large made permanently its own: the
    preëxistence and deity of Christ, the union of the believer with
    Christ without which the Christian life is impossible, the
    importance of Christ’s death, the church the body of Christ. Rome
    never fully recognized Paul’s teachings, but her system rests upon
    his doctrine of the church the body of Christ. The modern doctrine
    however makes the kingdom to be not spiritual or future, but a
    reality of this world.” The redemption of the body, the redemption
    of institutions, the redemption of nations, are indeed all
    purposed by Christ. Christians should not only strive to rescue
    individual men from the slough of vice, but they should devise
    measures for draining that slough and making that vice impossible;
    in other words, they should labor for the coming of the kingdom of
    God in society. But this is not to identify the church with
    politics, prohibition, libraries, athletics. The spiritual
    fellowship is to be the fountain from which all these activities
    spring, while at the same time Christ’s “_kingdom is not of this
    world_” (_John 18:36_).

    A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 24, 25, 207—“As Christ is
    the temple of God, so the church is the temple of the Holy Spirit.
    As God could be seen only through Christ, so the Holy Spirit can
    be seen only through the church. As Christ was the image of the
    invisible God, so the church is appointed to be the image of the
    invisible Christ, and the members of Christ, when they are
    glorified with him, shall be the express image of his person....
    The church and the kingdom are not identical terms, if we mean by
    the kingdom the visible reign and government of Jesus Christ on
    earth. In another sense they are identical. As is the king, so is
    the kingdom. The king is present now in the world, only invisibly
    and by the Holy Spirit; so the kingdom is now present invisibly
    and spiritually in the hearts of believers. The king is to come
    again visibly and gloriously; so shall the kingdom appear visibly
    and gloriously. In other words, the kingdom is already here in
    mystery: it is to be here to manifestation. Now the spiritual
    kingdom is administered by the Holy Spirit, and it extends from
    Pentecost to Parousia. At the Parousia—the appearing of the Son of
    man in glory—when he shall take unto himself his great power and
    reign (_Rev. 11:17_), when he who has now gone into a far country
    to be invested with a kingdom shall return and enter upon his
    government (_Luke 19:15_), then the invisible shall give way to
    the visible, the kingdom in mystery shall emerge into the kingdom
    in manifestation, and the Holy Spirit’s administration shall yield
    to that of Christ.”


(_c_) The Scriptures, however, distinguish between this invisible or
universal church, and the individual church, in which the universal church
takes local and temporal form, and in which the idea of the church as a
whole is concretely exhibited.


    _Mat. 10:32_—“_Every one therefore, who shall confess me before
    men, him will I also confess before my Father who is in heaven_”;
    _12:34, 35_—“_out of the abundance of the heart the mouth
    speaketh. The good man out of his good treasure bringeth forth
    good things_”; _Rom. 10:9, 10_—“_if thou shalt confess with thy
    month Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God
    raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart
    man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is
    made unto salvation_”; _James 1:18_—“_Of his own will he brought
    us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of
    firstfruits of his creatures_”—we were saved, not for ourselves
    only, but as parts and beginnings of an organic kingdom of God;
    believers are called “_firstfruits_,” because from them the
    blessing shall spread, until the whole world shall be pervaded
    with the new life; Pentecost, as the feast of first‐fruits, was
    but the beginning of a stream that shall continue to flow until
    the whole race of man is gathered in.

    R. S. Storrs: “When any truth becomes central and vital, there
    comes the desire to utter it,”—and we may add, not only in words,
    but in organization. So beliefs crystallize into institutions. But
    Christian faith is something more vital than the common beliefs of
    the world. Linking the soul to Christ, it brings Christians into
    living fellowship with one another before any bonds of outward
    organization exist; outward organization, indeed, only expresses
    and symbolizes this inward union of spirit to Christ and to one
    another. Horatius Bonar: “Thou must be true thyself, If thou the
    truth wouldst teach; Thy soul must overflow, if thou Another’s
    soul wouldst reach; It needs the overflow of heart To give the
    lips full speech. Think truly, and thy thoughts Shall the world’s
    famine feed; Speak truly, and each word of thine Shall be a
    fruitful seed; Live truly, and thy life shall be A great and noble
    creed.”

    Contentio Veritatis, 128, 129—“The kingdom of God is first a state
    of the individual soul, and then, secondly, a society made up of
    those who enjoy that state.” Dr. F. L. Patton: “The best way for a
    man to serve the church at large is to serve the church to which
    he belongs.” Herbert Stead: “The kingdom is not to be narrowed
    down to the church, nor the church evaporated into the kingdom.”
    To do the first is to set up a monstrous ecclesiasticism; to do
    the second is to destroy the organism through which the kingdom
    manifests itself and does its work in the world (W. R. Taylor).
    Prof. Dalman, in his work on The Words of Jesus in the Light of
    Postbiblical Writing and the Aramaic Language, contends that the
    Greek phrase translated “kingdom of God” should be rendered “the
    sovereignty of God.” He thinks that it points to the reign of God,
    rather than to the realm over which he reigns. This rendering, if
    accepted, takes away entirely the support from the Ritschlian
    conception of the kingdom of God as an earthly and outward
    organization.


(_d_) The individual church may be defined as that smaller company of
regenerate persons, who, in any given community, unite themselves
voluntarily together, in accordance with Christ’s laws, for the purpose of
securing the complete establishment of his kingdom in themselves and in
the world.


    _Mat. 18:17_—“_And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the
    church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto
    thee as the Gentile and the publican_”; _Acts 14:23_—“_appointed
    for them elders in every church_”; _Rom. 16:5_—“_salute the church
    that is in their house_”; _1 Cor. 1:2_—“_the church of God which
    is at Corinth_”; _4:17_—“_even as I teach everywhere in every
    church_”; _1 Thess. 2:14_—“_the churches of God which are in Judæa
    in Christ Jesus._”

    We do not define the church as a body of “baptized believers,”
    because baptism is but one of “Christ’s laws,” in accordance with
    which believers unite themselves. Since these laws are the laws of
    church‐organization contained in the New Testament, no Sunday
    School, Temperance Society, or Young Men’s Christian Association,
    is properly a church. These organizations 1. lack the transcendent
    element—they are instituted and managed by man only; 2. they are
    not confined to the regenerate, or to those alone who give
    credible evidence of regeneration; 3. they presuppose and require
    no particular form of doctrine; 4. they observe no ordinances; 5.
    they are at best mere adjuncts and instruments of the church, but
    are not themselves churches; 6. their decisions therefore are
    devoid of the divine authority and obligation which belong to the
    decisions of the church.

    The laws of Christ, in accordance with which believers unite
    themselves into churches, may be summarized as follows: 1. the
    sufficiency and sole authority of Scripture as the rule both of
    doctrine and polity; (2) credible evidence of regeneration and
    conversion as prerequisite to church‐membership; (3) immersion
    only, as answering to Christ’s command of baptism, and to the
    symbolic meaning of the ordinance; (4) the order of the ordinance,
    Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, as of divine appointment, as well
    as the ordinances themselves; (5) the right of each member of the
    church to a voice in its government and discipline; (6) each
    church, while holding fellowship with other churches, solely
    responsible to Christ; (7) the freedom of the individual
    conscience, and the total independence of church and state. Hovey
    in his Restatement of Denominational Principles (Am. Bap. Pub.
    Society) gives these principles as follows: 1. the supreme
    authority of the Scriptures in matters of religion; 2. personal
    accountability to God in religion; 3. union with Christ essential
    to salvation; 4. a new life the only evidence of that union; 5.
    the new life one of unqualified obedience to Christ. The most
    concise statement of Baptist doctrine and history is that of
    Vedder, in Jackson’s Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, 1:74‐85.

    With the lax views of Scripture which are becoming common among us
    there is a tendency in our day to lose sight of the transcendent
    element in the church. Let us remember that the church is not a
    humanitarian organization resting upon common human brotherhood,
    but a supernatural body, which traces its descent from the second,
    not the first, Adam, and which manifests the power of the divine
    Christ. Mazzini in Italy claimed Jesus, but repudiated his church.
    So modern socialists cry: “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” and
    deny that there is need of anything more than human unity,
    development, and culture. But God has made the church to sit with
    Christ “_in the heavenly places_” (_Eph. 2:6_). It is the
    regeneration which comes about through union with Christ which
    constitutes the primary and most essential element in
    ecclesiology. “We do not stand, first of all, for restricted
    communion, nor for immersion as the only valid form of baptism,
    nor for any particular theory of Scripture, but rather for a
    regenerate church membership. The essence of the gospel is a new
    life in Christ, of which Christian experience is the outworking
    and Christian consciousness is the witness. Christian life is as
    important as conversion. Faith must show itself by works. We must
    seek the temporal as well as spiritual salvation of men, and the
    salvation of society also” (Leighton Williams).

    E. G. Robinson: “Christ founded a church only proleptically. In
    _Mat. 18:17_, ἐκκλησία is not used technically. The church is an
    outgrowth of the Jewish synagogue, though its method and economy
    are different. There was little or no organization at first.
    Christ himself did not organize the church. This was the work of
    the apostles after Pentecost. The germ however existed before.
    Three persons may constitute a church, and may administer the
    ordinances. Councils have only advisory authority. Diocesan
    episcopacy is antiscriptural and antichristian.”

    The principles mentioned above are the essential principles of
    Baptist churches, although other bodies of Christians have come to
    recognise a portion of them. Bodies of Christians which refuse to
    accept these principles we may, in a somewhat loose and modified
    sense, call churches; but we cannot regard them as churches
    organized in all respects according to Christ’s laws, or as
    completely answering to the New Testament model of church
    organization. We follow common usage when we address a Lieutenant
    Colonel as “Colonel,” and a Lieutenant Governor as “Governor.” It
    is only courtesy to speak of pedobaptist organizations as
    “churches,” although we do not regard these churches as organized
    in full accordance with Christ’s laws as they are indicated to us
    in the New Testament. To refuse thus to recognize them would be a
    discourtesy like that of the British Commander in Chief, when he
    addressed General Washington as “Mr. Washington.”

    As Luther, having found the doctrine of justification by faith,
    could not recognize that doctrine as Christian which taught
    justification by works, but denounced the church which held it as
    Antichrist, saying, “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, God help
    me,” so we, in matters not indifferent, as feet‐washing, but
    vitally affecting the existence of the church, as regenerate
    church‐membership, must stand by the New Testament, and refuse to
    call any other body of Christians a regular church, that is not
    organized according to Christ’s laws. The English word “church”
    like the Scotch “kirk” and the German “_Kirche_,” is derived from
    the Greek κυριακή, and means “belonging to the Lord.” The term
    itself should teach us to regard only Christ’s laws as our rule of
    organization.


(_e_) Besides these two significations of the term “church,” there are
properly in the New Testament no others. The word ἐκκλησία is indeed used
in Acts 7:38; 19:32, 39; Heb. 2:12, to designate a popular assembly; but
since this is a secular use of the term, it does not here concern us. In
certain passages, as for example Acts 9:31 (ἐκκλησία, sing., א A B C), 1
Cor. 12:28, Phil. 3:6, and 1 Tim. 3:15, ἐκκλησία appears to be used either
as a generic or as a collective term, to denote simply the body of
independent local churches existing in a given region or at a given epoch.
But since there is no evidence that these churches were bound together in
any outward organization, this use of the term ἐκκλησία cannot be regarded
as adding any new sense to those of “the universal church” and “the local
church” already mentioned.


    _Acts 7:38_—“_the church_ [marg. ‘_congregation_’] _in the
    wilderness_” = the whole body of the people of Israel;
    _19:32_—“_the assembly was in confusion_”—the tumultuous mob in
    the theatre at Ephesus; _39_—“_the regular assembly_”; _9:31_—“_So
    the church throughout all Judæa and Galilee and Samaria had peace,
    being edified_”; _1 Cor. 12:28_—“_And God hath set some in the
    church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers_”;
    _Phil. 3:6_—“_as touching zeal, persecuting the church_”; _1 Tim.
    3:15_—“_that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves
    in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the
    pillar and ground of the truth._”

    In the original use of the word ἐκκλησία, as a popular assembly,
    there was doubtless an allusion to the derivation from ἐκ and
    καλέω, to call out by herald. Some have held that the N. T. term
    contains an allusion to the fact that the members of Christ’s
    church are called, chosen, elected by God. This, however, is more
    than doubtful. In common use, the term had lost its etymological
    meaning, and signified merely an assembly, however gathered or
    summoned. The church was never so large that it could not
    assemble. The church of Jerusalem gathered for the choice of
    deacons (_Acts 6:2, 5_), and the church of Antioch gathered to
    hear Paul’s account of his missionary journey (_Acts 14:27_).

    It is only by a common figure of rhetoric that many churches are
    spoken of together in the singular number, in such passages as
    _Acts 9:31_. We speak generically of “man,” meaning the whole race
    of men; and of “the horse,” meaning all horses. Gibbon, speaking
    of the successive tribes that swept down upon the Roman Empire,
    uses a noun in the singular number, and describes them as “the
    several detachments of that immense army of northern
    barbarians,”—yet he does not mean to intimate that these tribes
    had any common government. So we may speak of “the American
    college” or “the American theological seminary,” but we do not
    thereby mean that the colleges or the seminaries are bound
    together by any tie of outward organization.

    So Paul says that God has set in the church apostles, prophets,
    and teachers (_1 Cor. 12:28_), but the word “church” is only a
    collective term for the many independent churches. In this same
    sense, we may speak of “the Baptist church” of New York, or of
    America; but it must be remembered that we use the term without
    any such implication of common government as is involved in the
    phrases “the Presbyterian church,” or “the Protestant Episcopal
    church,” or “the Roman Catholic church”; with us, in this
    connection, the term “church” means simply “churches.”

    Broadus, in his Com. on Mat., page 359, suggests that the word
    ἐκκλησία in _Acts 9:31_, “denotes the original church at
    Jerusalem, whose members were by the persecution widely scattered
    throughout Judea and Galilee and Samaria, and held meetings
    wherever they were, but still belonged to the one original
    organization.... When Paul wrote to the Galatians, nearly twenty
    years later, these separate meetings had been organized into
    distinct churches, and so he speaks (_Gal. 1:22_) in reference to
    that same period, of ‘_the churches of Judæa which were in
    Christ_.’ ” On the meaning of ἐκκλησία, see Cremer, Lex. N. T.,
    329; Trench, Syn. N. T., 1:18; Girdlestone, Syn. O. T., 367;
    Curtis, Progress of Baptist Principles, 301; Dexter,
    Congregationalism, 25; Dagg, Church Order, 100‐120; Robinson, N.
    T. Lex., _sub voce_.


The prevailing usage of the N. T. gives to the term ἐκκλησία the second of
these two significations. It is this local church only which has definite
and temporal existence, and of this alone we henceforth treat. Our
definition of the individual church implies the two following particulars:


A. The church, like the family and the state, is an institution of divine
appointment.


This is plain: (_a_) from its relation to the church universal, as its
concrete embodiment; (_b_) from the fact that its necessity is grounded in
the social and religious nature of man; (_c_) from the Scripture,—as for
example, Christ’s command in Mat. 18:17, and the designation “church of
God,” applied to individual churches (1 Cor. 1:2).


    President Wayland: “The universal church comes before the
    particular church. The society which Christ has established is the
    foundation of every particular association calling itself a church
    of Christ.” Andrews, in Bib. Sac., Jan. 1883:35‐58, on the
    conception ἐκκλησία in the N. T., says that “the ‘church’ is the
    _prius_ of all local ‘churches.’ ἐκκλησία in _Acts 9:31_ = the
    church, so far as represented in those provinces. It is
    ecumenical‐local, as in _1 Cor. 10:33_. The local church is a
    microcosm, a specialized localization of the universal body. קהל,
    in the O. T. and in the Targums, means the whole congregation of
    Israel, and then secondarily those local bodies which were parts
    and representations of the whole. Christ, using Aramaic, probably
    used קהל in _Mat. 18:17_. He took his idea of the church from it,
    not from the heathen use of the word ἐκκλησία, which expresses the
    notion of locality and state much more than קהל. The larger sense
    of ἐκκλησία is the primary. Local churches are points of
    consciousness and activity for the great all‐inclusive unit, and
    they are not themselves the units for an ecclesiastical aggregate.
    They are faces, not parts of the one church.”

    Christ, in _Mat. 18:17_, delegates authority to the whole
    congregation of believers, and at the same time limits authority
    to the local church. The local church is not an end in itself, but
    exists for the sake of the kingdom. Unity is not to be that of
    merely local churches, but that of the kingdom, and that kingdom
    is internal, “_cometh not with observation_” (_Luke 17:20_), but
    consists in “_righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit_”
    (_Rom. 14:17_). The word “church,” in the universal sense, is not
    employed by any other N. T. writer before Paul. Paul was
    interested, not simply in individual conversions, but in the
    growth of the church of God, as the body of Christ. He held to the
    unity of all local churches with the mother church at Jerusalem.
    The church in a city or in a house is merely a local manifestation
    of the one universal church and derived its dignity therefrom.
    Teaching of the Twelve Apostles: “As this broken bread was
    scattered upon the mountains, and being gathered became one, so
    may thy church be gathered together from the ends of the earth
    into thy kingdom.”

    Sabatier, Philos. Religion, 92—“The social action of religion
    springs from its very essence. Men of the same religion have no
    more imperious need than that of praying and worshiping together.
    State police have always failed to confine growing religious sects
    within the sanctuary or the home ... God, it is said, is the place
    where spirits blend. In rising toward him, man necessarily passes
    beyond the limits of his own individuality. He feels instinctively
    that the principle of his being is the principle of the life of
    his brethren also, that that which gives him safety must give it
    to all.” Rothe held that, as men reach the full development of
    their nature and appropriate the perfection of the Savior, the
    separation between the religious and the moral life will vanish,
    and the Christian state, as the highest sphere of human life
    representing all human functions, will displace the church. “In
    proportion as the Savior Christianizes the state by means of the
    church, must the progressive completion of the structure of the
    church prove the cause of its abolition. The decline of the church
    is not therefore to be deplored, but is to be recognized as the
    consequence of the independence and completeness of the religious
    life” (Encyc. Brit., 21:2). But it might equally be maintained
    that the state, as well as the church, will pass away, when the
    kingdom of God is fully come; see _John 4:21_—“_the hour cometh,
    when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship
    the Father_”; _1 Cor. 15:24_—“_Then cometh the end, when he shall
    deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have
    abolished all rule and all authority and power_”; _Rev.
    21:22_—“_And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God the
    Almighty, and the Lamb, are the temple thereof._”


B. The church, unlike the family and the state, is a voluntary society.


(_a_) This results from the fact that the local church is the outward
expression of that rational and free life in Christ which characterizes
the church as a whole. In this it differs from those other organizations
of divine appointment, entrance into which is not optional. Membership in
the church is not hereditary or compulsory. (_b_) The doctrine of the
church, as thus defined, is a necessary outgrowth of the doctrine of
regeneration. As this fundamental spiritual change is mediated not by
outward appliances, but by inward and conscious reception of Christ and
his truth, union with the church logically follows, not precedes, the
soul’s spiritual union with Christ.


    We have seen that the church is the body of Christ. We now
    perceive that the church is, by the impartation to it of Christ’s
    life, made a living body, with duties and powers of its own. A. J.
    Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 53, emphasizes the preliminary
    truth. He shows that the definition: The church a voluntary
    association of believers, united together for the purposes of
    worship and edification, is most inadequate, not to say incorrect.
    It is no more true than that hands and feet are voluntarily united
    in the human body for the purposes of locomotion and work. The
    church is formed from within. Christ, present by the Holy Ghost,
    regenerating men by the sovereign action of the Spirit, and
    organizing them into himself as the living centre, is the only
    principle that can explain the existence of the church. The Head
    and the body are therefore one—one in fact, and one in name. He
    whom God anointed and filled with the Holy Ghost is called “_the
    Christ_” (_1 John 5:1_—“_Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the
    Christ is begotten of God_”); and the church which is his body and
    fulness is also called “_the Christ_” (_1 Cor. 12:12_—“_all the
    members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is the
    Christ_”).

    Dorner includes under his doctrine of the church: (1) the genesis
    of the church, through the new birth of the Spirit, or
    Regeneration; (2) the growth and persistence of the church through
    the continuous operation of the Spirit in the means of grace, or
    Ecclesiology proper, as others call it; (3) the completion of the
    church, or Eschatology. While this scheme seems designed to favor
    a theory of baptismal regeneration, we must commend its
    recognition of the fact that the doctrine of the church grows out
    of the doctrine of regeneration and is determined in its nature by
    it. If regeneration has always conversion for its obverse side,
    and if conversion always includes faith in Christ, it is vain to
    speak of regeneration without faith. And if union with the church
    is but the outward expression of a preceding union with Christ
    which involves regeneration and conversion, then involuntary
    church‐membership is an absurdity, and a misrepresentation of the
    whole method of salvation.

    The value of compulsory religion may be illustrated from David
    Hume’s experience. A godly matron of the Canongate, so runs the
    story, when Hume sank in the mud in her vicinity, and on account
    of his obesity could not get out, compelled the sceptic to say the
    Lord’s Prayer before she would help him. Amos Kendall, on the
    other hand, concluded in his old age that he had not been acting
    on Christ’s plan for saving the world, and so, of his own accord,
    connected himself with the church. Martineau, Study, 1:319—“Till
    we come to the State and the Church, we do not reach the highest
    organism of human life, into the perfect working of which all the
    disinterested affections and moral enthusiasms and noble ambitions
    flow.”

    Socialism abolishes freedom, which the church cultivates and
    insists upon as the principle of its life. Tertullian: “Nec
    religionis est cogere religionem”—“It is not the business of
    religion to compel religion.” Vedder, History of the Baptists:
    “The community of goods in the church at Jerusalem was a purely
    voluntary matter; see _Acts 5:4_—‘_While it remained, did it not
    remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy
    power?_’ The community of goods does not seem to have continued in
    the church at Jerusalem after the temporary stress had been
    relieved, and there is no reason to believe that any other church
    in the apostolic age practised anything of the kind.” By
    abolishing freedom, socialism destroys all possibility of
    economical progress. The economical principle of socialism is
    that, relatively to the enjoyment of commodities, the individual
    shall be taken care of by the community, to the effect of his
    being relieved of the care of himself. The communism in the Acts
    was: 1. not for the community of mankind in general, but only for
    the church within itself; 2. not obligatory, but left to the
    discretion of individuals; 3. not permanent, but devised for a
    temporary crisis. On socialism, see James MacGregor, in Presb. and
    Ref. Rev., Jan. 1892:35‐68.

    Schurman, Agnosticism, 166—“Few things are of more practical
    consequence for the future of religion in America than the duty of
    all good men to become identified with the visible church. Liberal
    thinkers have, as a rule, underestimated the value of the church.
    Their point of view is individualistic, ‘as though a man were
    author of himself, and knew no other kin.’ ‘The old is for slaves’
    they declare. But it is also true that the old is for freedmen who
    know its true uses. It is the bane of the religion of dogma that
    it has driven many of the choicest religious souls out of the
    churches. In its purification of the temple, it has lost sight of
    the object of the temple. The church, as an institution, is an
    organism and embodiment such as the religion of spirit necessarily
    creates. Spiritual religion is not the enemy, it is the essence,
    of institutional religion.”



II. Organization of the Church.


1. The fact of organization.


Organization may exist without knowledge of writing, without written
records, lists of members, or formal choice of officers. These last are
the proofs, reminders, and helps of organization, but they are not
essential to it. It is however not merely informal, but formal,
organization in the church, to which the New Testament bears witness.

That there was such organization is abundantly shown from (_a_) its stated
meetings, (_b_) elections, and (_c_) officers; (_d_) from the designations
of its ministers, together with (_e_) the recognized authority of the
minister and of the church; (_f_) from its discipline, (_g_)
contributions, (_h_) letters of commendation, (_i_) registers of widows,
(_j_) uniform customs, and (_k_) ordinances; (_l_) from the order enjoined
and observed, (_m_) the qualifications for membership, and (_n_) the
common work of the whole body.


    (_a_) _Acts 20:7_—“_upon the first day of the week, when we were
    gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them_”;
    _Heb. 10:25_—“_not forsaking our own assembling together, as the
    custom of some is, but exhorting one another._”

    (_b_) _Acts 1:23‐26_—the election of Matthias; 6:5, 6—the election
    of deacons.

    (_c_) _Phil. 1:1_—“_the saints in Christ Jesus that are at
    Philippi, with the bishops and deacons._”

    (_d_) _Acts 20:17, 28_—“_the elders of the church ... the flock,
    in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops_ [marg.:
    ‘_overseers_’].”

    (_e_) _Mat. 18:17_—“_And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto
    the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be
    unto thee as the Gentile and the publican_”; _1 Pet. 5:2_—“_Tend
    the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not
    of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God._”

    (_f_) _1 Cor. 5:4, 5, 13_—“_in the name of our Lord Jesus, ye
    being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord
    Jesus, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the
    flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord
    Jesus.... Put away the wicked man from among yourselves._”

    (_g_) _Rom. 15:26_—“_For it hath been the good pleasure of
    Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor
    among the saints that are at Jerusalem_”; _1 Cor. 16:1, 2_—“_Now
    concerning the collection for the saints, as I __ gave order to
    the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the
    week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper,
    that no collection be made when I come._”

    (_h_) _Acts 18:27_—“_And when he was minded to pass over into
    Achaia, the brethren encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to
    receive him_”; _2 Cor. 3:1_—“_Are we beginning again to commend
    ourselves? or need we, as do some, epistles of commendation to you
    or from you?_”

    (_i_) _1 Tim. 5:9_—“_Let none be enrolled as a widow under
    threescore years old_”; _cf._ _Acts 6:1_—“_there arose a murmuring
    of the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews, because their widows were
    neglected in the daily ministration._”

    (_j_) _1 Cor. 11:16_—“_But if any man seemeth to be contentious,
    we have no such custom, neither the churches of God._”

    (_k_) _Acts 2:41_—“_They then that received his word were
    baptized_”; _1 Cor. 11:23‐26_—“_For I received of the Lord that
    which also I delivered unto you_”—the institution of the Lord’s
    Supper.

    (_l_) _1 Cor. 14:40_—“_let all things be done decently and in
    order_”; _Col. 2:5_—“_For though I am absent in the flesh, yet am
    I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the
    stedfastness of your faith in Christ._”

    (_m_) _Mat. 28:19_—“_Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all
    the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the
    Son and of the Holy Spirit_”; _Acts 2:47_—“_And the Lord added to
    them day by day those that were being saved._”

    (_n_) _Phil. 2:30_—“_because for the work of Christ he came nigh
    unto death, hazarding his life to supply that which was lacking in
    your service toward me._”


As indicative of a developed organization in the N. T. church, of which
only the germ existed before Christ’s death, it is important to notice the
progress in names from the Gospels to the Epistles. In the Gospels, the
word “disciples” is the common designation of Christ’s followers, but it
is not once found in the Epistles. In the Epistles, there are only
“saints,” “brethren,” “churches.” A consideration of the facts here
referred to is sufficient to evince the unscriptural nature of two modern
theories of the church:

A. The theory that the church is an exclusively spiritual body, destitute
of all formal organization, and bound together only by the mutual relation
of each believer to his indwelling Lord.

The church, upon this view, so far as outward bonds are concerned, is only
an aggregation of isolated units. Those believers who chance to gather at
a particular place, or to live at a particular time, constitute the church
of that place or time. This view is held by the Friends and by the
Plymouth Brethren. It ignores the tendencies to organization inherent in
human nature; confounds the visible with the invisible church; and is
directly opposed to the Scripture representations of the visible church as
comprehending some who are not true believers.


    _Acts 5:1‐11_—Ananias and Sapphira show that the visible church
    comprehended some who were not true believers; _1 Cor. 14:23_—“_If
    therefore the whole church be assembled together and all speak
    with tongues, and there come in men unlearned or unbelieving, will
    they not say that ye are mad?_”—here, if the church had been an
    unorganized assembly, the unlearned visitors who came in would
    have formed a part of it; _Phil. 3:18_—“_For many walk, of whom I
    told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the
    enemies of the cross of Christ._”

    Some years ago a book was placed upon the Index, at Rome,
    entitled: “The Priesthood a Chronic Disorder of the Human Race.”
    The Plymouth Brethren dislike church organizations, for fear they
    will become machines; they dislike ordained ministers, for fear
    they will become bishops. They object to praying for the Holy
    Spirit, because he was given on Pentecost, ignoring the fact that
    the church after Pentecost so prayed: see _Acts 4:31_—“_And when
    they had prayed, the place was shaken wherein they were gathered
    together; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they
    spake the word of God with boldness._” What we call a giving or
    descent of the Holy Spirit is, since the Holy Spirit is
    omnipresent, only a manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit,
    and this certainly may be prayed for; see _Luke 11:13_—“_If ye
    then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children,
    how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to
    them that ask him?_”

    The Plymouth Brethren would “unite Christendom by its
    dismemberment, and do away with all sects by the creation of a new
    sect, more narrow and bitter in its hostility to existing sects
    than any other.” Yet the tendency to organize is so strong in
    human nature, that even Plymouth Brethren, when they meet
    regularly together, fall into an informal, if not a formal,
    organization; certain teachers and leaders are tacitly recognized
    as officers of the body; committees and rules are unconsciously
    used for facilitating business. Even one of their own writers, C.
    H. M., speaks of the “natural tendency to association without
    God,—as in the Shinar Association or Babel Confederacy of _Gen.
    11_, which aimed at building up a name upon the earth. The
    Christian church is God’s appointed association to take the place
    of all these. Hence God confounds the tongues in Gen. 11
    (judgment); gives tongues in _Acts 2_ (grace); but only one tongue
    is spoken in _Rev. 7_ (glory).”

    The Nation, Oct. 16, 1890:303—“Every body of men must have one or
    more leaders. If these are not provided, they will make them for
    themselves. You cannot get fifty men together, at least of the
    Anglo‐Saxon race, without their choosing a presiding officer and
    giving him power to enforce rules and order.” Even socialists and
    anarchists have their leaders, who often exercise arbitrary power
    and oppress their followers. Lyman Abbott says nobly of the
    community of true believers: “The grandest river in the world has
    no banks; it rises in the Gulf of Mexico; it sweeps up through the
    Atlantic Ocean along our coast; it crosses the Atlantic, and
    spreads out in great broad fanlike form along the coast of Europe;
    and whatever land it kisses blooms and blossoms with the fruit of
    its love. The apricot and the fig are the witness of its
    fertilizing power. It is bound together by the warmth of its own
    particles, and by nothing else.” This is a good illustration of
    the invisible church, and of its course through the world. But the
    visible church is bound to be distinguishable from unregenerate
    humanity, and its inner principle of association inevitably leads
    to organization.

    Dr. Wm. Reid, Plymouth Brethrenism Unveiled, 79‐143, attributes to
    the sect the following Church‐principles: (1) the church did not
    exist before Pentecost; (2) the visible and the invisible church
    identical; (3) the one assembly of God; (4) the presidency of the
    Holy Spirit; (5) rejection of a one‐man and man‐made ministry; (6)
    the church is without government. Also the following heresies: (1)
    Christ’s heavenly humanity; (2) denial of Christ’s righteousness,
    as being obedience to law; (3) denial that Christ’s righteousness
    is imputed; (4) justification in the risen Christ; (5) Christ’s
    non‐atoning sufferings; (6) denial of moral law as rule of life;
    (7) the Lord’s day is not the Sabbath; (8) perfectionism; (9)
    secret rapture of the saints,—caught up to be with Christ. To
    these we may add; (10) premillennial advent of Christ.

    On the Plymouth Brethren and their doctrine, see British Quar.,
    Oct. 1873:202; Princeton Rev., 1872:48‐77; H. M. King, in Baptist
    Review, 1881:438‐465; Fish, Ecclesiology, 314‐316; Dagg, Church
    Order, 80‐83; R. H. Carson, The Brethren, 8‐14; J. C. L. Carson,
    The Heresies of the Plymouth Brethren; Croskery, Plymouth
    Brethrenism; Teulon, Hist. and Teachings of Plymouth Brethren.


B. The theory that the form of church organization is not definitely
prescribed in the New Testament, but is a matter of expediency, each body
of believers being permitted to adopt that method of organization which
best suits its circumstances and condition.

The view under consideration seems in some respects to be favored by
Neander, and is often regarded as incidental to his larger conception of
church history as a progressive development. But a proper theory of
development does not exclude the idea of a church organization already
complete in all essential particulars before the close of the inspired
canon, so that the record of it may constitute a providential example of
binding authority upon all subsequent ages. The view mentioned exaggerates
the differences of practice among the N. T. churches; underestimates the
need of divine direction as to methods of church union; and admits a
principle of ’church powers,’ which may be historically shown to be
subversive of the very existence of the church as a spiritual body.


    Dr. Galusha Anderson finds the theory of optional church
    government in Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, and says that not
    until Bishop Bancroft was there claimed a divine right of
    Episcopacy. Hunt, also, in his Religious Thought in England, 1:57,
    says that Hooker gives up the divine origin of Episcopacy. So
    Jacob, Eccl. Polity of the N. T., and Hatch, Organization of Early
    Christian Churches,—both Jacob and Hatch belonging to the Church
    of England. Hooker identified the church with the nation; see
    Eccl. Polity, book viii, chap. 1:7; 4:6; 8:9. He held that the
    state has committed itself to the church, and that therefore the
    church has no right to commit itself to the state. The assumption,
    however, that the state has committed itself to the church is
    entirely unwarranted; see Gore, Incarnation, 209, 210. Hooker
    declares that, even if the Episcopalian order were laid down in
    Scripture, which he denies, it would still not be unalterable,
    since neither “God’s being the author of laws for the government
    of his church, nor his committing them unto Scripture, is any
    reason sufficient wherefore all churches should forever be bound
    to keep them without change.”

    T. M. Lindsay, in Contemp. Rev., Oct. 1895:548‐563, asserts that
    there were at least five different forms of church government in
    apostolic times: 1. derived from the seven wise men of the Hebrew
    village community, representing the political side of the
    synagogue system; 2. derived from the ἐπισκόπος, the director of
    the religious or social club among the heathen Greeks; 3. derived
    from the patronate (προστάτης, προῖστάμενος) known among the
    Romans, the churches of Rome, Corinth, Thessalonica, being of this
    sort; 4. derived from the personal preëminence of one man, nearest
    in family to our Lord, James being president of the church at
    Jerusalem; 5. derived from temporary superintendents (ἡγούμενοι),
    or leaders of the band of missionaries, as in Crete and Ephesus.
    Between all these churches of different polities, there was
    intercommunication and fellowship. Lindsay holds that the unity
    was wholly spiritual. It seems to us that he has succeeded merely
    in proving five different varieties of one generic type—the
    generic type being only democratic, with two orders of officials,
    and two ordinances—in other words, in showing that the simple N.
    T. model adopts itself to many changing conditions, while the main
    outlines do not change. Upon any other theory, church polity is a
    matter of individual taste or of temporary fashion. Shall
    missionaries conform church order to the degraded ideas of the
    nations among which they labor? Shall church government be
    despotic in Turkey, a limited monarchy in England, a democracy in
    the United States of America, and two‐headed in Japan? For the
    development theory of Neander, see his Church History, 1:179‐190.
    On the general subject, see Hitchcock, in Am. Theol. Rev.,
    1860:28‐54; Davidson, Eccl. Polity, 1‐42; Harvey, The Church.


2. The nature of this organization.


The nature of any organization may be determined by asking, first: who
constitute its members? secondly: for what object has it been formed? and,
thirdly: what are the laws which regulate its operations?


    The three questions with which our treatment of the nature of this
    organization begins are furnished us by Pres. Wayland, in his
    Principles and Practices of Baptists.


A. They only can properly be members of the local church, who have
previously become members of the church universal,—or, in other words,
have become regenerate persons.


    Only those who have been previously united to Christ are, in the
    New Testament, permitted to unite with his church. See _Acts
    2:47_—“_And the Lord added to them day by day those that were
    being saved_ [Am. Rev.: ‘_those that were saved_’]”; _5:14_—“_and
    believers were the more added to the Lord_”; _1 Cor. 1:2_—“_the
    church of God which is at Corinth, even them that are sanctified
    in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that call upon the
    name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, their Lord and
    ours._”


From this limitation of membership to regenerate persons, certain results
follow:

(_a_) Since each member bears supreme allegiance to Christ, the church as
a body must recognize Christ as the only lawgiver. The relation of the
individual Christian to the church does not supersede, but furthers and
expresses, his relation to Christ.


    _1 John 2:20_—“_And ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and ye
    know all things_”—see Neander, Com., _in loco_—“No believer is at
    liberty to forego this maturity and personal independence,
    bestowed in that inward anointing [of the Holy Spirit], or to
    place himself in a dependent relation, inconsistent with this
    birthright, to any teacher whatever among men..... This inward
    anointing furnishes an element of resistance to such arrogated
    authority.” Here we have reproved the tendency on the part of
    ministers to take the place of the church, in Christian work and
    worship, instead of leading it forward in work and worship of its
    own. The missionary who keeps his converts in prolonged and
    unnecessary tutelage is also untrue to the church organization of
    the New Testament and untrue to Christ whose aim in church
    training is to educate his followers to the bearing of
    responsibility and the use of liberty. Macaulay: “The only remedy
    for the evils of liberty is liberty.” “Malo periculosam
    libertatem”—“Liberty is to be preferred with all its dangers.”
    Edwin Burritt Smith: “There is one thing better than good
    government, and that is self‐government.” By their own mistakes, a
    self‐governing people and a self‐governing church will finally
    secure good government, whereas the “good government” which keeps
    them in perpetual tutelage will make good government forever
    impossible.

    _Ps. 144:12_—“_our sons shall be as plants grown up in their
    youth._” Archdeacon Hare: “If a gentleman is to grow up, it must
    be like a tree: there must be nothing between him and heaven.”
    What is true of the gentleman is true of the Christian. There need
    to be encouraged and cultivated in him an independence of human
    authority and a sole dependence upon Christ. The most sacred duty
    of the minister is to make his church self‐governing and self‐
    supporting, and the best test of his success is the ability of the
    church to live and prosper after he has left it or after he is
    dead. Such ministerial work requires self‐sacrifice and self‐
    effacement. The natural tendency of every minister is to usurp
    authority and to become a bishop. He has in him an undeveloped
    pope. Dependence on his people for support curbs this arrogant
    spirit. A church establishment fosters it. The remedy both for
    slavishness and for arrogance lies in constant recognition of
    Christ as the only Lord.


(_b_) Since each regenerate man recognizes in every other a brother in
Christ, the several members are upon a footing of absolute equality (Mat.
23:8‐10).


    _Mat. 23:8‐10_—“_But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your
    teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on
    the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven_”;
    _John 15:5_—“_I am the vine, ye are the branches_”—no one branch
    of the vine outranks another; one may be more advantageously
    situated, more ample in size, more fruitful; but all are alike in
    kind, draw vitality from one source. Among the planets “_one star
    differeth from another star in glory_” (_1 Cor. 15:41_), yet all
    shine in the same heaven, and draw their light from the same sun.
    “The serving‐man may know more of the mind of God than the
    scholar.” Christianity has therefore been the foe to heathen
    castes. The Japanese noble objected to it, “because the
    brotherhood of man was incompatible with proper reverence for
    rank”. There can be no rightful human lordship over God’s heritage
    (_1 Pet. 5:3_—“_neither as lording it over the charge allotted to
    you, but making yourselves ensamples to the flock_”).

    Constantine thought more highly of his position as member of
    Christ’s church than of his position as head of the Roman Empire.
    Neither the church nor its pastor should be dependent upon the
    unregenerate members of the congregation. Many a pastor is in the
    position of a lion tamer with his head in the lion’s mouth. So
    long as he strokes the fur the right way, all goes well; but, if
    by accident he strokes the wrong way, off goes his head.
    Dependence upon the spiritual body which he instructs is
    compatible with the pastor’s dignity and faithfulness. But
    dependence upon those who are not Christians and who seek to
    manage the church with worldly motives and in a worldly way, may
    utterly destroy the spiritual effect of his ministry. The pastor
    is bound to be the impartial preacher of the truth, and to treat
    each member of his church as of equal importance with every other.


(_c_) Since each local church is directly subject to Christ, there is no
jurisdiction of one church over another, but all are on an equal footing,
and all are independent of interference or control by the civil power.


    _Mat. 22:21_—“_Render therefore unto Cæsar the things that are
    Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s_”; _Acts
    5:29_—“_We must obey God rather than men._” As each believer has
    personal dealings with Christ and for even the pastor to come
    between him and his Lord is treachery to Christ and harmful to his
    soul, so much more does the New Testament condemn any attempt to
    bring the church into subjection to any other church or
    combination of churches, or to make the church the creature of the
    state. Absolute liberty of conscience under Christ has always been
    a distinguishing tenet of Baptists, as it is of the New Testament
    (_cf._ _Rom. 14:4_—“_Who art thou that judgest the servant of
    another? to his own lord he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be
    made to stand; for the Lord hath power to make him stand_”). John
    Locke, 100 years before American independence: “The Baptists were
    the first and only propounders of absolute liberty, just and true
    liberty, equal and impartial liberty.” George Bancroft says of
    Roger Williams: “He was the first person in modern Christendom to
    assert the doctrine of liberty of conscience in religion....
    Freedom of conscience was from the first a trophy of the
    Baptists.... Their history is written in blood.”

    On Roger Williams, see John Fiske, The Beginnings of New England:
    “Such views are to‐day quite generally adopted by the more
    civilized portions of the Protestant world; but it is needless to
    say that they were not the views of the sixteenth century, in
    Massachusetts or elsewhere.” Cotton Mather said that Roger
    Williams “carried a windmill in his head,” and even John Quincy
    Adams called him “conscientiously contentious.” Cotton Mather’s
    windmill was one that he remembered or had heard of in Holland. It
    had run so fast in a gale as to set itself and a whole town on
    fire. Leonard Bacon, Genesis of the New England Churches, vii,
    says of Baptist churches: “It has been claimed for these churches
    that from the age of the Reformation onward they have been always
    foremost and always consistent in maintaining the doctrine of
    religious liberty. Let me not be understood as calling in question
    their right to so great an honor.”

    Baptists hold that the province of the state is purely secular and
    civil,—religious matters are beyond its jurisdiction. Yet for
    economic reasons and to ensure its own preservation, it may
    guarantee to its citizens their religious rights, and may exempt
    all churches equally from burdens of taxation, in the same way in
    which it exempts schools and hospitals. The state has holidays,
    but no holy days. Hall Caine, in The Christian, calls the state,
    not the pillar of the church, but the caterpillar, that eats the
    vitals out of it. It is this, when it transcends its sphere and
    compels or forbids any particular form of religious teaching. On
    the charge that Roman Catholics were deprived of equal rights in
    Rhode Island, see Am. Cath. Quar. Rev., Jan. 1894:169‐177. This
    restriction was not in the original law, but was a note added by
    revisers, to bring the state law into conformity with the law of
    the mother country. _Ezra 8:22_—“_I was ashamed to ask of the king
    a band of soldiers and horsemen ... because ... The hand of our
    God is upon all them that seek him, for good_”—is a model for the
    churches of every age. The church as an organized body should be
    ashamed to depend for revenue upon the state, although its members
    as citizens may justly demand that the state protect them in their
    rights of worship. On State and Church in 1492 and 1892, see A. H.
    Strong, Christ in Creation, 209‐246, esp. 239‐241. On taxation of
    church property, and opposing it, see H. C. Vedder, in Magazine of
    Christian Literature, Feb. 1890: 265‐272.


B. The sole object of the local church is the glory of God, in the
complete establishment of his kingdom, both in the hearts of believers and
in the world. This object is to be promoted:

(_a_) By united worship,—including prayer and religious instruction; (_b_)
by mutual watchcare and exhortation; (_c_) by common labors for the
reclamation of the impenitent world.


    (_a_) _Heb. 10:25_—“_not forsaking our own assembling together, as
    the custom of some is, but exhorting one another._” One burning
    coal by itself will soon grow dull and go out, but a hundred
    together will give a fury of flame that will set fire to others.
    Notice the value of “the crowd” in politics and in religion. One
    may get an education without going to school or college, and may
    cultivate religion apart from the church; but the number of such
    people will be small, and they do not choose the best way to
    become intelligent or religious.

    (_b_) _1 Thess. 5:11_—“_Wherefore exhort one another, and build
    each other up, even as also ye do_”; _Heb. 3:13_—“_Exhort one
    another day by day, so long as it is called To‐day; lest any one
    of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin._” Churches exist
    in order to: 1. create ideals; 2. supply motives; 3. direct
    energies. They are the leaven hidden in the three measures of
    meal. But there must be life in the leaven, or no good will come
    of it. There is no use of taking to China a lamp that will not
    burn in America. The light that shines the furthest shines
    brightest nearest home.

    (_c_) _Mat. 28:19_—“_Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all
    the nations_”; _Acts 8:4_—“_They therefore that were scattered
    abroad went about preaching the word_”; _2 Cor. 8:5_—“_and this,
    not as we had hoped, but first they gave their own selves to the
    Lord, and to us through the will of God_”; _Jude 23_—“_And on some
    have mercy, who are in __ doubt; and some save, snatching them out
    of the fire._” Inscribed upon a mural tablet of a Christian
    church, in Aneityum in the South Seas, to the memory of Dr. John
    Geddie, the pioneer missionary in that field, are the words: “When
    he came here, there were no Christians; when he went away, there
    were no heathen.” Inscription over the grave of David Livingstone
    in Westminster Abbey: “For thirty years his life was spent in an
    unwearied effort to evangelize the native races, to explore the
    undiscovered secrets, to abolish the desolating slave trade of
    Central Africa, where with his last words he wrote: ‘All I can add
    in my solitude is, May Heaven’s richest blessing come down on
    everyone, American, English or Turk, who will help to heal this
    open sore of the world.’ ”


C. The law of the church is simply the will of Christ, as expressed in the
Scriptures and interpreted by the Holy Spirit. This law respects:

(_a_) The qualifications for membership.—These are regeneration and
baptism, _i. e._, spiritual new birth and ritual new birth; the surrender
of the inward and of the outward life to Christ; the spiritual entrance
into communion with Christ’s death and resurrection, and the formal
profession of this to the world by being buried with Christ and rising
with him in baptism.

(_b_) The duties imposed on members.—In discovering the will of Christ
from the Scriptures, each member has the right of private judgment, being
directly responsible to Christ for his use of the means of knowledge, and
for his obedience to Christ’s commands when these are known.


    How far does the authority of the church extend? It certainly has
    no right to say what its members shall eat and drink; to what
    societies they shall belong; what alliances in marriage or in
    business they shall contract. It has no right, as an organized
    body, to suppress vice in the community, or to regenerate society
    by taking sides in a political canvass. The members of the church,
    as citizens, have duties in all these lines of activity. The
    function of the church is to give them religious preparation and
    stimulus for their work. In this sense, however, the church is to
    influence all human relations. It follows the model of the Jewish
    commonwealth rather than that of the Greek state. The Greek πόλις
    was limited, because it was the affirmation of only personal
    rights. The Jewish commonwealth was universal, because it was the
    embodiment of the one divine will. The Jewish state was the most
    comprehensive of the ancient world, admitting freely the
    incorporation of new members, and looking forward to a worldwide
    religious communion in one faith. So the Romans gave to conquered
    lands the protection and the rights of Rome. But the Christian
    church is the best example of incorporation in conquest. See
    Westcott, Hebrews, 386, 387; John Fiske, Beginnings of New
    England, 1‐20; Dagg, Church Order, 74‐99; Curtis on Communion,
    1‐61.

    Abraham Lincoln: “This country cannot be half slave and half free”
    = the one part will pull the other over; there is an irrepressible
    conflict between them. So with the forces of Christ and of
    Antichrist in the world at large. Alexander Duff: “The church that
    ceases to be evangelistic will soon cease to be evangelical.” We
    may add that the church that ceases to be evangelical will soon
    cease to exist. The Fathers of New England proposed “to advance
    the gospel in these remote parts of the world, even if they should
    be but as stepping‐stones to those who were to follow them.” They
    little foresaw how their faith and learning would give character
    to the great West. Church and school went together. Christ alone
    is the Savior of the world, but Christ alone cannot save the
    world. Zinzendorf called his society “The Mustard‐seed Society”
    because it should remove mountains (_Mat. 17:20_). Hermann, Faith
    and Morals, 91, 238—“It is not by means of things that pretend to
    be imperishable that Christianity continues to live on; but by the
    fact that there are always persons to be found who, by their
    contact with the Bible traditions, become witnesses to the
    personality of Jesus and follow him as their guide, and therefore
    acquire sufficient courage to sacrifice themselves for others.”


3. The genesis of this organization.


(_a_) The church existed in germ before the day of Pentecost,—otherwise
there would have been nothing to which those converted upon that day could
have been “added” (Acts 2:47). Among the apostles, regenerate as they
were, united to Christ by faith and in that faith baptized (Acts 19:4),
under Christ’s instruction and engaged in common work for him, there were
already the beginnings of organization. There was a treasurer of the body
(John 13:29), and as a body they celebrated for the first time the Lord’s
Supper (Mat. 26:26‐29). To all intents and purposes they constituted a
church, although the church was not yet fully equipped for its work by the
outpouring of the Spirit (Acts 2), and by the appointment of pastors and
deacons. The church existed without officers, as in the first days
succeeding Pentecost.


    _Acts 2:47_—“_And the Lord added to them_ [marg.: ‘_together_’]
    _day by day those that were being saved_”; _19:4_—“_And Paul said,
    John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the
    people that they should believe on him that should come after him,
    that is, on Jesus_”; _John 13:29_—“_For some thought, because
    Judas had the bag, that Jesus said unto him, Buy what things we
    have need of for the feast; or, that he should give something to
    the poor_”; _Mat. 26:26‐29_—“_And as they were eating, Jesus took
    bread ... and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat....
    And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying,
    Drink ye all of it_”; _Acts 2_—the Holy Spirit is poured out. It
    is to be remembered that Christ himself is the embodied union
    between God and man, the true temple of God’s indwelling. So soon
    as the first believer joined himself to Christ, the church existed
    in miniature and germ.

    A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 55, quotes _Acts 2:41_—“_and
    there were added,_” not to them, or to the church, but, as in
    _Acts 5:14_, and _11:24_—“_to the Lord._” This, Dr. Gordon
    declares, means not a mutual union of believers, but their divine
    coüniting with Christ; not voluntary association of Christians,
    but their sovereign incorporation into the Head, and this
    incorporation effected by the Head, through the Holy Spirit. The
    old proverb, “Tres faciunt ecclesiam,” is always true when one of
    the three is Jesus (Dr. Deems). Cyprian was wrong when he said
    that “he who has not the church for his mother, has not God for
    his Father”; for this could not account for the conversion of the
    first Christian, and it makes salvation dependent upon the church
    rather than upon Christ. The Cambridge Platform, 1648, chapter 6,
    makes officers essential, not to the being, but only to the well
    being, of churches, and declares that elders and deacons are the
    only ordinary officers; see Dexter, Congregationalism, 439.

    Fish, Ecclesiology, 14‐11, by a striking analogy, distinguishes
    three periods of the church’s life: (1) the pre‐natal period, in
    which the church is not separated from Christ’s bodily presence;
    (2) the period of childhood, in which the church is under
    tutelage, preparing for an independent life; (3) the period of
    maturity, in which the church, equipped with doctrines and
    officers, is ready for self‐government. The three periods may be
    likened to bud, blossom, and fruit. Before Christ’s death, the
    church existed in bud only.


(_b_) That provision for these offices was made gradually as exigencies
arose, is natural when we consider that the church immediately after
Christ’s ascension was under the tutelage of inspired apostles, and was to
be prepared, by a process of education, for independence and self‐
government. As doctrine was communicated gradually yet infallibly, through
the oral and written teaching of the apostles, so we are warranted in
believing that the church was gradually but infallibly guided to the
adoption of Christ’s own plan of church organization and of Christian
work. The same promise of the Spirit which renders the New Testament an
unerring and sufficient rule of faith, renders it also an unerring and
sufficient rule of practice, for the church in all places and times.


    _John 16:12‐26_ is to be interpreted as a promise of gradual
    leading by the Spirit into all the truth; _1 Cor. 14:37_—“_the
    things which I write unto you ... they are the commandments of the
    Lord._” An examination of Paul’s epistles in their chronological
    order shows a progress in definiteness of teaching with regard to
    church polity, as well as with regard to doctrine in general. In
    this matter, as in other matters, apostolic instruction was given
    as providential exigencies demanded it. In the earliest days of
    the church, attention was paid to preaching rather than to
    organization. Like Luther, Paul thought more of church order in
    his later days than at the beginning of his work. Yet even in his
    first epistle we find the germ which is afterwards continuously
    developed. See:

    (1) _1 Thess. 5:12, 13_ (A. D. 52)—“_But we beseech you, brethren,
    to know them that labor among you, and are over you_
    (προῖσταμένους) _in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them
    exceeding highly in love for their work’s sake._”

    (2) _1 Cor. 12:28_ (A. D. 57)—“_And God hath set some in the
    church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then
    miracles, then gifts of healings, helps_ [ἀντιλήψεις = gifts
    needed by deacons], _governments_ [κυβερνήσεις = gifts needed by
    pastors], _divers kinds of tongues_.”

    (3) _Rom. 12:6‐8_ (A. D. 58)—“_And having gifts differing
    according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let
    us prophesy according to the proportion of our faith; or ministry_
    [διακονίαν], _let us give ourselves to our ministry; or he that
    teacheth, to his teaching; or he that exhorteth, to his exhorting:
    he that giveth, let him do it with liberality; he that ruleth_ [ὁ
    προῖσταμένος], _with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with
    cheerfulness_.”

    (4) _Phil. 1:1_ (A. D. 62)—“_Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus
    Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi,
    with the bishops_ [ἐπισκόποις, marg.: ‘_overseers_’] _and deacons_
    [διακόνοις].”

    (5) _Eph. 4:11_ (A. D. 63)—“_And he gave some to be apostles; and
    some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and
    teachers_ [ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους].”

    (6) _1 Tim. 3:1, 2_ (A. D. 66)—“_If a man seeketh the office of a
    bishop, he desireth a good work. The bishop_ [τὸν ἐπίσκοπον]
    _therefore must be without reproach_.” On this last passage,
    Huther in Meyer’s Com. remarks: “Paul in the beginning looked at
    the church in its unity,—only gradually does he make prominent its
    leaders. We must not infer that the churches in earlier time were
    without leadership, but only that in the later time circumstances
    were such as to require him to lay emphasis upon the pastor’s
    office and work.” See also Schaff, Teaching of the Twelve
    Apostles, 62‐75.

    McGiffert, in his Apostolic Church, puts the dates of Paul’s
    Epistles considerably earlier, as for example: _1 Thess._, circ.
    48; _1 Cor._, c. 51, 52; _Rom._, 52, 53; _Phil._, 56‐58; _Eph._,
    52, 53, or 56‐58; _1 Tim._, 56‐58. But even before the earliest
    Epistles of Paul comes _James 5:14_—“_Is any among you sick? let
    him call for the elders of the church_”—written about 48 A. D.,
    and showing that within twenty years after the death of our Lord
    there had grown up a very definite form of church organization.

    On the question how far our Lord and his apostles, in the
    organization of the church, availed themselves of the synagogue as
    a model, see Neander, Planting and Training, 28‐34. The ministry
    of the church is without doubt an outgrowth and adaptation of the
    eldership of the synagogue. In the synagogue, there were elders
    who gave themselves to the study and expounding of the Scriptures.
    The synagogues held united prayer, and exercised discipline. They
    were democratic in government, and independent of each other. It
    has sometimes been said that election of officers by the
    membership of the church came from the Greek ἐκκλησία, or popular
    assembly. But Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,
    1:438, says of the elders of the synagogue that “their election
    depended on the choice of the congregation.” Talmud, Berachob, 55
    _a_: “No ruler is appointed over a congregation, unless the
    congregation is consulted.”


(_c_) Any number of believers, therefore, may constitute themselves into a
Christian church, by adopting for their rule of faith and practice
Christ’s law as laid down in the New Testament, and by associating
themselves together, in accordance with it, for his worship and service.
It is important, where practicable, that a council of churches be
previously called, to advise the brethren proposing this union as to the
desirableness of constituting a new and distinct local body; and, if it be
found desirable, to recognize them, after its formation, as being a church
of Christ. But such action of a council, however valuable as affording
ground for the fellowship of other churches, is not constitutive, but is
simply declaratory; and, without such action, the body of believers
alluded to, if formed after the N. T. example, may notwithstanding be a
true church of Christ. Still further, a band of converts, among the
heathen or providentially precluded from access to existing churches,
might rightfully appoint one of their number to baptize the rest, and then
might organize, _de novo_, a New Testament church.


    The church at Antioch was apparently self‐created and self‐
    directed. There is no evidence that any human authority, outside
    of the converts there, was invoked to constitute or to organize
    the church. As John Spillsbury put it about 1640: “Where there is
    a beginning, some must be first.” The initiative lies in the
    individual convert, and in his duty to obey the commands of
    Christ. No body of Christians can excuse itself for disobedience
    upon the plea that it has no officers. It can elect its own
    officers. Councils have no authority to constitute churches. Their
    work is simply that of recognizing the already existing
    organization and of pledging the fellowship of the churches which
    they represent. If God can of the stones raise up children unto
    Abraham, he can also raise up pastors and teachers from within the
    company of believers whom he has converted and saved.

    Hagenbach, Hist. Doct., 2:294, quotes from Luther, as follows: “If
    a company of pious Christian laymen were captured and sent to a
    desert place, and had not among them an ordained priest, and were
    all agreed in the matter, and elected one and told him to baptize,
    administer the Mass, absolve, and preach, such a one would be as
    true a priest as if all the bishops and popes had ordained him.”
    Dexter, Congregationalism, 51—“Luther came near discovering and
    reproducing Congregationalism. Three things checked him: 1. he
    undervalued polity as compared with doctrine; 2. he reacted from
    Anabaptist fanaticisms; 3. he thought Providence indicated that
    princes should lead and people should follow. So, while he and
    Zwingle alike held the Bible to teach that all ecclesiastical
    power inheres under Christ in the congregation of believers, the
    matter ended in an organization of superintendents and
    consistories, which gradually became fatally mixed up with the
    state.”



III. Government of the Church.


1. Nature of this government in general.


It is evident from the direct relation of each member of the church, and
so of the church as a whole, to Christ as sovereign and lawgiver, that the
government of the church, so far as regards the source of authority, is an
absolute monarchy.

In ascertaining the will of Christ, however, and in applying his commands
to providential exigencies, the Holy Spirit enlightens one member through
the counsel of another, and as the result of combined deliberation, guides
the whole body to right conclusions. This work of the Spirit is the
foundation of the Scripture injunctions to unity. This unity, since it is
a unity of the Spirit, is not an enforced, but an intelligent and willing,
unity. While Christ is sole king, therefore, the government of the church,
so far as regards the interpretation and execution of his will by the
body, is an absolute democracy, in which the whole body of members is
intrusted with the duty and responsibility of carrying out the laws of
Christ as expressed in his word.


    The seceders from the established church of Scotland, on the
    memorable 18th of May, 1843, embodied in their protest the
    following words: We go out “from an establishment which we loved
    and prized, through interference with conscience, the dishonor
    done to Christ’s crown, and the rejection of his sole and supreme
    authority as King in his church.” The church should be rightly
    ordered, since it is the representative and guardian of God’s
    truth—its “_pillar and ground_” (_1 Tim. 3:15_)—the Holy Spirit
    working in and through it.

    But it is this very relation of the church to Christ and his truth
    which renders it needful to insist upon the right of each member
    of the church to his private judgment as to the meaning of
    Scripture; in other words, absolute monarchy, in this case,
    requires for its complement an absolute democracy. President
    Wayland: “No individual Christian or number of individual
    Christians, no individual church or number of individual churches,
    has original authority, or has power over the whole. None can add
    to or subtract from the laws of Christ, or interfere with his
    direct and absolute sovereignty over the hearts and lives of his
    subjects.” Each member, as equal to every other, has right to a
    voice in the decisions of the whole body; and no action of the
    majority can bind him against his conviction of duty to Christ.

    John Cotton of Massachusetts Bay, 1643, Questions and Answers:
    “The royal government of the churches is in Christ, the stewardly
    or ministerial in the churches themselves.” Cambridge Platform,
    1648, 10th chapter—“So far as Christ is concerned, church
    government is a monarchy; so far as the brotherhood of the church
    is concerned, it resembles a democracy.” Unfortunately the
    Platform goes further and declares that, in respect of the
    Presbytery and the Elders’ power, it is also an aristocracy.

    Herbert Spencer and John Stuart Mill, who held diverse views in
    philosophy, were once engaged in controversy. While the discussion
    was running through the press, Mr. Spencer, forced by lack of
    funds, announced that he would be obliged to discontinue the
    publication of his promised books on science and philosophy. Mr.
    Mill wrote him at once, saying that, while he could not agree with
    him in some things, he realized that Mr. Spencer’s investigations
    on the whole made for the advance of truth, and so he himself
    would be glad to bear the expense of the remaining volumes. Here
    in the philosophical world is an example which may well be taken
    to heart by theologians. All Christians indeed are bound to
    respect in others the right of private judgment while stedfastly
    adhering themselves to the truth as Christ has made it known to
    them.

    Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus, dug for each neophyte a
    grave, and buried him all but the head, asking him: “Art thou
    dead?” When he said: “Yes!” the General added: “Rise then, and
    begin to serve, for I want only dead men to serve me.” Jesus, on
    the other hand, wants only living men to serve him, for he gives
    life and gives it abundantly (_John 10:10_). The Salvation Army,
    in like manner, violates the principle of sole allegiance to
    Christ, and like the Jesuits puts the individual conscience and
    will under bonds to a human master. Good intentions may at first
    prevent evil results; but, since no man can be trusted with
    absolute power, the ultimate consequence, as in the case of the
    Jesuits, will be the enslavement of the subordinate members. Such
    autocracy does not find congenial soil in America,—hence the
    rebellion of Mr. and Mrs. Ballington Booth.


A. Proof that the government of the church is democratic or
congregational.


(_a_) From the duty of the whole church to preserve unity in its action.


    _Rom. 12:16_—“_Be of the same mind one toward another_”; _1 Cor.
    1:10_—“_Now I beseech you ... that ye all speak the same thing,
    and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected
    together in the same mind and in the same judgment_”; _2 Cor.
    13:11_—“_be of the same mind_”; _Eph. 4:3_—“_giving diligence to
    keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace_”; _Phil.
    1:27_—“_that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one soul striving
    for the faith of the gospel_”; _1 Pet. 3:8_—“_be ye all
    likeminded._”

    These exhortations to unity are not mere counsels to passive
    submission, such as might be given under a hierarchy, or to the
    members of a society of Jesuits; they are counsels to coöperation
    and to harmonious judgment. Each member, while forming his own
    opinions under the guidance of the Spirit, is to remember that the
    other members have the Spirit also, and that a final conclusion as
    to the will of God is to be reached only through comparison of
    views. The exhortation to unity is therefore an exhortation to be
    open‐minded, docile, ready to subject our opinions to discussion,
    to welcome new light with regard to them, and to give up any
    opinion when we find it to be in the wrong. The church is in
    general to secure unanimity by moral suasion only; though, in case
    of wilful and perverse opposition to its decisions, it may be
    necessary to secure unity by excluding an obstructive member, for
    schism.

    A quiet and peaceful unity is the result of the Holy Spirit’s work
    in the hearts of Christians. New Testament church government
    proceeds upon the supposition that Christ dwells in all believers.
    Baptist polity is the best possible polity for good people. Christ
    has made no provision for an unregenerate church‐membership, and
    for Satanic possession of Christians. It is best that a church in
    which Christ does not dwell should by dissension reveal its
    weakness, and fall to pieces; and any outward organization that
    conceals inward disintegration, and compels a merely formal union
    after the Holy Spirit has departed, is a hindrance instead of a
    help to true religion.

    Congregationalism is not a strong government to look at. Neither
    is the solar system. Its enemies call it a rope of sand. It is
    rather a rope of iron filings held together by a magnetic current.
    Wordsworth: “Mightier far Than strength of nerve or sinew, or the
    sway Of magic portent over sun and star, Is love.” President
    Wayland: “We do not need any hoops of iron or steel to hold us
    together.” At high tide all the little pools along the sea shore
    are fused together. The unity produced by the inflowing of the
    Spirit of Christ is better than any mere external unity, whether
    of organization or of creed, whether of Romanism or of
    Protestantism. The times of the greatest external unity, as under
    Hildebrand, were times of the church’s deepest moral corruption. A
    revival of religion is a better cure for church quarrels than any
    change in church organization could effect. In the early church,
    though there was no common government, unity was promoted by
    active intercourse. Hospitality, regular delegates, itinerant
    apostles and prophets, apostolic and other epistles, still later
    the gospels, persecution, and even heresy, promoted unity—heresy
    compelling the exclusion of the unworthy and factious elements in
    the Christian community.

    Dr. F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia: “Not a word in the
    Epistle to the Ephesians exhibits the one _ecclesia_ as made up of
    many _ecclesiæ_.... The members which make up the one _ecclesia_
    are not communities, but individual men.... The unity of the
    universal _ecclesia_ ... is a truth of theology and religion, not
    a fact of what we call ecclesiastical politics.... The _ecclesia_
    itself, _i. e._, the sum of all its male members, is the primary
    body, and, it would seem, even the primary authority.... Of
    officers higher than elders we find nothing that points to an
    institution or system, nothing like the Episcopal system of later
    times.... The monarchical principle receives practical though
    limited recognition in the position ultimately held by St. James
    at Jerusalem, and in the temporary functions entrusted by St. Paul
    to Timothy and Titus.” On this last statement Bartlett, in
    Contemp. Rev., July, 1897, says that James held an unique position
    as brother of our Lord, while Paul left the communities organized
    by Timothy and Titus to govern themselves, when once their
    organization was set agoing. There was no permanent diocesan
    episcopate, in which one man presided over many churches. The
    _ecclesiæ_ had for their officers only bishops and deacons.

    Should not the majority rule in a Baptist church? No, not a bare
    majority, when there are opposing convictions on the part of a
    large minority. What should rule is the mind of the Spirit. What
    indicates his mind is the gradual unification of conviction and
    opinion on the part of the whole body in support of some definite
    plan, so that the whole church moves together. The large church
    has the advantage over the small church in that the single
    crotchety member cannot do so much harm. One man in a small boat
    can easily upset it, but not so in the great ship. Patient
    waiting, persuasion, and prayer, will ordinarily win over the
    recalcitrant. It is not to be denied, however, that patience may
    have its limits, and that unity may sometimes need to be purchased
    by secession and the forming of a new local church whose members
    can work harmoniously together.


(_b_) From the responsibility of the whole church for maintaining pure
doctrine and practice.


    _1 Tim. 3:15_—“_the church of the living God, the pillar and
    ground of the truth_”; _Jude 3_—“_exhorting you to contend
    earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the
    saints_”; _Rev. 2_ and _3_—exhortations to the seven churches of
    Asia to maintain pure doctrine and practice. In all these
    passages, pastoral charges are given, not by a so‐called bishop to
    his subordinate priests, but by an apostle to the whole church and
    to all its members.

    In _1 Tim. 3:15_, Dr. Hort would translate “_a pillar and ground
    of the truth_”—apparently referring to the local church as one of
    many. _Eph. 3:18_—“_strong to apprehend with all saints what is
    the breadth and length and height and depth._” Edith Wharton,
    Vesalius in Zante, in N. A. Rev., Nov. 1892—“Truth is many‐
    tongued. What one man failed to speak, another finds Another word
    for. May not all converge, In some vast utterance of which you and
    I, Fallopius, were but the halting syllables?” Bruce, Training of
    the Twelve, shows that the Twelve probably knew the whole O. T. by
    heart. Pandita Ramabai, at Oxford, when visiting Max Müller,
    recited from the Rig Veda _passim_, and showed that she knew more
    of it by heart than the whole contents of the O. T.


(_c_) From the committing of the ordinances to the charge of the whole
church to observe and guard. As the church expresses truth in her
teaching, so she is to express it in symbol through the ordinances.


    _Mat. 28:19, 20_—“_Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the
    nations, baptizing them ... teaching them_”; _cf._ _Luke
    24:33_—“_And they rose up that very hour ... found the eleven
    gathered together, and them that were with __ them_”; _Acts
    1:15_—“_And in these days Peter stood up in the midst of the
    brethren, and said (and there was a multitude of persons gathered
    together, about a hundred and twenty)_”; _1 Cor. 15:6_—“_then he
    appeared to above five hundred brethren at once_”—these passages
    show that it was not to the eleven apostles alone that Jesus
    committed the ordinances.

    _1 Cor. 11:2_—“_Now I praise you that ye remember me in all
    things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to
    you_”; _cf._ _23, 24_—“_for I received of the Lord that which also
    I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he
    was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake
    it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in
    remembrance of me_”—here Paul commits the Lord’s Supper into the
    charge, not of the body of officials, but of the whole church.
    Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, therefore, are not to be
    administered at the discretion of the individual minister. He is
    simply the organ of the church; and pocket baptismal and communion
    services are without warrant. See Curtis, Progress of Baptist
    Principles, 299; Robinson, Harmony of Gospels, notes, § 170.


(_d_) From the election by the whole church, of its own officers and
delegates. In Acts 14:23, the literal interpretation of χειροτονήσαντες is
not to be pressed. In Titus 1:5, “when Paul empowers Titus to set
presiding officers over the communities, this circumstance decides nothing
as to the mode of choice, nor is a choice by the community itself thereby
necessarily excluded.”


    _Acts 1:23, 26_—“_And they put forward two ... and they gave lots
    for them; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with
    the eleven apostles_”; _6:3, 5_—“_Look ye out therefore, brethren,
    from among you seven men of good report ... And the saying pleased
    the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, ... and Philip, and
    Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus_”—as
    deacons; _Acts 13:2, 3_—“_And as they ministered to the Lord, and
    fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for
    the work whereunto I have called them. Then, when they had fasted
    and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away._”

    On this passage, see Meyer’s comment: “ ‘_Ministered_’ here
    expresses the act of celebrating divine service on the part of the
    whole church. To refer αὐτῶν to the ‘_prophets and teachers_’ is
    forbidden by the ἀφορίσατε—and by _verse 3_. This interpretation
    would confine this most important mission‐act to five persons, of
    whom two were the missionaries sent; and the church would have had
    no part in it, even through its presbyters. This agrees, neither
    with the common possession of the Spirit in the apostolic church,
    nor with the concrete cases of the choice of an apostle (_ch. 1_)
    and of deacons (_ch. 6_). Compare _14:27_, where the returned
    missionaries report to the church. The imposition of hands (_verse
    3_) is by the presbyters, as representatives of the whole church.
    The subject in _verses 2_ and _3_ is ‘_the church_’—(represented
    by the presbyters in this case). The church sends the missionaries
    to the heathen, and consecrates them through its elders.”

    _Acts 15:2, 4, 22, 30_—“_the brethren appointed that Paul and
    Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem....
    And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the
    church and the apostles and the elders.... Then it seemed good to
    the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men
    out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and
    Barnabas.... So they ... came down to Antioch; and having gathered
    the multitude together, they delivered the epistle_”; _2 Cor.
    8:19_—“_who was also appointed by the churches to travel with us
    in the matter of this grace_”—the contribution for the poor in
    Jerusalem; _Acts 14:23_—“_And when they had appointed_
    (χειροτονήσαντες) _for them elders in every church_”—the apostles
    announced the election of the church, as a College President
    confers degrees, _i. e._, by announcing degrees conferred by the
    Board of Trustees. To this same effect witnesses the newly
    discovered Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, chapter 15: “Appoint
    therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons.”

    The derivation of χειροτονήσαντες, holding up of hands, as in a
    popular vote, is not to be pressed, any more than is the
    derivation of ἐκκλησία from καλέω. The former had come to mean
    simply “to appoint,” without reference to the manner of
    appointment, as the latter had come to mean an “assembly,” without
    reference to the calling of its members by God. That the church at
    Antioch “_separated_” Paul and Barnabas, and that this was not
    done simply by the five persons mentioned, is shown by the fact
    that, when Paul and Barnabas returned from the missionary journey,
    they reported not to these five, but to the whole church. So when
    the church at Antioch sent delegates to Jerusalem, the letter of
    the Jerusalem church is thus addressed: “_The apostles and the
    elders, brethren, unto the brethren who are of the Gentiles in
    Antioch and Syria and Cilicia_” (_Acts 15:23_). The Twelve had
    only spiritual authority. They could advise, but they did not
    command. Hence they could not transmit government, since they had
    it not. They could demand obedience, only as they convinced their
    hearers that their word was truth. It was not they who commanded,
    but their Master.

    Hackett, Com. on Acts—“χειροτονησαντες is not to be pressed, since
    Paul and Barnabas constitute the persons ordaining. It may
    possibly indicate a concurrent appointment, in accordance with the
    usual practice of universal suffrage; but the burden of proof lies
    on those who would so modify the meaning of the verb. The word is
    frequently used in the sense of choosing, appointing, with
    reference to the formality of raising the hand.” _Per contra_, see
    Meyer, _in loco_: “The church officers were elective. As appears
    from analogy of _6:2‐6_ (election of deacons), the word
    χειροτονήσαντες retains its etymological sense, and does not mean
    ‘constituted’ or ‘created.’ Their choice was a recognition of a
    gift already bestowed,—not the ground of the office and source of
    authority, but merely the means by which the gift becomes [known,
    recognized, and] an actual office in the church.”

    Baumgarten, Apostolic History, 1:456—“They—the two apostles—allow
    presbyters to be chosen for the community by voting.” Alexander,
    Com. on Acts—“The method of election here, as the expression
    χειροτονήσαντες indicates, was the same as that in _Acts 6:5, 6_,
    where the people chose the seven, and the twelve ordained them.”
    Barnes, Com. on Acts: “The apostles presided in the assembly where
    the choice was made,—appointed them in the usual way by the
    suffrage of the people.” Dexter, Congregationalism,
    138—“ ‘_Ordained_’ means here ‘prompted and secured the election’
    of elders in every church.” So in _Titus 1:5_—“_appoint elders in
    every city._” Compare the Latin: “dictator consules creavit” =
    prompted and secured the election of consuls by the people. See
    Neander, Church History, 1:189; Guericke, Church History, 1:110;
    Meyer, on _Acts 13:2_.

    The Watchman, Nov. 7, 1901—“The root‐difficulty with many schemes
    of statecraft is to be found in deep‐seated distrust of the
    capacities and possibilities of men. Wendell Phillips once said
    that nothing so impressed him with the power of the gospel to
    solve our problems as the sight of a prince and a peasant kneeling
    side by side in a European Cathedral.” Dr. W. R. Huntington makes
    the strong points of Congregationalism to be: 1. a lofty estimate
    of the value of trained intelligence in the Christian ministry; 2.
    a clear recognition of the duty of every lay member of a church to
    take an active interest in its affairs, temporal as well as
    spiritual. He regards the weaknesses of Congregationalism to be:
    1. a certain incapacity for expansion beyond the territorial
    limits within which it is indigenous; 2. an undervaluation of the
    mystical or sacramental, as contrasted with the doctrinal and
    practical sides of religion. He argues for the object‐symbolism as
    well as the verbal‐symbolism of the real presence and grace of our
    Lord Jesus Christ. Dread of idolatry, he thinks, should not make
    us indifferent to the value of sacraments. Baptists, we reply, may
    fairly claim that they escape both of these charges against
    ordinary Congregationalism, in that they have shown unlimited
    capacity of expansion, and in that they make very much of the
    symbolism of the ordinances.


(_e_) From the power of the whole church to exercise discipline. Passages
which show the right of the whole body to exclude, show also the right of
the whole body to admit, members.


    _Mat. 18:17_—“_And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the
    church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto
    thee as the Gentile and the publican. Verily I say unto you, What
    things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and
    what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in
    heaven_”—words often inscribed over Roman Catholic confessionals,
    but improperly, since they refer not to the decisions of a single
    priest, but to the decisions of the whole body of believers guided
    by the Holy Spirit. In _Mat. 18:17_, quoted above, we see that the
    church has authority, that it is bound to take cognizance of
    offences, and that its action is final. If there had been in the
    mind of our Lord any other than a democratic form of government,
    he would have referred the aggrieved party to pastor, priest, or
    presbytery, and, in case of a wrong decision by the church, would
    have mentioned some synod or assembly to which the aggrieved
    person might appeal. But he throws all the responsibility upon the
    whole body of believers. _Cf._ _Num. 15:35_—“_all the congregation
    shall stone him with stones_”—the man who gathered sticks on the
    Sabbath day. Every Israelite was to have part in the execution of
    the penalty.

    _1 Cor. 5:4, 5, 13_—“_ye being gathered together ... to deliver
    such a one unto Satan.... Put away the wicked man from among
    yourselves_”; _2 Cor. 2:6, 7_—“_Sufficient to such a one is this
    punishment which was inflicted by the many; so that contrariwise
    ye should rather forgive him and comfort him_”; _7:11_—“_For
    behold, this selfsame thing ... what earnest care it wrought in
    you, yea, what clearing of yourselves.... In every thing ye
    approved yourselves to be pure in the matter_”; _2 Thess. 3:6, 14,
    15_—“_withdraw yourselves from every brother that __ walketh
    disorderly ... if any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle,
    note that man, that ye have no company with him, to the end that
    he may be ashamed. And yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish
    him as a brother._” The evils in the church at Corinth were such
    as could exist only in a democratic body, and Paul does not enjoin
    upon the church a change of government, but a change of heart.
    Paul does not himself excommunicate the incestuous man, but he
    urges the church to excommunicate him.

    The educational influence upon the whole church of this election
    of pastors and deacons, choosing of delegates, admission and
    exclusion of members, management of church finance and general
    conduct of business, carrying on of missionary operations and
    raising of contributions, together with responsibility for correct
    doctrine and practice, cannot be overestimated. The whole body can
    know those who apply for admission, better than pastors or elders
    can. To put the whole government of the church into the hands of a
    few is to deprive the membership of one great means of Christian
    training and progress. Hence the pastor’s duty is to develop the
    self‐government of the church. The missionary should not command,
    but advise. That minister is most successful who gets the whole
    body to move, and who renders the church independent of himself.
    The test of his work is not while he is with them, but after he
    leaves them. Then it can be seen whether he has taught them to
    follow him, or to follow Christ; whether he has led them to the
    formation of habits of independent Christian activity, or whether
    he has made them passively dependent upon himself.

    It should be the ambition of the pastor not “to run the church,”
    but to teach the church intelligently and Scripturally to manage
    its own affairs. The word “minister” means, not master, but
    servant. The true pastor inspires, but he does not drive. He is
    like the trusty mountain guide, who carries a load thrice as heavy
    as that of the man he serves, who leads in safe paths and points
    out dangers, but who neither shouts nor compels obedience. The
    individual Christian should be taught: 1. to realize the privilege
    of church membership; 2. to fit himself to use his privilege; 3.
    to exercise his rights as a church member; 4. to glory in the New
    Testament system of church government, and to defend and propagate
    it.

    A Christian pastor can either rule, or he can have the reputation
    of ruling; but he can not do both. Real ruling involves a sinking
    of self, a working through others, a doing of nothing that some
    one else can be got to do. The reputation of ruling leads sooner
    or later to the loss of real influence, and to the decline of the
    activities of the church itself. See Coleman, Manual of Prelacy
    and Ritualism, 87‐125; and on the advantages of Congregationalism
    over every other form of church‐polity, see Dexter,
    Congregationalism, 236‐296. Dexter, 290, note, quotes from
    Belcher’s Religious Denominations of the U. S., 184, as follows:
    “Jefferson said that he considered Baptist church government the
    only form of pure democracy which then existed in the world, and
    had concluded that it would be the best plan of government for the
    American Colonies. This was eight or ten years before the American
    Revolution.” On Baptist democracy, see Thomas Armitage, in N.
    Amer. Rev., March, 1887:232‐243.

    John Fiske, Beginnings of New England: “In a church based upon
    such a theology [that of Calvin], there was no room for prelacy.
    Each single church tended to become an independent congregation of
    worshipers, constituting one of the most effective schools that
    has ever existed for training men in local self‐government.”
    Schurman, Agnosticism, 160—“The Baptists, who are nominally
    Calvinists, are now, as they were at the beginning of the century,
    second in numerical rank [in America]; but their fundamental
    principle—the Bible, the Bible only—taken in connection with their
    polity, has enabled them silently to drop the old theology and
    unconsciously to adjust themselves to the new spiritual
    environment.” We prefer to say that Baptists have not dropped the
    old theology, but have given it new interpretation and
    application; see A. H. Strong, Our Denominational Outlook, Sermon
    in Cleveland, 1904.


B. Erroneous views as to church government refuted by the foregoing
passages.


(_a_) The world‐church theory, or the Romanist view.—This holds that all
local churches are subject to the supreme authority of the bishop of Rome,
as the successor of Peter and the infallible vicegerent of Christ, and, as
thus united, constitute the one and only church of Christ on earth. We
reply:

First,—Christ gave no such supreme authority to Peter. Mat. 16:18, 19,
simply refers to the personal position of Peter as first confessor of
Christ and preacher of his name to Jews and Gentiles. Hence other apostles
also constituted the foundation (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14). On one occasion,
the counsel of James was regarded as of equal weight with that of Peter
(Acts 15:7‐30), while on another occasion Peter was rebuked by Paul (Gal.
2:11), and Peter calls himself only a fellow‐elder (1 Pet. 5:1).


    _Mat. 16:18, 19_—“_And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter,
    and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades
    shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of
    the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth
    shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth
    shall be loosed in heaven._” Peter exercised this power of the
    keys for both Jews and Gentiles, by being the first to preach
    Christ to them, and so admit them to the kingdom of heaven. The
    “_rock_” is a confessing heart. The confession of Christ makes
    Peter a rock upon which the church can be built. Plumptre on
    Epistles of Peter, Introd., 14—“He was a stone—one with that rock
    with which he was now joined by an indissoluble union.” But others
    come to be associated with him: _Eph. 2:20_—“_built upon the
    foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself
    being the chief corner stone_”; _Rev. 21:14_—“_And the wall of the
    city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the
    twelve apostles of the Lamb._” _Acts 15:7‐30_—the Council of
    Jerusalem. _Gal. 2:11_—“_But when Cephas came to Antioch, I
    resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned_”; _1 Pet.
    5:1_—“_The elders therefore among you I exhort, who am a fellow‐
    elder._”

    Here it should be remembered that three things were necessary to
    constitute an apostle: (1) he must have seen Christ after his
    resurrection, so as to be a witness to the fact that Christ had
    risen from the dead; (2) he must be a worker of miracles, to
    certify that he was Christ’s messenger; (3) he must be an inspired
    teacher of Christ’s truth, so that his final utterances are the
    very word of God. In _Rom. 16:7_—“_Salute Andronicus and Junias,
    my kinsmen, and my fellow‐prisoners, who are of note among the
    apostles_” means simply: “who are highly esteemed among, or by,
    the apostles.” Barnabas is called an apostle, in the etymological
    sense of a messenger: _Acts 13:2, 3_—“_Separate me Barnabas and
    Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. Then, when they
    had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them
    away_”; _Heb. 3:1_—“_consider the Apostle and High Priest of our
    confession, even Jesus._” In this latter sense, the number of the
    apostles was not limited to twelve.

    Protestants err in denying the reference in _Mat. 16:18_ to Peter;
    Christ recognizes Peter’s _personality_ in the founding of his
    kingdom. But Romanists equally err in ignoring Peter’s
    _confession_ as constituting him the “_rock_.” Creeds and
    confessions alone will never convert the world; they need to be
    embodied in living personalities in order to save; this is the
    grain of correct doctrine in Romanism. On the other hand, men
    without a faith, which they are willing to confess at every cost,
    will never convert the world; there must be a substance of
    doctrine with regard to sin, and with regard to Christ as the
    divine Savior from sin; this is the just contention of
    Protestantism. Baptist doctrine combines the merits of both
    systems. It has both personality and confession. It is not
    hierarchical, but experiential. It insists, not upon abstractions,
    but upon life. Truth without a body is as powerless as a body
    without truth. A flag without an army is even worse than an army
    without a flag. Phillips Brooks: “The truth of God working through
    the personality of man has been the salvation of the world.”
    Pascal: “Catholicism is a church without a religion; Protestantism
    is a religion without a church.” Yes, we reply, if church means
    hierarchy.


Secondly,—If Peter had such authority given him, there is no evidence that
he had power to transmit it to others.


    Fisher, Hist. Christian Church, 247—“William of Occam (1280‐1347)
    composed a treatise on the power of the pope. He went beyond his
    predecessors in arguing that the church, since it has its unity in
    Christ, is not under the necessity of being subject to a single
    primate. He placed the Emperor and the General Council above the
    pope, as his judges. In matters of faith he would not allow
    infallibility even to the General Councils. ‘Only Holy Scripture
    and the beliefs of the universal church are of absolute
    validity.’ ” W. Rauschenbusch, in The Examiner, July 28, 1892—“The
    age of an ecclesiastical organization, instead of being an
    argument in its favor, is presumptive evidence against it, because
    all bodies organized for moral or religious ends manifest such a
    frightful inclination to become corrupt.... Marks of the true
    church are: present spiritual power, loyalty to Jesus, an
    unworldly morality, seeking and saving the lost, self‐sacrifice
    and self‐crucifixion.”

    Romanism holds to a transmitted infallibility. The pope is
    infallible: 1. when he speaks as pope; 2. when he speaks for the
    whole church; 3. when he defines doctrine, or passes a final
    judgment; 4. when the doctrine thus defined is within the sphere
    of faith or morality; see Brandis, in N. A. Rev., Dec. 1892: 654.
    Schurman, Belief in God, 114—“Like the Christian pope, Zeus is
    conceived in the Homeric poems to be fallible as an individual,
    but infallible as head of the sacred convocation. The other gods
    are only his representatives and executives.” But, even if the
    primacy of the Roman pontiff were acknowledged, there would still
    be abundant proof that he is not infallible. The condemnation of
    the letters of Pope Honorius, acknowledging monothelism and
    ordering it to be preached, by Pope Martin I and the first Council
    of Lateran in 649, shows that both could not be right. Yet both
    were _ex cathedra_ utterances, one denying what the other
    affirmed. Perrone concedes that only one error committed by a pope
    in an _ex cathedra_ announcement would be fatal to the doctrine of
    papal infallibility.

    Martineau, Seat of Authority, 139, 140, gives instances of papal
    inconsistencies and contradictions, and shows that Roman
    Catholicism does not answer to either one of its four notes or
    marks of a true church, _viz._: 1. unity; 2. sanctity; 3.
    universality; 4. apostolicity. Dean Stanley had an interview with
    Pope Pius IX, and came away saying that the infallible man had
    made more blunders in a twenty minutes’ conversation than any
    person he had ever met. Dr. Fairbairn facetiously defines
    infallibility, as “inability to detect errors even where they are
    most manifest.” He speaks of “the folly of the men who think they
    hold God in their custody, and distribute him to whomsoever they
    will.” The Pope of Rome can no more trace his official descent
    from Peter than Alexander the Great could trace his personal
    descent from Jupiter.


Thirdly,—There is no conclusive evidence that Peter ever was at Rome, much
less that he was bishop of Rome.


    Clement of Rome refers to Peter as a martyr, but he makes no claim
    for Rome as the place of his martyrdom. The tradition that Peter
    preached at Rome and founded a church there dates back only to
    Dionysius of Corinth and Irenæus of Lyons, who did not write
    earlier than the eighth decade of the second century, or more than
    a hundred years after Peter’s death. Professor Lepsius of Jena
    submitted the Roman tradition to a searching examination, and came
    to the conclusion that Peter was never in Italy.

    A. A. Hodge, in Princetoniana, 129—“Three unproved assumptions: 1.
    that Peter was primate; 2. that Peter was bishop of Rome; 3. that
    Peter was primate _and_ bishop of Rome. The last is not
    unimportant; because Clement, for instance, might have succeeded
    to the bishopric of Rome without the primacy; as Queen Victoria
    came to the crown of England, but not to that of Hanover. Or, to
    come nearer home, Ulysses S. Grant was president of the United
    States and husband of Mrs. Grant. Mr. Hayes succeeded him, but not
    in both capacities!”

    On the question whether Peter founded the Roman Church, see Meyer,
    Com. on Romans, transl., vol. 1:23—“Paul followed the principle of
    not interfering with another apostle’s field of labor. Hence Peter
    could not have been laboring at Rome, at the time when Paul wrote
    his epistle to the Romans from Ephesus; _cf._ _Acts 19:21; Rom.
    15:20; 2 Cor. 10:16._” Meyer thinks Peter was martyred at Rome,
    but that he did not found the Roman church, the origin of which is
    unknown. “The Epistle to the Romans,” he says, “since Peter cannot
    have labored at Rome before it was written, is a fact destructive
    of the historical basis of the Papacy” (p. 28). See also Elliott,
    Horæ Apocalypticæ, 3:560.


Fourthly,—There is no evidence that he really did so appoint the bishops
of Rome as his successors.


    Denney, Studies in Theology, 191—“The church was first the company
    of those united to Christ and living in Christ; then it became a
    society based on creed; finally a society based on clergy.” A. J.
    Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 130—“The Holy Spirit is the real
    ‘Vicar of Christ.’ Would any one desire to find the clue to the
    great apostasy whose dark eclipse now covers two thirds of nominal
    Christendom, here it is: The rule and authority of the Holy Spirit
    ignored in the church; the servants of the house assuming mastery
    and encroaching more and more on the prerogatives of the Head,
    till at last one man sets himself up as the administrator of the
    church, and daringly usurps the name of the Vicar of Christ.” See
    also R. V. Littledale, The Petrine Claims.

    The secret of Baptist success and progress is in putting truth
    before unity. _James 3:17_—“_the wisdom that is from above is
    first pure, then peaceable._” The substitution of external for
    internal unity, of which the apostolic succession, so called, is a
    sign and symbol, is of a piece with the whole sacramental scheme
    of salvation. Men cannot be brought into the kingdom of heaven,
    nor can they be made good ministers of Jesus Christ, by priestly
    manipulation. The Frankish wholesale conversion of races, the
    Jesuitical putting of obedience instead of life, the
    identification of the church with the nation, are all false
    methods of diffusing Christianity. The claims of Rome need
    irrefragible proof, if they are to be accepted. But they have no
    warrant in Scripture or in history. Methodist Review: “As long as
    the Bible is recognized to be authoritative, the church will face
    Romeward as little as Leo X will visit America to attend a
    Methodist campmeeting, or Justin D. Fulton be elected as his
    successor in the Papal chair.” See Gore, Incarnation, 208, 209.


Fifthly,—If Peter did so appoint the bishops of Rome, the evidence of
continuous succession since that time is lacking.


    On the weakness of the argument for apostolic succession, see
    remarks with regard to the national church theory, below. Dexter,
    Congregationalism, 715—“To spiritualize and evangelize Romanism,
    or High Churchism, will be to Congregationalize it.” If all the
    Roman Catholics who have come to America had remained Roman
    Catholics, there would be sixteen millions of them, whereas there
    are actually only eight millions. If it be said that the remainder
    have no religion, we reply that they have just as much religion as
    they had before. American democracy has freed them from the
    domination of the priest, but it has not deprived them of anything
    but external connection with a corrupt church. It has given them
    opportunity for the first time to come in contact with the church
    of the New Testament, and to accept the offer of salvation through
    simple faith in Jesus Christ.

    “Romanism,” says Dorner, “identifies the church and the kingdom of
    God. The professedly perfect hierarchy is itself the church, or
    its essence.” Yet Moehler, the greatest modern advocate of the
    Romanist system, himself acknowledges that there were popes before
    the Reformation “whom hell has swallowed up”; see Dorner, Hist.
    Prot. Theol., Introd., _ad finem_. If the Romanist asks: “Where
    was your church before Luther?” the Protestant may reply: “Where
    was your face this morning before it was washed?” Disciples of
    Christ have sometimes kissed the feet of Antichrist, but it
    recalls an ancient story. When an Athenian noble thus, in old
    times, debased himself to the King of Persia, his fellow‐citizens
    at Athens doomed him to death. See Coleman, Manual on Prelacy and
    Ritualism, 265‐274; Park, in Bib. Sac., 2:451; Princeton Rev.,
    Apr., 1876:265.


Sixthly,—There is abundant evidence that a hierarchical form of church
government is corrupting to the church and dishonoring to Christ.


    A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 131‐140—“Catholic writers
    claim that the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ, is the only
    mouthpiece of the Holy Ghost. But the Spirit has been given to the
    church as a whole, that is, to the body of regenerated believers,
    and to every member of that body according to his measure. The sin
    of sacerdotalism is, that it arrogates for a usurping few that
    which belongs to every member of Christ’s mystical body. It is a
    suggestive fact that the name κλῆρος, ‘_the charge allotted to
    you_,’ which Peter gives to the church as ‘_the flock of God_’ (_1
    Pet. 5:2_), when warning the elders against being lords over God’s
    heritage, now appears in ecclesiastical usage as ’the clergy,’
    with its orders of pontiff and prelates and lord bishops, whose
    appointed function it is to exercise lordship over Christ’s
    flock.... But committees and majorities may take the place of the
    Spirit, just as perfectly as a pope or a bishop.... This is the
    reason why the light has been extinguished in many a
    candlestick.... The body remains, but the breath is withdrawn. The
    Holy Spirit is the only Administrator.”

    Canon Melville: “Make peace if you will with Popery, receive it
    into your Senate, enshrine it in your chambers, plant it in your
    hearts. But be ye certain, as certain as there is a heaven above
    you and a God over you, that the Popery thus honored and embraced
    is the Popery that was loathed and degraded by the holiest of your
    fathers; and the same in haughtiness, the same in intolerance,
    which lorded it over kings, assumed the prerogative of Deity,
    crushed human liberty, and slew the saints of God.” On the
    strength and weakness of Romanism, see Harnack, What is
    Christianity? 246‐263.


(_b_) The national‐church theory, or the theory of provincial or national
churches.—This holds that all members of the church in any province or
nation are bound together in provincial or national organization, and that
this organization has jurisdiction over the local churches. We reply:

First,—the theory has no support in the Scriptures. There is no evidence
that the word ἐκκλησία in the New Testament ever means a national church
organization. 1 Cor. 12:28, Phil. 3:6, and 1 Tim. 3:15, may be more
naturally interpreted as referring to the generic church. In Acts 9:31,
ἐκκλησία is a mere generalization for the local churches then and there
existing, and implies no sort of organization among them.


    _1 Cor. 12:28_—“_And God hath set some in the church, first
    apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then
    gifts of healings, helps, governments, divers kinds of tongues_”;
    _Phil. 3:6_—“_as touching zeal, persecuting the church_”; _1 Tim.
    3:15_—“_that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves
    in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the
    pillar and ground of the truth_”; _Acts 9:31_—“_So the church
    throughout all Judæa and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being
    edified._” For advocacy of the Presbyterian system, see
    Cunningham, Historical Theology, 2:514‐556; McPherson,
    Presbyterianism. _Per contra_, see Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T.,
    9—“There is no example of a national church in the New Testament.”


Secondly,—It is contradicted by the intercourse which the New Testament
churches held with each other as independent bodies,—for example at the
Council of Jerusalem (Acts. 15:1‐35).


    _Acts 15:2, 6, 13, 19, 22_—“_the brethren appointed that Paul and
    Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem
    unto the apostles and elders about this question.... And the
    apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this
    matter.... James answered ... my judgment is, that we trouble not
    them that from among the Gentiles turn to God ... it seemed good
    to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose
    men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and
    Barnabas._”

    McGiffert, Apostolic Church, 645—“The steps of developing
    organization were: 1. Recognition of the teaching of the apostles
    as exclusive standard and norm of Christian truth; 2. Confinement
    to a specific office, the Catholic office of bishop, of the power
    to determine what is the teaching of the apostles; 3. Designation
    of a specific institution, the Catholic church, as the sole
    channel of divine grace. The Twelve, in the church of Jerusalem,
    had only a purely spiritual authority. They could advise, but they
    did not command. Hence they were not qualified to transmit
    authority to others. They had no absolute authority themselves.”


Thirdly,—It has no practical advantages over the Congregational polity,
but rather tends to formality, division, and the extinction of the
principles of self‐government and direct responsibility to Christ.


    E. G. Robinson: “The Anglican schism is the most sectarian of all
    the sects.” Principal Rainey thus describes the position of the
    Episcopal Church: “They will not recognize the church standing of
    those who recognize them; and they only recognize the church
    standing of those, Greeks and Latins, who do not recognize them.
    Is not that an odd sort of Catholicity?” “Every priestling hides a
    popeling.” The elephant going through the jungle saw a brood of
    young partridges that had just lost their mother. Touched with
    sympathy he said: “I will be a mother to you,” and so he sat down
    upon them, as he had seen their mother do. Hence we speak of the
    “incumbent” of such and such a parish.

    There were no councils that claimed authority till the second
    century, and the independence of the churches was not given up
    until the third or fourth century. In Bp. Lightfoot’s essay on the
    Christian Ministry, in the appendix to his Com. on Philippians,
    progress to episcopacy is thus described: “In the time of
    Ignatius, the bishop, then _primus inter pares_, was regarded only
    as a centre of unity; in the time of Irenæus, as a depositary of
    primitive truth; in the time of Cyprian, as absolute vicegerent of
    Christ in things spiritual.” Nothing is plainer than the steady
    degeneration of church polity in the hands of the Fathers.
    Archibald Alexander: “A better name than Church Fathers for these
    men would be church babies. Their theology was infantile.” Luther:
    “Never mind the Scribes,—what saith the Scripture?”


Fourthly,—It is inconsistent with itself, in binding a professedly
spiritual church by formal and geographical lines.


    Instance the evils of Presbyterianism in practice. Dr. Park says
    that “the split between the Old and the New School was due to an
    attempt on the part of the majority to impose their will on the
    minority.... The Unitarian defection in New England would have
    ruined Presbyterian churches, but it did not ruin Congregational
    churches. A Presbyterian church may be deprived of the minister it
    has chosen, by the votes of neighboring churches, or by the few
    leading men who control them, or by one single vote in a close
    contest.” We may illustrate by the advantage of the adjustable
    card‐catalogue over the old method of keeping track of books in a
    library.

    A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 137, note—“By the
    candlesticks in the Revelation being seven, instead of one as in
    the tabernacle, we are taught that whereas, in the Jewish
    dispensation, God’s visible church was one, in the Gentile
    dispensation there are many visible churches, and that Christ
    himself recognizes them alike” (quoted from Garratt, Com. on Rev.,
    32). Bishop Moule, Veni Creator, 131, after speaking of the unity
    of the Spirit, goes on to say: “Blessed will it be for the church
    and for the world when these principles shall so vastly prevail as
    to find expression from within in a harmonious counterpart of
    order; a far different thing from what is, I cannot but think, an
    illusory prospect—the attainment of such internal unity by a
    previous exaction of exterior governmental uniformity.”


Fifthly,—It logically leads to the theory of Romanism. If two churches
need a superior authority to control them and settle their differences,
then two countries and two hemispheres need a common ecclesiastical
government,—and a world‐church, under one visible head, is Romanism.


    Hatch, in his Bampton Lectures on Organization of Early Christian
    Churches, without discussing the evidence from the New Testament,
    proceeds to treat of the post‐apostolic development of
    organization, as if the existence of a germinal Episcopacy very
    soon _after_ the apostles proved such a system to be legitimate or
    obligatory. In reply, we would ask whether we are under moral
    obligation to conform to whatever succeeds in developing itself.
    If so, then the priests of Baal, as well as the priests of Rome,
    had just claims to human belief and obedience. Prof. Black: “We
    have no objection to antiquity, if they will only go back far
    enough. We wish to listen, not only to the fathers of the church,
    but also to the grandfathers.”

    Phillips Brooks speaks of “the fantastic absurdity of apostolic
    succession.” And with reason, for in the Episcopal system, bishops
    qualified to ordain must be: (1) baptized persons; (2) not
    scandalously immoral; (3) not having obtained office by bribery;
    (4) must not have been deposed. In view of these qualifications,
    Archbishop Whately pronounces the doctrine of apostolic succession
    untenable, and declares that “there is no Christian minister
    existing now, who can trace up with complete certainty his own
    ordination, through perfectly regular steps, to the time of the
    apostles.” See Macaulay’s Review of Gladstone on Church and State,
    in his Essays, 4:166‐178. There are breaks in the line, and a
    chain is only as strong as its weakest part. See Presb. Rev.,
    1886:89‐126. Mr. Flanders called Phillips Brooks “an Episcopalian
    with leanings toward Christianity.” Bishop Brooks replied that he
    could not be angry with “such a dear old moth‐eaten angel.” On
    apostolic succession, see C. Anderson Scott, Evangelical Doctrine,
    37‐48, 267‐288.

    Apostolic succession has been called the pipe‐line conception of
    divine grace. To change the figure, it may be compared to the
    monopoly of communication with Europe by the submarine cable. But
    we are not confined to the pipe‐line or to the cable. There are
    wells of salvation in our private grounds, and wireless telegraphy
    practicable to every human soul, apart from any control of
    corporations.

    We see leanings toward the world‐church idea in Pananglican and
    Panpresbyterian Councils. Human nature ever tends to substitute
    the unity of external organization for the spiritual unity which
    belongs to all believers in Christ. There is no necessity for
    common government, whether Presbyterian or Episcopal; since
    Christ’s truth and Spirit are competent to govern all as easily as
    one. It is a remarkable fact, that the Baptist denomination,
    without external bonds, has maintained a greater unity in
    doctrine, and a closer general conformity to New Testament
    standards, than the churches which adopt the principle of
    episcopacy, or of provincial organization. With Abp. Whately, we
    find the true symbol of Christian unity in “_the tree of life,
    bearing twelve manner of __ fruits_” (_Rev. 22:2_). _Cf._ _John
    10:16_—γενήσονται μία ποίμνη, εἶς ποιμήν—“_they shall become one
    flock, one shepherd_” = not one fold, not external unity, but one
    flock in many folds. See Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 130;
    Dexter, Congregationalism, 236; Coleman, Manual on Prelacy and
    Ritualism, 128‐264; Albert Barnes, Apostolic Church.

    As testimonies to the adequacy of Baptist polity to maintain sound
    doctrine, we quote from the Congregationalist, Dr. J. L. Withrow:
    “There is not a denomination of evangelical Christians that is
    throughout as sound theologically as the Baptist denomination.
    There is not an evangelical denomination in America to‐day that is
    as true to the simple plain gospel of God, as it is recorded in
    the word, as the Baptist denomination.” And the Presbyterian, Dr.
    W. G. T. Shedd, in a private letter dated Oct. 1, 1886, writes as
    follows: “Among the denominations, we all look to the Baptists for
    steady and firm adherence to sound doctrine. You have never had
    any internal doctrinal conflicts, and from year to year you
    present an undivided front in defense of the Calvinistic faith.
    Having no judicatures and regarding the local church as the unit,
    it is remarkable that you maintain such a unity and solidarity of
    belief. If you could impart your secret to our Congregational
    brethren, I think that some of them at least would thank you.”

    A. H. Strong, Sermon in London before the Baptist World Congress,
    July, 1905—“Coöperation with Christ involves the spiritual unity
    not only of all Baptists with one another, but of all Baptists
    with the whole company of true believers of every name. We cannot,
    indeed, be true to our convictions without organizing into one
    body those who agree with us in our interpretation of the
    Scriptures. Our denominational divisions are at present
    necessities of nature. But we regret these divisions, and, as we
    grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth, we strive, at
    least in spirit, to rise above them. In America our farms are
    separated from one another by fences, and in the springtime, when
    the wheat and barley are just emerging from the earth, these
    fences are very distinguishable and unpleasing features of the
    landscape. But later in the season, when the corn has grown and
    the time of harvest is near, the grain is so tall that the fences
    are entirely hidden, and for miles together you seem to see only a
    single field. It is surely our duty to confess everywhere and
    always that we are first Christians and only secondly Baptists.
    The tie which binds us to Christ is more important in our eyes
    than that which binds us to those of the same faith and order. We
    live in hope that the Spirit of Christ in us, and in all other
    Christian bodies, may induce such growth of mind and heart that
    the sense of unity may not only overtop and hide the fences of
    division, but may ultimately do away with these fences
    altogether.”


2. Officers of the Church.


A. The number of offices in the church is two:—first, the office of
bishop, presbyter, or pastor; and, secondly, the office of deacon.


(_a_) That the appellations “bishop,” “presbyter,” and “pastor” designate
the same office and order of persons, may be shown from Acts
20:28—ἐπισκόπους ποιμαίνειν (cf. 17—πρεσβυτέρους); Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1,
8; Titus 1:5, 7; 1 Pet. 5:1, 2—πρεσβυτέρους ... παρακαλῶ ὁ συμπρεσβύτερος
... ποιμάνατε ποίμνιον ... ἐπισκοποῦντες. Conybeare and Howson: “The terms
‘bishop’ and ‘elder’ are used in the New Testament as equivalent,—the
former denoting (as its meaning of overseer implies) the duties, the
latter the rank, of the office.” See passages quoted in Gieseler, Church
History, 1:90, note 1—as, for example, Jerome: “Apud veteres iidem
episcopi et presbyteri, quia illud nomen dignitatis est, hoc ætatis. Idem
est ergo presbyter qui episcopus.”


    _Acts 20:28_—“_Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in
    which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops_ [marg.
    ‘_overseers_’], _to feed_ [lit. ‘_to shepherd_,’ ‘_be pastors
    of_’] _the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own
    blood_”; _cf._ _17_—“_the elders of the church_” are those whom
    Paul addresses as bishops or overseers, and whom he exhorts to be
    good pastors. _Phil. 1:1_—“_bishops and deacons_”; _1 Tim. 3:1,
    8_—“_If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good
    work.... Deacons in like manner must be grave_”; _Tit. 1:5,
    7_—“_appoint elders in every city.... For the bishop must be
    blameless_”; _1 Pet. 5:1, 2_—“_The elders therefore among you I
    exhort, who am a fellow‐elder.... Tend_ [lit. ‘_shepherd_,’ ‘_be
    pastors of_’] _the flock of God which is among you, exercising the
    oversight_ [acting as bishops], _not of constraint, but __
    willingly, according to the will of God._” In this last passage,
    Westcott and Hort, with Tischendorf’s 8th edition, follow א and B
    in omitting ἐπισκοποῦντες. Tregelles and our Revised Version
    follow A and אc in retaining it. Rightly, we think; since it is
    easy to see how, in a growing ecclesiasticism, it should have been
    omitted, from the feeling that too much was here ascribed to a
    mere presbyter.

    Lightfoot, Com. on Philippians, 95‐99—“It is a fact now generally
    recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion that in the
    language of the N. T. the same officer in the church is called
    indifferently ‘_bishop_’ (ἐπίσκοπος) and ‘_elder_’ or
    ‘_presbyter_’ (πρεσβύτερος).... To these special officers the
    priestly functions and privileges of the Christian people are
    never regarded as transferred or delegated. They are called
    stewards or messengers of God, servants or ministers of the
    church, and the like, but the sacerdotal is never once conferred
    upon them. The only priests under the gospel, designated as such
    in the N. T., are the saints, the members of the Christian
    brotherhood.” On _Titus 1:5, 7_—“_appoint elders.... For the
    bishop must be blameless_”—Gould, Bib. Theol. N. T., 150, remarks:
    “Here the word ‘_for_’ is quite out of place unless bishops and
    elders are identical. All these officers, bishops as well as
    deacons, are confined to the local church in their jurisdiction.
    The charge of a bishop is not a diocese, but a church. The
    functions are mostly administrative, the teaching office being
    subordinate, and a distinction is made between teaching elders and
    others, implying that the teaching function is not common to them
    all.”

    Dexter, Congregationalism, 114, shows that bishop, elder, pastor
    are names for the same office: (1) from the significance of the
    words; (2) from the fact that the same qualifications are demanded
    from all; (3) from the fact that the same duties are assigned to
    all; (4) from the fact that the texts held to prove higher rank of
    the bishop do not support that claim. Plumptre, in Pop. Com.,
    Pauline Epistles, 555, 556—“There cannot be a shadow of doubt that
    the two titles of Bishop and Presbyter were in the Apostolic Age
    interchangeable.”


(_b_) The only plausible objection to the identity of the presbyter and
the bishop is that first suggested by Calvin, on the ground of 1 Tim.
5:17. But this text only shows that the one office of presbyter or bishop
involved two kinds of labor, and that certain presbyters or bishops were
more successful in one kind than in the other. That gifts of teaching and
ruling belonged to the same individual, is clear from Acts 20:28‐31; Eph.
4:11; Heb. 13:7; 1 Tim. 3:2—ἐπίσκοπον διδακτικόν.


    _1 Tim. 5:17_—“_Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of
    double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in
    teaching_”; Wilson, Primitive Government of Christian Churches,
    concedes that this last text “expresses a diversity in the
    exercise of the Presbyterial office, but not in the office
    itself”; and although he was a Presbyterian, he very consistently
    refused to have any ruling elders in his church.

    _Acts 20:28, 31_—“_bishops, to feed the church of the Lord ...
    wherefore watch ye_”; _Eph. 4:11_—“_and some, pastors and
    teachers_”—here Meyer remarks that the single article binds the
    two words together, and prevents us from supposing that separate
    offices are intended. Jerome: “Nemo ... pastoris sibi nomen
    assumere debet, nisi possit docere quos pascit.” _Heb.
    13:7_—“_Remember them that had the rule over you, men that spake
    unto you the word of God_”; _1 Tim. 3:2_—“_The bishop must be ...
    apt to teach._” The great temptation to ambition in the Christian
    ministry is provided against by having no gradation of ranks. The
    pastor is a priest, only as every Christian is. See Jacob, Eccl.
    Polity of N. T., 56; Olshausen, on 1 Tim. 5:17; Hackett on _Acts
    14:23_; Presb. Rev., 1886:89‐126.

    Dexter, Congregationalism, 52—“Calvin was a natural aristocrat,
    not a man of the people like Luther. Taken out of his own family
    to be educated in a family of the nobility, he received an early
    bent toward exclusiveness. He believed in authority and loved to
    exercise it. He could easily have been a despot. He assumed all
    citizens to be Christians until proof to the contrary. He resolved
    church discipline into police control. He confessed that the
    eldership was an expedient to which he was driven by
    circumstances, though after creating it he naturally enough
    endeavored to procure Scriptural proof in its favor.” On the
    question, The Christian Ministry, is it a Priesthood? see C.
    Anderson Scott, Evangelical Doctrine, 205‐224.


(_c_) In certain of the N. T. churches there appears to have been a
plurality of elders (Acts 20:17; Phil. 1:1; Tit. 1:5). There is, however,
no evidence that the number of elders was uniform, or that the plurality
which frequently existed was due to any other cause than the size of the
churches for which these elders cared. The N. T. example, while it permits
the multiplication of assistant pastors according to need, does not
require a plural eldership in every case; nor does it render this
eldership, where it exists, of coördinate authority with the church. There
are indications, moreover, that, at least in certain churches, the pastor
was one, while the deacons were more than one, in number.


    _Acts 20:17_—“_And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called to
    him the elders of the church_”; _Phil. 1:1_—“_Paul and Timothy,
    servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that
    are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons_”; _Tit. 1:5_—“_For
    this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order
    the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as
    I gave thee charge._” See, however, _Acts 12:17_—“_Tell these
    things unto James, and to the brethren_”; _15:13_—“_And after they
    had held their peace, James answered, saying, Brethren, hearken
    unto me_”; _21:18_—“_And the day following Paul went in with us
    unto James; and all the elders were present_”; _Gal. 1:19_—“_But
    other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother_”;
    _2:12_—“_certain came from James._” These passages seem to
    indicate that James was the pastor or president of the church at
    Jerusalem, an intimation which tradition corroborates.

    _1 Tim. 3:2_—“_The bishop therefore must be without reproach_”;
    _Tit. 1:7_—“_For the bishop must be blameless, as God’s steward_”;
    _cf._ _1 Tim. 3:8, 10, 12_—“_Deacons in like manner must be
    grave.... And let these also first be proved; then let them serve
    as deacons, if they be blameless.... Let deacons be husbands of
    one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well_”—in all
    these passages the bishop is spoken of in the singular number, the
    deacons in the plural. So, too, in _Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18 and 3:1,
    7, 14_, “_the angel of the church_” is best interpreted as meaning
    the pastor of the church; and, if this be correct, it is clear
    that each church had, not many pastors, but one.

    It would, moreover, seem antecedently improbable that every church
    of Christ, however small, should be required to have a plural
    eldership, particularly since churches exist that have only a
    single male member. A plural eldership is natural and
    advantageous, only where the church is very numerous and the
    pastor needs assistants in his work: and only in such cases can we
    say that New Testament example favors it. For advocacy of the
    theory of plural eldership, see Fish, Ecclesiology, 229‐249; Ladd,
    Principles of Church Polity, 22‐29. On the whole subject of
    offices in the church, see Dexter, Congregationalism, 77‐98; Dagg,
    Church Order, 241‐266; Lightfoot on the Christian Ministry,
    appended to his Commentary on Philippians, and published in his
    Dissertations on the Apostolic Age.


B. The duties belonging to these offices.


(_a_) The pastor, bishop, or elder is:

First,—a spiritual teacher, in public and private;


    _Acts 20:20, 21, 35_—“_how I shrank not from declaring unto you
    anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly, and from
    house to house, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks repentance
    toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.... In all
    things I gave you an example, that so laboring ye ought to help
    the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that he
    himself said, It is more blessed to give than to receive_”; _1
    Thess. 5:12_—“_But we beseech you, brethren, to know them that
    labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you_”;
    _Heb. 13:7, 17_—“_Remember them that had the rule over you, men
    that spake unto you the word of God; and considering the issue of
    their life, imitate their faith.... Obey them that have the rule
    over you, and submit to them: for they watch in behalf of your
    souls, as they that shall give account._”

    Here we should remember that the pastor’s private work of
    religious conversation and prayer is equally important with his
    public ministrations; in this respect he is to be an example to
    his flock, and they are to learn from him the art of winning the
    unconverted and of caring for those who are already saved. A
    Jewish Rabbi once said: “God could not be every where,—therefore
    he made mothers.” We may substitute, for the word ’mothers,’ the
    word ’pastors.’ Bishop Ken is said to have made a vow every
    morning, as he rose, that he would not be married that day. His
    own lines best express his mind: “A virgin priest the altar best
    attends; our Lord that state commands not, but commends.”


Secondly,—administrator of the ordinances;


    _Mat. 28:19, 20_—“_Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the
    nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son
    and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things
    whatsoever I commanded_”; _1 Cor. 1:16, 17_—“_And __ I baptized
    also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I
    baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to
    preach the gospel._” Here it is evident that, although the pastor
    administers the ordinances, this is not his main work, nor is the
    church absolutely dependent upon him in the matter. He is not set,
    like an O. T. priest, to minister at the altar, but to preach the
    gospel. In an emergency any other member appointed by the church
    may administer them with equal propriety, the church always
    determining who are fit subjects of the ordinances, and
    constituting him their organ in administering them. Any other view
    is based on sacramental notions, and on ideas of apostolic
    succession. All Christians are “_priests unto ... God_” (_Rev.
    1:6_). “This universal priesthood is a priesthood, not of
    expiation, but of worship, and is bound to no ritual, or order of
    times and places” (P. S. Moxom).


Thirdly,—superintendent of the discipline, as well as presiding officer at
the meetings, of the church.


    Superintendent of discipline: _1 Tim. 5:17_—“_Let the elders that
    rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who
    labor in the word and in teaching_”; _3:5_—“_if a man knoweth not
    how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of
    God?_” Presiding officer at meetings of the church: _1 Cor.
    12:28_—“_governments_”—here κυβερνήσεις, or “_governments_,”
    indicating the duties of the pastor, are the counterpart of
    ἀντιλήψεις, or “_helps_,” which designate the duties of the
    deacons; _1 Pet. 5:2, 3_—“_Tend the flock of God which is among
    you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly,
    according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a
    ready mind; neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you,
    but making yourselves ensamples to the flock._”

    In the old Congregational churches of New England, an authority
    was accorded to the pastor which exceeded the New Testament
    standard. “Dr. Bellamy could break in upon a festival which he
    deemed improper, and order the members of his parish to their
    homes.” The congregation rose as the minister entered the church,
    and stood uncovered as he passed out of the porch. We must not
    hope or desire to restore the New England _régime_. The pastor is
    to take responsibility, to put himself forward when there is need,
    but he is to _rule_ only by moral suasion, and that only by
    guiding, teaching, and carrying into effect the rules imposed by
    Christ and the decisions of the church in accordance with those
    rules.

    Dexter, Congregationalism, 115, 155, 157—“The Governor of New York
    suggests to the Legislature such and such enactments, and then
    executes such laws as they please to pass. He is chief ruler of
    the State, while the Legislature adopts or rejects what he
    proposes.” So the pastor’s functions are not legislative, but
    executive. Christ is the only lawgiver. In fulfilling this office,
    the manner and spirit of the pastor’s work are of as great
    importance as are correctness of judgment and faithfulness to
    Christ’s law. “The young man who cannot distinguish the wolves
    from the dogs should not think of becoming a shepherd.” Gregory
    Nazianzen: “Either teach none, or let your life teach too.” See
    Harvey, The Pastor; Wayland, Apostolic Ministry; Jacob, Eccl.
    Polity of N. T., 99; Samson, in Madison Avenue Lectures, 261‐288.


(_b_) The deacon is helper to the pastor and the church, in both spiritual
and temporal things.

First,—relieving the pastor of external labors, informing him of the
condition and wants of the church, and forming a bond of union between
pastor and people.


    _Acts 6:1‐6_—“_Now in these days, when the number of the disciples
    was multiplying, there arose a murmuring of the Grecian Jews
    against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the
    daily ministration. And the twelve called the multitude of the
    disciples unto them, and said, It is not fit that we should
    forsake the word of God, and serve tables. Look ye out therefore,
    brethren, from among you seven men of good report, full of the
    Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But
    we will continue stedfastly in prayer, and in the ministry of the
    word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose
    Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip,
    and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus
    a proselyte of Antioch; whom they set before the apostles: and
    when they had prayed, they laid their hands upon them_”; _cf._
    _8‐20_—where Stephen shows power in disputation; _Rom. 12:7_—“_or
    ministry_ διακονίαν, _let us give ourselves to our ministry_”; _1
    Cor. 12:28_—“_helps_”—here ἀντιλήψεις, “_helps_,” indicating the
    duties of deacons, are the counterpart of κυβερνήσεις,
    “_governments_,” which designate the duties of the pastor; _Phil.
    1:1_—“_bishops and deacons._”

    Dr. E. G. Robinson did not regard the election of the seven, in
    _Acts 6:1‐4_, as marking the origin of the diaconate, though he
    thought the diaconate grew out of this election. The Autobiography
    of C. H. Spurgeon, 3:22, gives an account of the election of
    “elders” at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London. These “elders”
    were to attend to the spiritual affairs of the church, as the
    deacons were to attend to the temporal affairs. These “elders”
    were chosen year by year, while the office of deacon was
    permanent.


Secondly,—helping the church, by relieving the poor and sick and
ministering in an informal way to the church’s spiritual needs, and by
performing certain external duties connected with the service of the
sanctuary.


    Since deacons are to be helpers, it is not necessary in all cases
    that they should be old or rich; in fact, it is better that among
    the number of deacons the various differences in station, age,
    wealth, and opinion in the church should be represented. The
    qualifications for the diaconate mentioned in _Acts 6:1‐4_ and _1
    Tim. 3:8‐13_, are, in substance: wisdom, sympathy, and
    spirituality. There are advantages in electing deacons, not for
    life, but for a term of years. While there is no New Testament
    prescription in this matter, and each church may exercise its
    option, service for a term of years, with re‐election where the
    office has been well discharged, would at least seem favored by _1
    Tim. 3:10_—“_Let these also first be proved; then let them serve
    as deacons, if they be blameless_”; _13_—“_For they that have
    served well as deacons gain to themselves a good standing, and
    great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus._”

    Expositor’s Greek Testament, on _Acts 5:6_, remarks that those who
    carried out and buried Ananias are called οἱ νεώτεροι—“_the young
    men_”—and in the case of Sapphira they were οἱ νεανίσκοι—meaning
    the same thing. “Upon the natural distinction between πρεσβύτεροι
    and νεώτεροι—elders and young men—it may well have been that
    official duties in the church were afterward based.” Dr. Leonard
    Bacon thought that the apostles included the whole membership in
    the “_we_,” when they said: “_It is not fit that we should forsake
    the word of God, and serve tables_.” The deacons, on this
    interpretation, were chosen to help the whole church in temporal
    matters.

    In _Rom. 16:1, 2_, we have apparent mention of a deaconess—“_I
    commend unto you Phœbe our sister, who is a servant_ [marg.:
    ‘_deaconess_’] _of the church that is at Cenchreæ ... for she
    herself also hath been a helper of many, and of mine own self_.”
    See also _1 Tim. 3:11_—“_Women in like manner must be grave, not
    slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things_”—here Ellicott and
    Alford claim that the word “_women_” refers, not to deacons’
    wives, as our Auth. Vers. had it, but to deaconesses. Dexter,
    Congregationalism, 69, 132, maintains that the office of
    deaconess, though it once existed, has passed away, as belonging
    to a time when men could not, without suspicion, minister to
    women.

    This view that there are temporary offices in the church does not,
    however, commend itself to us. It is more correct to say that
    there is yet doubt whether there _was_ such an office as
    deaconess, even in the early church. Each church has a right in
    this matter to interpret Scripture for itself, and to act
    accordingly. An article in the Bap. Quar., 1869:40, denies the
    existence of any diaconal rank or office, for male or female.
    Fish, in his Ecclesiology, holds that Stephen was a deacon, but an
    elder also, and preached as elder, not as deacon,—_Acts 6:1‐4_
    being called the institution, not of the diaconate, but of the
    Christian ministry. The use of the phrase διακονεῖν τραπέζαις, and
    the distinction between the diaconate and the pastorate
    subsequently made in the Epistles, seem to refute this
    interpretation. On the fitness of women for the ministry of
    religion, see F. P. Cobbe, Peak of Darien, 199‐262; F. E. Willard,
    Women in the Pulpit; B. T. Roberts, Ordaining Women. On the
    general subject, see Howell, The Deaconship; Williams, The
    Deaconship; Robinson, N. T. Lexicon, ἀντιλήψις. On the Claims of
    the Christian Ministry, and on Education for the Ministry, see A.
    H. Strong, Philosophy and Religion, 269‐318, and Christ in
    Creation, 314‐331.


C. Ordination of officers.


(a) What is ordination?


Ordination is the setting apart of a person divinely called to a work of
special ministration in the church. It does not involve the communication
of power,—it is simply a recognition of powers previously conferred by
God, and a consequent formal authorization, on the part of the church, to
exercise the gifts already bestowed. This recognition and authorization
should not only be expressed by the vote in which the candidate is
approved by the church or the council which represents it, but should also
be accompanied by a special service of admonition, prayer, and the laying‐
on of hands (Acts 6:5, 6; 13:2, 3; 14:23; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22).

Licensure simply commends a man to the churches as fitted to preach.
Ordination recognizes him as set apart to the work of preaching and
administering ordinances, in some particular church or in some designated
field of labor, as representative of the church.

Of his call to the ministry, the candidate himself is to be first
persuaded (1 Cor. 9:16; 1 Tim. 1:12); but, secondly, the church must be
persuaded also, before he can have authority to minister among them (1
Tim. 3:2‐7; 4:14; Titus 1:6‐9).


    The word “ordain” has come to have a technical signification not
    found in the New Testament. There it means simply to choose,
    appoint, set apart. In _1 Tim. 2:7_—“_whereunto I was appointed_
    [ἐτέθην] _a preacher and an apostle ... a teacher of the Gentiles
    in faith and truth_”—it apparently denotes ordination of God. In
    the following passages we read of an ordination by the church:
    _Acts 6:5, 6_—“_And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and
    they chose Stephen ... and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and
    Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus ... whom they set before the
    apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands upon
    them_”—the ordination of deacons; _13:2, 3_—“_And as they
    ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate
    me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
    Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on
    them, they sent them away_”; _14:23_—“_And when they had appointed
    for them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they
    commended them to the Lord, on whom they had believed_”; _1 Tim.
    4:14_—“_Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee
    by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery_”;
    _5:22_—“_Lay hands hastily on no man, neither be partaker of other
    men’s sins._”

    Cambridge Platform, 1648, chapter 9—“Ordination is nothing else
    but the solemn putting of a man into his place and office in the
    church whereunto he had right before by election, being like the
    installing of a Magistrate in the Commonwealth.” Ordination
    confers no authority—it only recognizes authority already
    conferred by God. Since it is only recognition, it can be repeated
    as often as a man changes his denominational relations. Leonard
    Bacon: “The action of a Council has no more authority than the
    reason on which it is based. The church calling the Council is a
    competent court of appeal from any decision of the Council.”

    Since ordination is simply choosing, appointing, setting apart, it
    seems plain that in the case of deacons, who sustain official
    relations only to the church that constitutes them, ordination
    requires no consultation with other churches. But in the
    ordination of a pastor, there are three natural stages: (1) the
    call of the church; (2) the decision of a council (the council
    being virtually only the church advised by its brethren); (3) the
    publication of this decision by a public service of prayer and the
    laying‐on of hands. The prior call to be pastor may be said, in
    the case of a man yet unordained, to be given by the church
    conditionally, and in anticipation of a ratification of its action
    by the subsequent judgment of the council. In a well‐instructed
    church, the calling of a council is a regular method of appeal
    from the church unadvised to the church advised by its brethren;
    and the vote of the council approving the candidate is only the
    essential completing of an ordination, of which the vote of the
    church calling the candidate to the pastorate was the preliminary
    stage.

    This setting apart by the church, with the advice and assistance
    of the council, is all that is necessarily implied in the New
    Testament words which are translated “ordain”; and such
    ordination, by simple vote of church and council, could not be
    counted invalid. But it would be irregular. New Testament
    precedent makes certain accompaniments not only appropriate, but
    obligatory. A formal publication of the decree of the council, by
    laying‐on of hands, in connection with prayer, is the last of the
    duties of this advisory body, which serves as the organ and
    assistant of the church. The laying‐on of hands is appointed to be
    the regular accompaniment of ordination, as baptism is appointed
    to be the regular accompaniment of regeneration; while yet the
    laying‐on of hands is no more the substance of ordination, than
    baptism is the substance of regeneration.

    The imposition of hands is the natural symbol of the
    communication, not of grace, but of authority. It does not make a
    man a minister of the gospel, any more than coronation makes
    Victoria a queen. What it does signify and publish, is formal
    recognition and authorization. Viewed in this light, there not
    only can be no objection to the imposition of hands upon the
    ground that it favors sacramentalism, but insistence upon it is
    the bounden duty of every council of ordination.

    Mr. Spurgeon was never ordained. He began and ended his remarkable
    ministry as a lay preacher. He revolted from the sacramentalism of
    the Church of England, which seemed to hold that in the imposition
    of hands in ordination divine grace trickled down through a
    bishop’s finger ends, and he felt moved to protest against it. In
    our judgment it would have been better to follow New Testament
    precedent, and at the same time to instruct the churches as to the
    real meaning of the laying‐on of hands. The Lord’s Supper had in a
    similar manner been interpreted as a physical communication of
    grace, but Mr. Spurgeon still continued to observe the Lord’s
    Supper. His gifts enabled him to carry his people with him, when a
    man of smaller powers might by peculiar views have ruined his
    ministry. He was thankful that he was pastor of a large church,
    because he felt that he had not enough talent to be pastor of a
    small one. He said that when he wished to make a peculiar
    impression on his people he put himself into his cannon and fired
    himself at them. He refused the degree of Doctor of Divinity, and
    said that “D. D.” often meant “Doubly Destitute.” Dr. P. S. Henson
    suggests that the letters mean only “Fiddle Dee Dee.” For
    Spurgeon’s views on ordination, see his Autobiography, 1:355 _sq._

    John Wesley’s three tests of a call to preach: “Inquire of
    applicants,” he says, “1. Do they know God as a pardoning God?
    Have they the love of God abiding in them? Do they desire and see
    nothing but God? And are they holy, in all manner of conversation?
    2. Have they gifts, as well as grace, for the work? Have they a
    clear sound understanding? Have they a right judgment in the
    things of God? Have they a just conception of salvation by faith?
    And has God given them any degree of utterance? Do they speak
    justly, readily, clearly? 3. Have they fruit? Are any truly
    convinced of sin, and converted to God, by their preaching?” The
    second of these qualifications seems to have been in the mind of
    the little girl who said that the bishop, in laying hands on the
    candidate, was feeling of his head to see whether he had brains
    enough to preach. There is some need of the preaching of a “trial
    sermon” by the candidate, as proof to the Council that he has the
    gifts requisite for a successful ministry. In this respect the
    Presbyteries of Scotland are in advance of us.


(b) Who are to ordain?


Ordination is the act of the church, not the act of a privileged class in
the church, as the eldership has sometimes wrongly been regarded, nor yet
the act of other churches, assembled by their representatives in council.
No ecclesiastical authority higher than that of the local church is
recognized in the New Testament. This authority, however, has its limits;
and since the church has no authority outside of its own body, the
candidate for ordination should be a member of the ordaining church.

Since each church is bound to recognize the presence of the Spirit in
other rightly constituted churches, and its own decisions, in like manner,
are to be recognized by others, it is desirable in ordination, as in all
important steps affecting other churches, that advice be taken before the
candidate is inducted into office, and that other churches be called to
sit with it in council, and if thought best, assist in setting the
candidate apart for the ministry.


    Hands were laid on Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, not by their
    ecclesiastical superiors, as High Church doctrine would require,
    but by their equals or inferiors, as simple representatives of the
    church. Ordination was nothing more than the recognition of a
    divine appointment and the commending to God’s care and blessing
    of those so appointed. The council of ordination is only the
    church advised by its brethren, or a committee with power, to act
    for the church after deliberation.

    The council of ordination is not to be composed simply of
    ministers who have been themselves ordained. As the whole church
    is to preserve the ordinances and to maintain sound doctrine, and
    as the unordained church member is often a more sagacious judge of
    a candidate’s Christian experience than his own pastor would be,
    there seems no warrant, either in Scripture or in reason, for the
    exclusion of lay delegates from ordaining councils. It was not
    merely the apostles and elders, but the whole church at Jerusalem,
    that passed upon the matters submitted to them at the council, and
    others than ministers appear to have been delegates. The theory
    that only ministers can ordain has in it the beginnings of a
    hierarchy. To make the ministry a close corporation is to
    recognize the principle of apostolic succession, to deny the
    validity of all our past ordinations, and to sell to an
    ecclesiastical caste the liberties of the church of God. Very
    great importance attaches to decorum and settled usage in matters
    of ordination. To secure these, the following suggestions are made
    with regard to

    I. PRELIMINARY ARRANGEMENTS to be attended to by the candidate: 1.
    His letter of dismission should be received and acted upon by the
    church before the Council convenes. Since the church has no
    jurisdiction outside of its own membership, the candidate should
    be a member of the church which proposes to ordain him. 2. The
    church should vote to call the Council. 3. It should invite all
    the churches of its Association. 4. It should send printed
    invitations, asking written responses. 5. Should have printed
    copies of an Order of Procedure, subject to adoption by the
    Council. 6. The candidate may select one or two persons to
    officiate at the public service, subject to approval of the
    Council. 7. The clerk of the church should be instructed to be
    present with the records of the church and the minutes of the
    Association, so that he may call to order and ask responses from
    delegates. 8. Ushers should be appointed to ensure reserved seats
    for the Council. 9. Another room should be provided for the
    private session of the Council. 10. The choir should be instructed
    that one anthem, one hymn, and one doxology will suffice for the
    public service. 11. Entertainment of the delegates should be
    provided for. 12. A member of the church should be chosen to
    present the candidate to the Council. 13. The church should be
    urged on the previous Sunday to attend the examination of the
    candidate as well as the public service.

    II. THE CANDIDATE AT THE COUNCIL: 1. His demeanor should be that
    of an applicant. Since he asks the favorable judgment of his
    brethren, a modest bearing and great patience in answering their
    questions, are becoming to his position. 2. Let him stand during
    his narration, and during questions, unless for reasons of ill
    health or fatigue he is specially excused. 3. It will be well to
    divide his narration into 15 minutes for his Christian experience,
    10 minutes for his call to the ministry, and 35 minutes for his
    views of doctrine. 4. A _viva voce_ statement of all these three
    is greatly preferable to an elaborate written account. 5. In the
    relation of his views of doctrine: (_a_) the more fully he states
    them, the less need there will be for questioning; (_b_) his
    statement should be positive, not negative—not what he does not
    believe, but what he _does_ believe; (_c_) he is not required to
    tell the _reasons_ for his belief, unless he is specially
    questioned with regard to these; (_d_) he should elaborate the
    later and practical, not the earlier and theoretical, portions of
    his theological system; (_e_) he may well conclude each point of
    his statement with a single text of Scripture proof.

    III. THE DUTY OF THE COUNCIL: 1. It should not proceed to examine
    the candidate until proper credentials have been presented. 2. It
    should in every case give to the candidate a searching
    examination, in order that this may not seem invidious in other
    cases. 3. Its vote of approval should read: “We do now set apart,”
    and “We will hold a public service expressive of this fact.” 4.
    Strict decorum should be observed in every stage of the
    proceedings, remembering that the Council is acting for Christ the
    great head of the church and is transacting business for eternity.
    5. The Council should do no other business than that for which the
    church has summoned it, and when that business is done, the
    Council should adjourn _sine die_.


It is always to be remembered, however, that the power to ordain rests
with the church, and that the church may proceed without a Council, or
even against the decision of the Council. Such ordination, of course,
would give authority only within the bounds of the individual church.
Where no immediate exception is taken to the decision of the Council, that
decision is to be regarded as virtually the decision of the church by
which it was called. The same rule applies to a Council’s decision to
depose from the ministry. In the absence of immediate protest from the
church, the decision of the Council is rightly taken as virtually the
decision of the church.

In so far as ordination is an act performed by the local church with the
advice and assistance of other rightly constituted churches, it is justly
regarded as giving formal permission to exercise gifts and administer
ordinances within the bounds of such churches. Ordination is not,
therefore, to be repeated upon the transfer of the minister’s pastoral
relation from one church to another. In every case, however, where a
minister from a body of Christians not Scripturally constituted assumes
the pastoral relation in a rightly organized church, there is peculiar
propriety, not only in the examination, by a Council, of his Christian
experience, call to the ministry, and views of doctrine, but also in that
act of formal recognition and authorization which is called ordination.


    The Council should be numerous and impartially constituted. The
    church calling the Council should be represented in it by a fair
    number of delegates. Neither the church, nor the Council, should
    permit a prejudgment of the case by the previous announcement of
    an ordination service. While the examination of the candidate
    should be public, all danger that the Council be unduly influenced
    by pressure from without should be obviated by its conducting its
    deliberations, and arriving at its decision, in private session.
    We subjoin the form of a letter missive, calling a Council of
    ordination; an order of procedure after the Council has assembled;
    and a programme of exercises for the public service.

    LETTER MISSIVE.—The —— church of —— to the —— church of ——: _Dear
    Brethren_: By vote of this church, you are requested to send your
    pastor and two delegates to meet with us in accordance with the
    following resolutions, passed by us on the —— ——, 19—: _Whereas_,
    brother ——, a member of this church, has offered himself to the
    work of the gospel ministry, and has been chosen by us as our
    pastor, therefore, _Resolved_, 1. That such neighboring churches,
    in fellowship with us, as shall be herein designated, be requested
    to send their pastor and two delegates each, to meet and counsel
    with this church, at — o’clock —. M., on ——, 19——, and if, after
    examination, he be approved, that brother —— be set apart, by vote
    of the Council, to the gospel ministry, and that a public service
    be held, expressive of this fact. _Resolved_, 2. That the Council,
    if it do so ordain, be requested to appoint two of its number to
    act with the candidate, in arranging the public services.
    _Resolved_, 3. That printed letters of invitation, embodying these
    resolutions, and signed by the clerk of this church, be sent to
    the following churches, —— —— —— —— ——, and that these churches be
    requested to furnish to their delegates an officially signed
    certificate of their appointment, to be presented at the
    organization of the Council. _Resolved_, 4. That Rev. ——, and
    brethren —— ——, be also invited by the clerk of the church to be
    present as members of the Council. _Resolved_, 5. That brethren
    ——, ——, and ——, be appointed as our delegates, to represent this
    church in the deliberations of the Council; and that brother —— be
    requested to present the candidate to the Council, with an
    expression of the high respect and warm attachment with which we
    have welcomed him and his labors among us. In behalf of the
    church, —— ——, Clerk. ——, 19—.

    ORDER OF PROCEDURE.—1. Reading, by the clerk of the church, of the
    letter‐missive, followed by a call, in their order, upon all
    churches and individuals invited, to present responses and names
    in writing; each delegate, as he presents his credentials, taking
    his seat in a portion of the house reserved for the Council. 2.
    Announcement, by the clerk of the church, that a Council has
    convened, and call for the nomination of a moderator,—the motion
    to be put by the clerk,—after which the moderator takes the chair.
    3. Organization completed by election of a clerk of the Council,
    the offering of prayer, and an invitation to visiting brethren to
    sit with the Council, but not to vote. 4. Reading, on behalf of
    the church, by its clerk, of the records of the church concerning
    the call extended to the candidate, and his acceptance, together
    with documentary evidence of his licensure, of his present church
    membership, and of his standing in other respects, if coming from
    another denomination. 5. Vote, by the Council, that the
    proceedings of the church, and the standing of the candidate,
    warrant an examination of his claim to ordination. 6. Introduction
    of the candidate to the Council, by some representative of the
    church, with an expression of the church’s feeling respecting him
    and his labors. 7. Vote to hear his Christian experience.
    Narration on the part of the candidate, followed by questions as
    to any features of it still needing elucidation. 8. Vote to hear
    the candidate’s reasons for believing himself called to the
    ministry. Narration and questions. 9. Vote to hear the candidate’s
    views of Christian doctrine. Narration and questions. 10. Vote to
    conclude the public examination, and to withdraw for private
    session. 11. In private session, after prayer, the Council
    determines, by three separate votes, in order to secure separate
    consideration of each question, whether it is satisfied with the
    candidate’s Christian experience, call to the ministry, and views
    of Christian doctrine. 12. Vote that the candidate be hereby set
    apart to the gospel ministry, and that a public service be held,
    expressive of this fact; that for this purpose, a committee of two
    be appointed, to act with the candidate, in arranging such service
    of ordination, and to report before adjournment. 13. Reading of
    minutes, by clerk of Council, and correction of them, to prepare
    for presentation at the ordination service, and for preservation
    in the archives of the church. 14. Vote to give the candidate a
    certificate of ordination, signed by the moderator and clerk of
    the Council, and to publish an account of the proceedings in the
    journals of the denomination. 15. Adjourn to meet at the service
    of ordination.

    PROGRAMME OF PUBLIC SERVICE (two hours in length).—1.
    Voluntary—five minutes. 2. Anthem—five. 3. Reading minutes of the
    Council, by the clerk of the Council—ten. 4. Prayer of
    invocation—five. 5. Reading of Scripture—five. 6. Sermon—twenty‐
    five. 7. Prayer of ordination, with laying‐on of hands—fifteen. 8.
    Hymn—ten. 9. Right hand of fellowship—five. 10. Charge to the
    candidate—fifteen. 11. Charge to the church—fifteen. 12.
    Doxology—five. 13. Benediction by the newly ordained pastor.

    The tenor of the N. T. would seem to indicate that deacons should
    be ordained with prayer and the laying‐on of hands, though not by
    council or public service. Evangelists, missionaries, ministers
    serving as secretaries of benevolent societies, should also be
    ordained, since they are organs of the church, set apart for
    special religious work on behalf of the churches. The same rule
    applies to those who are set to be teachers of the teachers, the
    professors of theological seminaries. Philip, baptizing the
    eunuch, is to be regarded as an organ of the church at Jerusalem.
    Both home missionaries and foreign missionaries are evangelists;
    and both, as organs of the home churches to which they belong, are
    not under obligation to take letters of dismission to the churches
    they gather. George Adam Smith, in his Life of Henry Drummond,
    265, says that Drummond was ordained to his professorship by the
    laying‐on of the hands of the Presbytery: “The rite is the same in
    the case whether of a minister or of a professor, for the church
    of Scotland recognizes no difference between her teachers and her
    pastors, but lays them under the same vows, and ordains them all
    as ministers of Christ’s gospel and of his sacraments.”

    Rome teaches that ordination is a sacrament, and “once a priest,
    always a priest,” but only when Rome confers the ordination. It is
    going a great deal further than Rome to maintain the indelibility
    of _all_ orders—at least, of all orders conferred by an
    evangelical church. At Dover in England, a medical gentleman
    declined to pay his doctor’s bill upon the ground that it was not
    the custom of his calling to pay one another for their services.
    It appeared however that he was a retired practitioner, and upon
    that ground he lost his case. Ordination, like vaccination, may
    run out. Retirement from the office of public teacher should work
    a forfeiture of the official character. The authorization granted
    by the Council was based upon a previous recognition of a divine
    call. When by reason of permanent withdrawal from the ministry,
    and devotion to wholly secular pursuits, there remains no longer
    any divine call to be recognized, all authority and standing as a
    Christian minister should cease also. We therefore repudiate the
    doctrine of the “indelibility of sacred orders,” and the
    corresponding maxim: “Once ordained, always ordained”; although we
    do not, with the Cambridge Platform, confine the ministerial
    function to the pastoral relation. That Platform held that “the
    pastoral relation ceasing, the ministerial function ceases, and
    the pastor becomes a layman again, to be restored to the ministry
    only by a second ordination, called installation. This theory of
    the ministry proved so inadequate, that it was held scarcely more
    than a single generation. It was rejected by the Congregational
    churches of England ten years after it was formulated in New
    England.”

    “The National Council of Congregational Churches, in 1880,
    resolved that any man serving a church as minister can be dealt
    with and disciplined by any church, no matter what his relations
    may be in church membership, or ecclesiastical affiliations. If
    the church choosing him will not call a council, then any church
    can call one for that purpose”; see New Englander, July,
    1883:461‐491. This latter course, however, presupposes that the
    steps of fraternal labor and admonition, provided for in our next
    section on the Relation of Local Churches to one another, have
    been taken, and have been insufficient to induce proper action on
    the part of the church to which such minister belongs.

    The authority of a Presbyterian church is limited to the bounds of
    its own denomination. It cannot ordain ministers for Baptist
    churches, any more than it can ordain them for Methodist churches
    or for Episcopal churches. When a Presbyterian minister becomes a
    Baptist, his motives for making the change and the conformity of
    his views to the New Testament standard need to be scrutinized by
    Baptists, before they can admit him to their Christian and church
    fellowship; in other words, he needs to be ordained by a Baptist
    church. Ordination is no more a discourtesy to the other
    denomination than Baptism is. Those who oppose reördination in
    such cases virtually hold to the Romish view of the sacredness of
    orders.

    The Watchman, April 17, 1902—“The Christian ministry is not a
    priestly class which the laity is bound to support. If the
    minister cannot find a church ready to support him, there is
    nothing to prevent his entering another calling. Only ten per
    cent. of the men who start in independent business avoid failure,
    and a much smaller proportion achieve substantial success. They
    are not failures, for they do useful and valuable work. But they
    do not secure the prizes. It is not wonderful that the proportion
    of ministers securing prominent pulpits is small. Many men fail in
    the ministry. There is no sacred character imparted by ordination.
    They should go into some other avocation. ‘Once a minister, always
    a minister’ is a piece of Popery that Protestant churches should
    get rid of.” See essay on Councils of Ordination, their Powers and
    Duties, by A. H. Strong, in Philosophy and Religion, 259‐268;
    Wayland, Principles and Practices of Baptists, 114; Dexter,
    Congregationalism, 136, 145, 146, 150, 151. _Per contra_, see
    Fish, Ecclesiology, 365‐399; Presb. Rev., 1886:89‐126.


3. Discipline of the Church.


A. Kinds of discipline.—Discipline is of two sorts, according as offences
are private or public. (_a_) Private offences are to be dealt with
according to the rule in Mat. 5:23, 24; 18:15‐17.


    _Mat. 5:23, 24_—“_If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the
    altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against
    thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first
    be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy
    gift_”—here is provision for self‐discipline on the part of each
    offender; _18:15‐17_—“_And if thy brother sin against thee, go,
    show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee,
    thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with
    thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three
    every word may be established. And if he refuse to hear them, tell
    it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let
    him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican_”—here is, first,
    private discipline, one of another; and then, only as a last
    resort, discipline by the church. Westcott and Hort, however omit
    the εἰς σέ—“_against thee_”—in _Mat. 18:15_, and so make each
    Christian responsible for bringing to repentance every brother
    whose sin he becomes cognizant of. This would abolish the
    distinction between private and public offences.

    When a brother wrongs me, I am not to speak of the offence to
    others, nor to write to him a letter, but to go to him. If the
    brother is already penitent, he will start from his house to see
    me at the same time that I start from my house to see him, and we
    will meet just half way between the two. There would be little
    appeal to the church, and little cherishing of ancient grudges, if
    Christ’s disciples would observe his simple rules. These rules
    impose a duty upon both the offending and the offended party. When
    a brother brings a personal matter before the church, he should
    always be asked whether he has obeyed Christ’s command to labor
    privately with the offender. If he has not, he should be bidden to
    keep silence.


(_b_) Public offences are to be dealt with according to the rule in 1 Cor.
5:3‐5, 13, and 2 Thess. 3:6.


    _1 Cor. 5:3‐5, 13_—“_For I verily, being absent in body but
    present in spirit, have already as though I were present judged
    him that hath so wrought this thing, in the name of the Lord
    Jesus, ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power
    of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the
    destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day
    of the Lord Jesus.... Put away the wicked man from among
    yourselves._”

    Notice here that Paul gave the incestuous person no opportunity to
    repent, confess, or avert sentence. The church can have no valid
    evidence of repentance immediately upon discovery and arraignment.
    At such a time the natural conscience always reacts in remorse and
    self‐accusation, but whether the sin is hated because of its
    inherent wickedness, or only because of its unfortunate
    consequences, cannot be known at once. Only fruits meet for
    repentance can prove repentance real. But such fruits take time,
    And the church has no time to wait. Its good repute in the
    community, and its influence over its own members, are at stake.
    These therefore demand the instant exclusion of the wrong‐doer, as
    evidence that the church clears its skirts from all complicity
    with the wrong. In the case of gross public offences, labor with
    the offender is to come, not before, but after, his
    excommunication; _cf._ _2 Cor. 2:6‐8_—“_Sufficient to such a one
    is this punishment which was inflicted by the many;... forgive him
    and comfort him;... confirm your love toward him._”

    The church is not a Mutual Insurance Company, whose object is to
    protect and shield its individual members. It is a society whose
    end is to represent Christ in the world, and to establish his
    truth and righteousness. Christ commits his honor to its keeping.
    The offender who is only anxious to escape judgment, and who
    pleads to be forgiven without delay, often shows that he cares
    nothing for the cause of Christ which he has injured, but that he
    has at heart only his own selfish comfort and reputation. The
    truly penitent man will rather beg the church to exclude him, in
    order that it may free itself from the charge of harboring
    iniquity. He will accept exclusion with humility, will love the
    church that excludes him, will continue to attend its worship,
    will in due time seek and receive restoration. There is always a
    way back into the church for those who repent. But the Scriptural
    method of ensuring repentance is the method of immediate
    exclusion.

    In _2 Cor. 2:6‐8_—“_inflicted by the many_” might at first sight
    seem to imply that, although the offender was excommunicated, it
    was only by a majority vote, some members of the church
    dissenting. Some interpreters think he had not been excommunicated
    at all, but that only ordinary association with him had ceased.
    But, if Paul’s command in the first epistle to “_put away the
    wicked man from among yourselves_” (_1 Cor. 5:13_) had been thus
    disobeyed, the apostle would certainly have mentioned and rebuked
    the disobedience. On the contrary he praises them that they had
    done as he had advised. The action of the church at Corinth was
    blessed by God to the quickening of conscience and the
    purification of life. In many a modern church the exclusion of
    unworthy members has in like manner given to Christians a new
    sense of their responsibility, while at the same time it has
    convinced worldly people that the church was in thorough earnest.
    The decisions of the church, indeed, when guided by the Holy
    Spirit, are nothing less than an anticipation of the judgments of
    the last day; see _Mat. 18:18_—“_What things soever ye shall bind
    on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall
    loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven._” In _John 8:7_, Jesus
    recognizes the sin and urges repentance, while he challenges the
    right of the mob to execute judgment, and does away with the
    traditional stoning. His gracious treatment of the sinning woman
    gave no hint as to the proper treatment of her case by the regular
    synagogue authorities.

    _2 Thess. 3:6_—“_Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our
    Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother
    that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which they
    received of us._” The mere “dropping” of names from the list of
    members seems altogether contrary to the spirit of the N. T.
    polity. That recognizes only three methods of exit from the local
    church: (1) exclusion; (2) dismission; (3) death. To provide for
    the case of members whose residence has long been unknown, it is
    well for the church to have a standing rule that all members
    residing at a distance shall report each year by letter or by
    contribution, and, in case of failure to report for two successive
    years, shall be subject to discipline. The action of the church,
    in such cases, should take the form of an adoption of preamble and
    resolution: “_Whereas_ A. B. has been absent from the church for
    more than two years, and has failed to comply with the standing
    rule requiring a yearly report or contribution, therefore,
    _Resolved_, that the church withdraw from A. B. the hand of
    fellowship.”

    In _all_ cases of exclusion, the resolution may uniformly read as
    above; the preamble may indefinitely vary, and should always cite
    the exact nature of the offence. In this way, neglect of the
    church or breach of covenant obligations may be distinguished from
    offences against common morality, so that exclusion upon the
    former ground shall not be mistaken for exclusion upon the latter.
    As the persons excluded are not commonly present at the meeting of
    the church when they are excluded, a written copy of the preamble
    and resolution, signed by the Clerk of the Church, should always
    be immediately sent to them.


B. Relation of the pastor to discipline.—(_a_) He has no original
authority; (_b_) but is the organ of the church, and (_c_) superintendent
of its labors for its own purification and for the reclamation of
offenders; and therefore (_d_) may best do the work of discipline, not
directly, by constituting himself a special policeman or detective, but
indirectly, by securing proper labor on the part of the deacons or
brethren of the church.


    The pastor should regard himself as a judge, rather than as a
    prosecuting attorney. He should press upon the officers of his
    church their duty to investigate cases of immorality and to deal
    with them. But if he himself makes charges, he loses dignity, and
    puts it out of his power to help the offender. It is not well for
    him to be, or to have the reputation of being, a ferreter‐out of
    misdemeanors among his church members. It is best for him in
    general to serve only as presiding officer in cases of discipline,
    instead of being a partisan or a counsel for the prosecution. For
    this reason it is well for him to secure the appointment by his
    church of a Prudential Committee, or Committee on Discipline,
    whose duty it shall be at a fixed time each year to look over the
    list of members, initiate labor in the case of delinquents, and,
    after the proper steps have been taken, present proper preambles
    and resolutions in cases where the church needs to take action.
    This regular yearly process renders discipline easy; whereas the
    neglect of it for several successive years results in an
    accumulation of cases, in each of which the person exposed to
    discipline has friends, and these are tempted to obstruct the
    church’s dealing with others from fear that the taking up of any
    other case may lead to the taking up of that one in which they are
    most nearly interested. The church which pays no regular attention
    to its discipline is like the farmer who milked his cow only once
    a year, in order to avoid too great a drain; or like the small boy
    who did not see how any one could bear to comb his hair every
    day,—he combed his own only once in six weeks, and then it nearly
    killed him.

    As the Prudential Committee, or Committee on Discipline, is simply
    the church itself preparing its own business, the church may well
    require all complaints to be made to it through the committee. In
    this way it may be made certain that the preliminary steps of
    labor have been taken, and the disquieting of the church by
    premature charges may be avoided. Where the committee, after
    proper representations made to it, fails to do its duty, the
    individual member may appeal directly to the assembled church; and
    the difference between the New Testament order and that of a
    hierarchy is this, that according to the former all final action
    and responsibility is taken by the church itself in its collective
    capacity, whereas on the latter the minister, the session, or the
    bishop, so far as the individual church is concerned, determines
    the result. See Savage, Church Discipline, Formative and
    Corrective; Dagg, Church Order, 268‐274. On church discipline in
    cases of remarriage after divorce, see A. H. Strong, Philosophy
    and Religion, 431‐442.



IV. Relation of Local Churches to one another.


1. The general nature of this relation is that of fellowship between
equals.


Notice here:

(_a_) The absolute equality of the churches.—No church or council of
churches, no association or convention or society, can relieve any single
church of its direct responsibility to Christ, or assume control of its
action.

(_b_) The fraternal fellowship and coöperation of the churches.—No church
can properly ignore, or disregard, the existence or work of other churches
around it. Every other church is presumptively possessed of the Spirit, in
equal measure with itself. There must therefore be sympathy and mutual
furtherance of each other’s welfare among churches, as among individual
Christians. Upon this principle are based letters of dismission,
recognition of the pastors of other churches, and all associational
unions, or unions for common Christian work.


    H. O. Rowlands, in Bap. Quar. Rev., Oct. 1891:669‐677, urges the
    giving up of special Councils, and the turning of the Association
    into a Permanent Council, not to take original cognizance of what
    cases it pleases, but to consider and judge such questions as may
    be referred to it by the individual churches. It could then revise
    and rescind its action, whereas the present Council when once
    adjourned can never be called together again. This method would
    prevent the packing of a Council, and the Council when once
    constituted would have greater influence. We feel slow to sanction
    such a plan, not only for the reason that it seems destitute of
    New Testament authority and example, but because it tends toward a
    Presbyterian form of church government. All permanent bodies of
    this sort gradually arrogate to themselves power; indirectly if
    not directly they can assume original jurisdiction; their
    decisions have altogether too great influence, if they go further
    than personal persuasion. The independence of the individual
    church is a primary element of polity which must not be sacrificed
    or endangered for the mere sake of inter‐ecclesiastical harmony.
    Permanent Councils of any sort are of doubtful validity. They need
    to be kept under constant watch and criticism, lest they undermine
    our Baptist church government, a fundamental principle of which is
    that there is no authority on earth above that of the local
    church.


2. This fellowship involves the duty of special consultation with regard
to matters affecting the common interest.


(_a_) The duty of seeking advice.—Since the order and good repute of each
is valuable to all the others, cases of grave importance and difficulty in
internal discipline, as well as the question of ordaining members to the
ministry, should be submitted to a council of churches called for the
purpose.

(_b_) The duty of taking advice.—For the same reason, each church should
show readiness to receive admonition from others. So long as this is in
the nature of friendly reminder that the church is guilty of defects from
the doctrine or practice enjoined by Christ, the mutual acceptance of
whose commands is the basis of all church fellowship, no church can justly
refuse to have such defects pointed out, or to consider the Scripturalness
of its own proceeding. Such admonition or advice, however, whether coming
from a single church or from a council of churches, is not itself of
binding authority. It is simply in the nature of moral suasion. The church
receiving it has still to compare it with Christ’s laws. The ultimate
decision rests entirely with the church so advised or asking advice.


    Churches should observe comity, and should not draw away one
    another’s members. Ministers should bring churches together, and
    should teach their members the larger unity of the whole church of
    God. The pastor should not confine his interest to his own church
    or even to his own Association. The State Convention, the
    Education Society, the National Anniversaries, should all claim
    his attention and that of his people. He should welcome new
    laborers and helpers, instead of regarding the ministry as a close
    corporation whose numbers are to be kept forever small. E. G.
    Robinson: “The spirit of sectarianism is devilish. It raises the
    church above Christ. Christ did not say: ‘Blessed is the man who
    accepts the Westminster Confession or the Thirty‐Nine Articles.’
    There is not the least shadow of churchism in Christ. Churchism is
    a revamped and whitewashed Judaism. It keeps up the middle wall of
    partition which Christ has broken down.”

    Dr. P. H. Mell, in his Manual of Parliamentary Practice, calls
    Church Councils “Committees of Help.” President James C. Welling
    held that “We Baptists are not true to our democratic polity in
    the conduct of our collective evangelical operations. In these
    matters we are simply a bureaucracy, tempered by individual
    munificence.” A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 149, 150,
    remarks on _Mat. 18:19_—“_If two of you shall
    agree_”—συμφωνήσωσιν, from which our word “symphony” comes: “If
    two shall ‘accord,’ or ‘symphonize’ in what they ask, they have
    the promise of being heard. But, as in tuning an organ, all the
    notes must be keyed to the standard pitch, else harmony were
    impossible, so in prayer. It is not enough that two disciples
    agree with each other,—they must agree with a Third—the righteous
    and holy Lord, before they can agree in intercession. There may be
    agreement which is in most sinful conflict with the divine will:
    ‘_How is it that ye have agreed together_’—συνεφωνήθη—the same
    word—‘_to try the Spirit of the Lord?_’ says Peter (_Acts 5:9_).
    Here is mutual accord, but guilty discord with the Holy Spirit.”


3. This fellowship may be broken by manifest departures from the faith or
practice of the Scriptures, on the part of any church.


In such case, duty to Christ requires the churches, whose labors to
reclaim a sister church from error have proved unavailing, to withdraw
their fellowship from it, until such time as the erring church shall
return to the path of duty. In this regard, the law which applies to
individuals applies to churches, and the polity of the New Testament is
congregational rather than independent.


    Independence is qualified by interdependence. While each church
    is, in the last resort thrown upon its own responsibility in
    ascertaining doctrine and duty, it is to acknowledge the
    indwelling of the Holy Spirit in other churches as well as in
    itself, and the value of the public opinion of the churches as an
    indication of the mind of the Spirit. The church in Antioch asked
    advice of the church in Jerusalem, although Paul himself was at
    Antioch. Although no church or union of churches has rightful
    jurisdiction over the single local body, yet the Council, when
    rightly called and constituted, has the power of moral influence.
    Its decision is an index to truth, which only the gravest reasons
    will justify the church in ignoring or refusing to follow.

    Dexter, Congregationalism, 695—“Barrowism gave all power into the
    hands of the elders, and it would have no Councils.
    Congregationalism is Brownism. It has two foci: Independence and
    Interdependence.” Charles S. Scott, on Baptist Polity and the
    Pastorate, in Bap. Quar. Rev., July, 1890:291‐297—“The difference
    between the polity of Baptist and of Congregational churches is in
    the relative authority of the Ecclesiastical Council.
    Congregationalism is Councilism. Not only the ordination and first
    settlement of the minister must be with the advice and consent of
    a Council, but every subsequent unsettlement and settlement.”
    Baptist churches have regarded this dependence upon Councils after
    the minister’s ordination as extreme and unwarranted.

    The fact that the church has always the right, for just cause, of
    going behind the decision of the Council, and of determining for
    itself whether it will ratify or reject that decision, shows
    conclusively that the church has parted with no particle of its
    original independence or authority. Yet, though the Council is
    simply a counsellor—an organ and helper of the church,—the neglect
    of its advice may involve such ecclesiastical or moral wrong as to
    justify the churches represented in it, as well as other churches,
    in withdrawing, from the church that called it, their
    denominational fellowship. The relation of churches to one another
    is analogous to the relation of private Christians to one another.
    No meddlesome spirit is to be allowed; but in matters of grave
    moment, a church, as well as an individual, may be justified in
    giving advice unasked.

    Lightfoot, in his new edition of Clemens Romanus, shows that the
    Epistle, instead of emanating from Clement as Bishop of Rome, is a
    letter of the church at Rome to the Corinthians, urging them to
    peace. No pope and no bishop existed, but the whole church
    congregationally addressed its counsels to its sister body of
    believers at Corinth. Congregationalism, in A. D. 95, considered
    it a duty to labor with a sister church that had in its judgment
    gone astray, or that was in danger of going astray. The only
    primacy was the primacy of the church, not of the bishop; and this
    primacy was a primacy of goodness, backed up by metropolitan
    advantages. All this fraternal fellowship follows from the
    fundamental conception of the local church as the concrete
    embodiment of the universal church. Park: “Congregationalism
    recognizes a voluntary coöperation and communion of the churches,
    which Independency does not do. Independent churches ordain and
    depose pastors without asking advice from other churches.”

    In accordance with this general principle, in a case of serious
    disagreement between different portions of the same church, the
    council called to advise should be, if possible, a mutual, not an
    _ex parte_, council; see Dexter, Congregationalism, 2, 3, 61‐64.
    It is a more general application of the same principle, to say
    that the pastor should not shut himself in to his own church, but
    should cultivate friendly relations with other pastors and with
    other churches, should be present and active at the meetings of
    Associations and State Conventions, and at the Anniversaries of
    the National Societies of the denomination. His example of
    friendly interest in the welfare of others will affect his church.
    The strong should be taught to help the weak, after the example of
    Paul in raising contributions for the poor churches of Judea.

    The principle of church independence is not only consistent with,
    but it absolutely requires under Christ, all manner of Christian
    coöperation with other churches; and Social and Mission Unions to
    unify the work of the denomination, to secure the starting of new
    enterprises, to prevent one church from trenching upon the
    territory or appropriating the members of another, are only
    natural outgrowths of the principle. President Wayland’s remark,
    “He who is displeased with everybody and everything gives the best
    evidence that his own temper is defective and that he is a bad
    associate,” applies to churches as well as to individuals. Each
    church is to remember that, though it is honored by the indwelling
    of the Lord, it constitutes only a part of that great body of
    which Christ is the head.

    See Davidson, Eccl. Polity of the N. T.; Ladd, Principles of
    Church Polity; and on the general subject of the Church, Hodge,
    Essays, 201; Flint, Christ’s Kingdom on Earth, 53‐82; Hooker,
    Ecclesiastical Polity; The Church,—a collection of essays by
    Luthardt, Kahnis, _etc._; Hiscox, Baptist Church Directory;
    Ripley, Church Polity; Harvey, The Church; Crowell, Church
    Members’ Manual; R. W. Dale, Manual of Congregational Principles;
    Lightfoot, Com. on Philippians, excursus on the Christian
    Ministry; Ross, The Church‐Kingdom—Lectures on Congregationalism;
    Dexter, Congregationalism, 681‐716, as seen in its Literature;
    Allison, Baptist Councils in America. For a denial that there is
    any real apostolic authority for modern church polity, see O. J.
    Thatcher, Sketch of the History of the Apostolic Church.



Chapter II. The Ordinances Of The Church.


By the ordinances, we mean those outward rites which Christ has appointed
to be administered in his church as visible signs of the saving truth of
the gospel. They are signs, in that they vividly express this truth and
confirm it to the believer.

In contrast with this characteristically Protestant view, the Romanist
regards the ordinances as actually conferring grace and producing
holiness. Instead of being the external manifestation of a preceding union
with Christ, they are the physical means of constituting and maintaining
this union. With the Romanist, in this particular, sacramentalists of
every name substantially agree. The Papal Church holds to seven sacraments
or ordinances:—ordination, confirmation, matrimony, extreme unction,
penance, baptism, and the eucharist. The ordinances prescribed in the N.
T., however, are two and only two, viz.:—Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.


    It will be well to distinguish from one another the three words:
    symbol, rite, and ordinance. 1. A _symbol_ is the sign, or visible
    representation, of an invisible truth or idea; as for example, the
    lion is the symbol of strength and courage, the lamb is the symbol
    of gentleness, the olive branch of peace, the sceptre of dominion,
    the wedding ring of marriage, and the flag of country. Symbols may
    teach great lessons; as Jesus’ cursing the barren fig tree taught
    the doom of unfruitful Judaism, and Jesus’ washing of the
    disciples’ feet taught his own coming down from heaven to purify
    and save, and the humble service required of his followers. 2. A
    _rite_ is a symbol which is employed with regularity and sacred
    intent. Symbols became rites when thus used. Examples of
    authorized rites in the Christian Church are the laying on of
    hands in ordination, and the giving of the right hand of
    fellowship. 3. An _ordinance_ is a symbolic rite which sets forth
    the central truths of the Christian faith, and which is of
    universal and perpetual obligation. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper
    are rites which have become ordinances by the specific command of
    Christ and by their inner relation to the essential truths of his
    kingdom. No ordinance is a sacrament in the Romanist sense of
    conferring grace; but, as the _sacramentum_ was the oath taken by
    the Roman soldier to obey his commander even unto death, so
    Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are sacraments, in the sense of vows
    of allegiance to Christ our Master.

    President H. G. Weston has recorded his objections to the
    observance of the so‐called “Christian Year,” in words that we
    quote, as showing the danger attending the Romanist multiplication
    of ordinances. “1. The ‘Christian Year’ is not Christian. It makes
    everything of actions, and nothing of relations. Make a day holy
    that God has not made holy, and you thereby make all other days
    unholy. 2. It limits the Christian’s view of Christ to the scenes
    and events of his earthly life. Salvation comes through spiritual
    relations to a living Lord. The ‘Christian Year’ makes Christ only
    a memory, and not a living, present, personal power. Life, not
    death, is the typical word of the N. T. Paul craved, not a
    knowledge of the fact of the resurrection, but of the power of it.
    The New Testament records busy themselves most of all with what
    Christ is doing now. 3. The appointments of the ‘Christian Year’
    are not in accord with the N. T. These appointments lack the
    reality of spiritual life, and are contrary to the essential
    spirit of Christianity.” We may add that where the “Christian
    Year” is most generally and rigidly observed, there popular
    religion is most formal and destitute of spiritual power.



I. Baptism.


Christian Baptism is the immersion of a believer in water, in token of his
previous entrance into the communion of Christ’s death and
resurrection,—or, in other words, in token of his regeneration through
union with Christ.


1. Baptism an Ordinance of Christ.


A. Proof that Christ instituted an external rite called baptism.

(_a_) From the words of the great commission; (_b_) from the injunctions
of the apostles; (_c_) from the fact that the members of the New Testament
churches were baptized believers; (_d_) from the universal practice of
such a rite in Christian churches of subsequent times.


    (_a_) _Mat. 28:19_—“_Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all
    the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the
    Son and of the Holy Spirit_”; _Mark 16:16_—“_He that believeth and
    is baptized shall be saved_”—we hold, with Westcott and Hort, that
    _Mark 16:9‐20_ is of canonical authority, though probably not
    written by Mark himself. (_b_) _Acts 2:38_—“_And Peter said unto
    them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of
    Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins_”; (_c_) _Rom.
    6:3‐5_—“_Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into
    Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried
    therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ
    was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we
    also might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united
    with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the
    likeness of his resurrection_”; _Col. 2:11, 12_—“_in whom ye were
    also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the
    putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of
    Christ; having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were
    also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who
    raised him from the dead._” (_d_) The only marked exceptions to
    the universal requisition of baptism are found in the Society of
    Friends, and in the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army does not
    regard the ordinance as having any more permanent obligation than
    feet‐washing. General Booth: “We teach our soldiers that every
    time they break bread, they are to remember the broken body of the
    Lord, and every time they wash the body, they are to remind
    themselves of the cleansing power of the blood of Christ and of
    the indwelling Spirit.” The Society of Friends regard Christ’s
    commands as fulfilled, not by any outward baptism of water, but
    only by the inward baptism of the Spirit.


B. This external rite intended by Christ to be of universal and perpetual
obligation.

(_a_) Christ recognized John the Baptist’s commission to baptize as
derived immediately from heaven.


    _Mat. 21:25_—“_The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or
    from men?_”—here Jesus clearly intimates that John’s commission to
    baptize was derived directly from God; _cf._ _John 1:25_—the
    delegates sent to the Baptist by the Sanhedrin ask him: “_Why then
    baptizest thou, if thou art not the Christ, neither Elijah,
    neither the prophet?_” thus indicating that John’s baptism, either
    in its form or its application, was a new ordinance that required
    special divine authorization.

    Broadus in his American Com. on _Mat. 3:6_, claims that John’s
    baptism was no modification of an existing rite. Proselyte baptism
    is not mentioned in the Mishna (A. D. 200); the first distinct
    account of it is in the Babylonian Talmud (Gemara) written in the
    fifth century; it was not adopted from the Christians, but was one
    of the Jewish purifications which came to be regarded, after the
    destruction of the Temple, as a peculiar initiatory rite. There is
    no mention of it, as a Jewish rite, in the O. T., N. T.,
    Apocrypha, Philo, or Josephus.

    For the view that proselyte‐baptism did not exist among the Jews
    before the time of John, see Schneckenburger, Ueber das Alter der
    jüdischen Proselytentaufe; Stuart, in Bib. Repos., 1833:338‐355;
    Toy, In Baptist Quarterly, 1872:301‐332. Dr. Toy, however, in a
    private note to the author (1884), says: “I am disposed now to
    regard the Christian rite as borrowed from the Jewish, contrary to
    my view in 1872.” So holds Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus,
    2:742‐744—“We have positive testimony that the baptism of
    proselytes existed in the times of Hillel and Shammai. For,
    whereas the school of Shammai is said to have allowed a proselyte
    who was circumcised on the eve of the Passover, to partake, after
    baptism, of the Passover, the school of Hillel forbade it. This
    controversy must be regarded as proving that at that time
    [previous to Christ] the baptism of proselytes was customary.”

    Porter, on Proselyte Baptism, Hastings’ Bible Dict., 4:132—“If
    circumcision was the decisive step in the case of all male
    converts, there seems no longer room for serious question that a
    bath of purification must have followed, even though early mention
    of such proselyte baptism is not found. The law (_Lev. 11‐15_;
    _Num. 19_) prescribed such baths in all cases of impurity, and one
    who came with the deep impurity of a heathen life behind him could
    not have entered the Jewish community without such cleansing.”
    Plummer, on Baptism, Hastings’ Bible Dict., 1:239—“What is wanted
    is direct evidence that, before John the Baptist made so
    remarkable a use of the rite, it was the custom to make all
    proselytes submit to baptism; and such evidence is not
    forthcoming. Nevertheless the fact is not really doubtful. It is
    not credible that the baptizing of proselytes was instituted and
    made essential for their admission to Judaism at a period
    subsequent to the institution of Christian baptism; and the
    supposition that it was borrowed from the rite enjoined by Christ
    is monstrous.”

    Although the O. T. and the Apocrypha, Josephus and Philo, are
    silent with regard to proselyte baptism, it is certain that it
    existed among the Jews in the early Christian centuries; and it is
    almost equally certain that the Jews could not have adopted it
    from the Christians. It is probable, therefore, that the baptism
    of John was an application to Jews of an immersion which, before
    that time, was administered to proselytes from among the Gentiles;
    and that it was this adaptation of the rite to a new class of
    subjects and with a new meaning, which excited the inquiry and
    criticism of the Sanhedrin. We must remember, however, that the
    Lord’s Supper was likewise an adaptation of certain portions of
    the old Passover service to a new use and meaning. See also Kitto,
    Bib. Cyclop., 3:593.


(_b_) In his own submission to John’s baptism, Christ gave testimony to
the binding obligation of the ordinance (Mat. 3:13‐17). John’s baptism was
essentially Christian baptism (Acts 19:4), although the full significance
of it was not understood until after Jesus’ death and resurrection (Mat.
20:17‐23; Luke 12:50; Rom. 6:3‐6).


    _Mat. 3:13‐17_—“_Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill
    all righteousness_”; _Acts 19:4_—“_John baptized with the baptism
    of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on
    him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus_”; _Mat. 20:18,
    19, 22_—“_the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests
    and scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall
    deliver him unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to
    crucify.... Are ye able to drink the cup that I am about to
    drink?_” _Luke 12:50_—“_But I have a baptism to be baptized with;
    and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!_” _Rom. 6:3,
    4_—“_Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ
    Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with
    him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised
    from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might
    walk is newness of life._”

    Robert Hall, Works, 1:367‐399, denies that John’s baptism was
    Christian baptism, and holds that there is not sufficient evidence
    that all the apostles were baptized. The fact that John’s baptism
    was a baptism of faith in the coming Messiah, as well as a baptism
    of repentance for past and present sin, refutes this theory. The
    only difference between John’s baptism, and the baptism of our
    time, is that John baptized upon profession of faith in a Savior
    yet to come; baptism is now administered upon profession of faith
    in a Savior who has actually and already come. On John’s baptism
    as presupposing faith in those who received it, see treatment of
    the Subjects of Baptism, page 950.


(_c_) In continuing the practice of baptism through his disciples (John
4:1, 2), and in enjoining it upon them as part of a work which was to last
to the end of the world (Mat. 28:19, 20), Christ manifestly adopted and
appointed baptism as the invariable law of his church.


    _John 4:1, 2_—“_When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees
    had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than
    John (although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples)_”;
    _Mat. 28:19, 20_—“_Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the
    nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son
    and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things
    whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even
    unto the end of the world._”


(_d_) The analogy of the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper also leads to the
conclusion that baptism is to be observed as an authoritative memorial of
Christ and his truth, until his second coming.


    _1 Cor. 11:26_—“_For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the
    cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come._” Baptism, like
    the Lord’s Supper, is a teaching ordinance, and the two ordinances
    together furnish an indispensable witness to Christ’s death and
    resurrection.


(_e_) There is no intimation whatever that the command of baptism is
limited, or to be limited, in its application,—that it has been or ever is
to be repealed; and, until some evidence of such limitation or repeal is
produced, the statute must be regarded as universally binding.


    On the proof that baptism is an ordinance of Christ, see Pepper,
    in Madison Avenue Lectures, 85‐114; Dagg, Church Order, 9‐21.


2. The Mode of Baptism.


This is immersion, and immersion only. This appears from the following
considerations:


A. The command to baptize is a command to immerse.


We show this:

(_a_) From the meaning of the original word βαπτίζω. That this is to
immerse, appears:

First,—from the usage of Greek writers—including the church Fathers, when
they do not speak of the Christian rite, and the authors of the Greek
version of the Old Testament.


    Liddell and Scott, Greek Lexicon: “βαπτίζω, to dip in or under
    water; Lat. _immergere_.” Sophocles, Lexicon of Greek Usage in the
    Roman and Byzantine Periods, 140 B. C. to 1000 A. D.—“βαπτίζω, to
    dip, to immerse, to sink ... There is no evidence that Luke and
    Paul and the other writers of the N. T. put upon this verb
    meanings not recognized by the Greeks.” Thayer, N. T. Lexicon:
    “βαπτίζω, literally to dip, to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to
    submerge, ... metaphorically, to overwhelm.... βάπτισμα,
    immersion, submersion ... a rite of sacred immersion commanded by
    Christ.” Prof. Goodwin of Harvard University, Feb. 13, 1895, says:
    “The classical meaning of βαπτίζω, which seldom occurs, and of the
    more common βάπτω, is dip (literally or metaphorically), and I
    never heard of its having any other meaning anywhere. Certainly I
    never saw a lexicon which gives either sprinkle or pour, as
    meanings of either. I must be allowed to ask why I am so often
    asked this question, which seems to me to have but one perfectly
    plain answer.”

    In the International Critical Commentary, see Plummer on Luke, p.
    86—“It is only when baptism is administered by immersion that its
    full significance is seen”; Abbott on Colossians, p. 251—“The
    figure was naturally suggested by the immersion in baptism”; see
    also Gould on Mark, p. 127; Sanday on Romans, p. 154‐157. No one
    of these four Commentaries was written by a Baptist. The two
    latest English Bible Dictionaries agree upon this point. Hastings,
    Bib. Dict., art.: Baptism, p. 243 a—“The mode of using was
    commonly immersion. The symbolism of the ordinance required this”;
    Cheyne, Encyc. Biblica, 1:473, while arguing from the _Didache_
    that from a very early date “a triple pouring was admitted where a
    sufficiency of water could not be had,” agrees that “such a method
    [as immersion] is presupposed as the ideal, at any rate, in Paul’s
    words about death, burial and resurrection in baptism (_Rom.
    6:3‐5_).”

    Conant, Appendix to Bible Union Version of Matthew, 1‐64, has
    examples “drawn from writers in almost every department of
    literature and science; from poets, rhetoricians, philosophers,
    critics, historians, geographers; from writers on husbandry, on
    medicine, on natural history, on grammar, on theology; from almost
    every form and style of composition, romances, epistles, orations,
    fables, odes, epigrams, sermons, narratives: from writers of
    various nations and religions, Pagan, Jew, and Christian,
    belonging to many countries and through a long succession of ages.
    In all, the word has retained its ground‐meaning without change.
    From the earliest age of Greek literature down to its close, a
    period of nearly two thousand years, not an example has been found
    in which the word has any other meaning. There is no instance in
    which it signifies to make a partial application of water by
    affusion or sprinkling, or to cleanse, to purify, apart from the
    literal act of immersion as the means of cleansing or purifying.”
    See Stuart, in Bib. Repos., 1833:313; Broadus on Immersion, 57,
    note.

    Dale, in his Classic, Judaic, Christic, and Patristic Baptism,
    maintains that βάπτω alone means “to dip,” and that βαπτίζω never
    means “to dip,” but only “to put within,” giving no intimation
    that the object is to be taken out again. But see Review of Dale,
    by A. C. Kendrick, in Bap. Quarterly, 1869:129, and by Harvey, in
    Bap. Review, 1879:141‐163. “Plutarch used the word βαπτίζω, when
    he describes the soldiers of Alexander on a riotous march as by
    the roadside dipping (lit.: baptizing) with cups from huge wine
    jars and mixing bowls, and drinking to one another. Here we have
    βαπτίζω used where Dr. Dale’s theory would call for βάπτω. The
    truth is that βαπτίζω, the stronger word, came to be used in the
    same sense with the weaker; and the attempt to prove a broad and
    invariable difference of meaning between them breaks down. Of Dr.
    Dale’s three meanings of βαπτίζω—(1) intusposition without
    influence (stone in water), (2) intusposition with influence (man
    drowned in water), (3) influence without intusposition,—the last
    is a figment of Dr. Dale’s imagination. It would allow me to say
    that when I burned a piece of paper, I baptized it. The grand
    result is this: Beginning with the position that baptize means
    immerse, Dr. Dale ends by maintaining that immersion is not
    baptism. Because Christ speaks of drinking a cup, Dr. Dale infers
    that this is baptism.” For a complete reply to Dale, see Ford,
    Studies on Baptism.


Secondly,—every passage where the word occurs in the New Testament either
requires or allows the meaning “immerse.”


    _Mat. 3:6, 11_—“_I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance ...
    he shall baptize you in the holy Spirit and in fire_”; _cf._ _2
    Kings 5:14_—“_Then went he_ [Naaman] _down, and dipped himself_
    ἐβαπτίσατο _seven times in the Jordan_”; _Mark 1:5, 9_—“_they were
    baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins....
    Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John into
    the Jordan_”; _7:4_—“_and when they come from the market‐place,
    except they bathe_ [lit.: ‘_baptize_’] _themselves, they eat not:
    and many other things there are, which they have received to hold,
    washings_ [lit.: ‘_baptizings_’] _of cups, and pots, and brasen
    vessels_”—in this verse, Westcott and Hort, with א and B, read
    ῥαντίσωνται, instead of βαπτίσωνται; but it is easy to see how
    subsequent ignorance of Pharisaic scrupulousness might have
    changed βαπτίσωνται into ῥαντίσωνται; but not easy to see how
    ῥαντίσωνται should have been changed into βαπτίσωνται. On _Mat.
    15:2_ (and the parallel passage _Mark 7:4_), see Broadus, Com. on
    Mat., pages 332, 333. Herodotus, 2:47, says that if any Egyptian
    touches a swine in passing, with his clothes, he goes to the river
    and dips himself from it.

    Meyer, Com. _in loco_—“ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται is not to be understood
    of washing the hands (Lightfoot, Wetstein), but of immersion,
    which the word in classic Greek and in the N. T. everywhere means;
    here, according to the context, to take a bath.” The Revised
    Version omits the words “and couches,” although Maimonides speaks
    of a Jewish immersion of couches; see quotation from Maimonides in
    Ingham, Handbook of Baptism, 373—“Whenever in the law washing of
    the flesh or of the clothes is mentioned, it means nothing else
    than the dipping of the whole body in a laver; for if any man dip
    himself all over except the tip of his little finger, he is still
    in his uncleanness.... A bed that is wholly defiled, if a man dip
    it part by part, it is pure.” Watson, in Annotated Par. Bible,
    1126.

    _Luke 11:38_—“_And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he
    had not first bathed_ [lit.: ‘_baptized_’] _himself before
    dinner_”; _cf._ _Ecclesiasticus 31:25_—“_He that washeth himself
    after the touching of a dead body_” (βαπτιζόμενος ἀπὸ νεκροῦ);
    _Judith 12:7_—“_washed herself ἐβαπτίζετο in a fountain of water
    by the camp_”; _Lev. 22:4‐6_—“_Whoso toucheth anything that is
    unclean by the dead ... unclean until the even ... bathe his flesh
    in water._” _Acts 2:41_—“_They then that received his word were
    baptized: and there were added unto them in that day about three
    thousand souls._” Although the water supply of Jerusalem is
    naturally poor, the artificial provision of aqueducts, cisterns,
    and tanks, made water abundant. During the siege of Titus, though
    thousands died of famine, we read of no suffering from lack of
    water. The following are the dimensions of pools in modern
    Jerusalem: King’s Pool, 15 feet x 16 x 3; Siloam, 53 x 18 x 19;
    Hezekiah, 240 x 140 x 10; Bethesda (so‐called), 360 x 130 x 75;
    Upper Gihon, 316 x 218 x 19; Lower Gihon, 592 x 260 x 18; see
    Robinson, Biblical Researches, 1:323‐348, and Samson, Water‐supply
    of Jerusalem, pub. by Am. Bap. Pub. Soc. There was no difficulty
    in baptizing three thousand in one day; for, in the time of
    Chrysostom, when all candidates of the year were baptized in a
    single day, three thousand were once baptized; and, on July 3,
    1878, 2222 Telugu Christians were baptized by two administrators
    in nine hours. These Telugu baptisms took place at Velumpilly, ten
    miles north of Ongole. The same two men did not baptize all the
    time. There were six men engaged in baptizing, but never more than
    two men at the same time.

    _Acts 16:33_—“_And he took them the same hour of the night, and
    washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his,
    immediately_”—the prison was doubtless, as are most large edifices
    in the East, whether public or private, provided with tank and
    fountain. See Cremer, Lexicon of N. T. Greek, _sub voce_—“βαπτίζω,
    immersion or submersion for a religious purpose.” Grimm’s ed. of
    Wilke—“βαπτίζω, 1. Immerse, submerge; 2. Wash or bathe, by
    immersing or submerging (_Mark 7:4_, also Naaman and Judith); 3.
    Figuratively, to overwhelm, as with debts, misfortunes, _etc._” In
    the N. T. rite, he says it denotes “an immersion in water,
    intended as a sign of sins washed away, and received by those who
    wished to be admitted to the benefits of Messiah’s reign.”

    Döllinger, Kirche und Kirchen, 337—“The Baptists are, however,
    from the Protestant point of view, unassailable, since for their
    demand of baptism by submersion they have the clear Bible text;
    and the authority of the church and of her testimony is not
    regarded by either party”—_i. e._, by either Baptists or
    Protestants, generally. Prof. Harnack, of Giessen, writes in the
    Independent, Feb. 19, 1885—“1. _Baptizein_ undoubtedly signifies
    immersion (_eintauchen_). 2. No proof can be found that it
    signifies anything else in the N. T. and in the most ancient
    Christian literature. The suggestion regarding a ‘sacred sense’ is
    out of the question. 3. There is no passage in the N. T. which
    suggests the supposition that any New Testament author attached to
    the word _baptizein_ any other sense than _eintauchen_ =
    _untertauchen_ (immerse, submerge).” See Com. of Meyer, and
    Cunningham, Croall lectures.


Thirdly,—the absence of any use of the word in the passive voice with
“water” as its subject confirms our conclusion that its meaning is “to
immerse.” Water is never said to be baptized upon a man.

(_b_) From the use of the verb βαπτίζω with prepositions:

First,—with εἰς (Mark 1:9—where Ἰορδάνην is the element into which the
person passes in the act of being baptized).

_Mark 1:9, marg._—“_And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came
from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John into the Jordan._”

Secondly,—with ἐν (Mark 1:5, 8; _cf._ Mat. 3:11. John 1:26, 31, 33; _cf._
Acts 2:2, 4). In these texts, ἐν is to be taken, not instrumentally, but
as indicating the element in which the immersion takes place.


    _Mark 1:5, 8_—“_they were baptized of him in the river Jordan,
    confessing their sins.... I baptized you in water; but he shall
    baptize you in the Holy Spirit_”—here see Meyer’s Com. on _Mat.
    3:11_—“ἐν is in accordance with the meaning of βαπτίζω (immerse),
    not to be understood instrumentally, but on the contrary, in the
    sense of the element in which the immersion takes place.” Those
    who pray for a “baptism of the Holy Spirit” pray for such a
    pouring out of the Spirit as shall fill the place and permit them
    to be flooded or immersed in his abundant presence and power; see
    C. E. Smith, Baptism of Fire, 1881:305‐311. Plumptre: “The baptism
    with the Holy Ghost would imply that the souls thus baptized would
    be plunged, as it were, in that creative and informing Spirit,
    which was the source of light and holiness and wisdom.”

    A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 67—“The upper room became
    the Spirit’s baptistery. His presence ‘_filled all the house where
    they were sitting_’ (_Acts 2:2_).... Baptism in the Holy Spirit
    was given once for all on the day of Pentecost, when the Paraclete
    came in person to make his abode in the church. It does not follow
    that every believer has received this baptism. God’s gift is one
    thing,—our appropriation of that gift is quite another thing. Our
    relation to the second and to the third persons of the Godhead is
    exactly parallel in this respect. ‘God so loved the world, that he
    _gave_ his only begotten Son’ (_John 3:16_). ‘But as many as
    _received_ him, to them gave he the right to become children of
    God, even to them that believe on his name’ (_John 1:12_). We are
    required to appropriate the Spirit as sons, in the same way that
    we are required to appropriate Christ as sinners.... ‘_He breathed
    on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye_’—take ye, actively—‘_the
    Holy Spirit_’ (_John 20:22_).”


(_c_) From circumstances attending the administration of the ordinance
(Mark 1:10—ἀναβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος; John 3:23—ὕδατα πολλά; Acts 8:38,
39—κατέβησαν εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ ... ἀνέβησαν ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος).


    _Mark 1:10_—“_coming up out of the water_”; _John 3:23_—“_And John
    also was baptizing in Ænon near to Salim, because there was much
    water there_”—a sufficient depth of water for baptizing; see Prof.
    W. A. Stevens, on Ænon near to Salim, in Journ. Soc. of Bib. Lit.
    and Exegesis, Dec. 1883. _Acts 8:38, 39_—“_and they both went down
    into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
    And when they came up out of the water...._” In the case of Philip
    and the eunuch, President Timothy Dwight, in S. S. Times, Aug. 27,
    1892, says: “The baptism was apparently by immersion.” The Editor
    adds that “practically scholars are agreed that the primitive
    meaning of the word ’baptize’ was to immerse.”


(_d_) From figurative allusions to the ordinance.


    _Mark 10:38_—“_Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? or to be
    baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?_”—here the cup
    is the cup of suffering in Gethsemane; _cf._ _Luke
    22:42_—“_Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me_”;
    and the baptism is the baptism of death on Calvary, and of the
    grave that was to follow; _cf._ _Luke 12:50_—“_I have a baptism to
    be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be
    accomplished!_” Death presented itself to the Savior’s mind as a
    baptism, because it was a sinking under the floods of suffering.
    _Rom. 6:4_—“_We were buried therefore with him through baptism
    into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through
    the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of
    life_”—Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, say,
    on this passage, that “it cannot be understood without remembering
    that the primitive method of baptism was by immersion.” On _Luke
    12:49, marg._—“_I came to cast fire upon the earth, and how would
    I that it were already kindled!_”—see Wendt, Teaching of Jesus,
    2:225—“He knew that he was called to bring a new energy and
    movement into the world, which mightily seizes and draws
    everything towards it, as a hurled firebrand, which whereever it
    falls kindles a flame which expands into a vast sea of fire”—the
    baptism of fire, the baptism in the Holy Spirit?

    _1 Cor. 10:1, 2_—“_our fathers were all under the cloud, and all
    passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the
    cloud and in the sea_”; _Col. 2:12_—“_having been buried with him
    in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him_”; _Heb.
    10:22_—“_having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and
    having our body washed_ [λελουμένοι] _with pure water_”—here
    Trench, N. T. Synonyms, 216, 217, says that “λούω implies always,
    not the bathing of a part of the body, but of the whole.” _1 Pet
    3:20, 21_—“_saved through water: which also after a true likeness
    doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth
    of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward
    God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ_”—as the ark whose
    sides were immersed in water saved Noah, so the immersion of
    believers typically saves them; that is, the answer of a good
    conscience, the turning of the soul to God, which baptism
    symbolizes. “In the ritual of Moses and Aaron, three things were
    used: oil, blood, and water. The oil was poured, the blood was
    sprinkled, the water was used for complete ablution first of all,
    and subsequently for partial ablution to those to whom complete
    ablution had been previously administered” (Wm. Ashmore).


(_e_) From the testimony of church history as to the practice of the early
church.


    Tertullian, De Baptismo, chap. 12—“Others make the suggestion
    (forced enough, clearly) that the apostles then served the turn of
    baptism when in their little ship they were sprinkled and covered
    with the waves; that Peter himself also was immersed enough when
    he walked on the sea. It is however, as I think, one thing to be
    sprinkled or intercepted by the violence of the sea; another thing
    to be baptized in obedience to the discipline of religion.”
    Fisher, Beginnings of Christianity, 565—“Baptism, it is now
    generally agreed among scholars, was commonly administered by
    immersion.” Schaff, History of the Apostolic Church,
    570—“Respecting the form of baptism, the impartial historian is
    compelled by exegesis and history substantially to yield the point
    to the Baptists.” Elsewhere Dr. Schaff says: “The baptism of
    Christ in the Jordan, and the illustrations of baptism used in the
    N. T., are all in favor of immersion, rather than of sprinkling,
    as is freely admitted by the best exegetes, Catholic and
    Protestant, English and German. Nothing can be gained by unnatural
    exegesis. The persistency and aggressiveness of Baptists have
    driven pedobaptists to opposite extremes.”

    Dean Stanley, in his address at Eton College, March, 1879, on
    Historical Aspects of American Churches, speaks of immersion as
    “the primitive, apostolical, and, till the 13th century, the
    universal, mode of baptism, which is still retained throughout the
    Eastern churches, and which is still in our own church as
    positively enjoined in theory as it is universally neglected in
    practice.” The same writer, in the Nineteenth Century, Oct. 1879,
    says that “the change from immersion to sprinkling has set aside
    the larger part of the apostolic language regarding baptism, and
    has altered the very meaning of the word.” Neander, Church Hist.,
    1:310—“In respect to the form of baptism, it was, in conformity
    with the original institution and the original import of the
    symbol, performed by immersion, as a sign of entire baptism into
    the Holy Spirit, of being entirely penetrated by the same.... It
    was only with the sick, where exigency required it, that any
    exception was made. Then it was administered by sprinkling; but
    many superstitious persons imagined such sprinkling to be not
    fully valid, and stigmatized those thus baptized as clinics.”

    Until recently, there has been no evidence that clinic baptism,
    _i. e._, the baptism of a sick or dying person in bed by pouring
    water copiously around him, was practised earlier than the time of
    Novatian, in the third century; and in these cases there is good
    reason to believe that a regenerating efficacy was ascribed to the
    ordinance. We are now, however, compelled to recognize a departure
    from N. T. precedent somewhat further back. Important testimony is
    that of Prof. Harnack, of Giessen, in the Independent of Feb. 19,
    1885—“Up to the present moment we possess no certain proof from
    the period of the second century, in favor of the fact that
    baptism by aspersion was then even facultatively administered; for
    Tertullian (De Pœnit., 6, and De Baptismo, 12) is uncertain; and
    the age of those pictures upon which is represented a baptism by
    aspersion is not certain. The ‘Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,’
    however, has now instructed us that already, in very early times,
    people in the church took no offence when aspersion was put in
    place of immersion, when any kind of outward circumstances might
    render immersion impossible or impracticable.... But the rule was
    also certainly maintained that immersion was obligatory if the
    outward conditions of such a performance were at hand.” This seems
    to show that, while the corruption of the N. T. rite began soon
    after the death of the apostles, baptism by any other form than
    immersion was even then a rare exception, which those who
    introduced the change sought to justify upon the plea of
    necessity. See Schaff, Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 29‐57, and
    other testimony in Coleman, Christian Antiquities, 275; Stuart, in
    Bib. Repos., 1883:355‐363.

    The “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” section 7, reads as
    follows: “Baptize ... in living water. And if thou have no living
    water, baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then
    in warm. And if thou have neither, pour water upon the head
    thrice.” Here it is evident that “baptize” means only “immerse,”
    but if water be scarce pouring may be substituted for baptism. Dr.
    A. H. Newman, Antipedobaptism, 5, says that “The Teaching of the
    Twelve Apostles” may possibly belong to the second half of the
    second century, but in its present form is probably much later. It
    does not explicitly teach baptismal regeneration, but this view
    seems to be implied in the requirement, in case of an absolute
    lack of a sufficiency of water of any kind for baptism proper,
    that pouring water on the head three times be resorted to as a
    substitute. Catechetical instruction, repentance, fasting, and
    prayer, must precede the baptismal rite.

    Dexter, in his True Story of John Smyth and Sebaptism, maintains
    that immersion was a new thing in England in 1641. But if so, it
    was new, as Congregationalism was new—a newly restored practice
    and ordinance of apostolic times. For reply to Dexter, see Long,
    in Bap. Rev., Jan. 1883:12, 13, who tells us, on the authority of
    Blunt’s Ann. Book of Com. Prayer, that from 1085 to 1549, the
    “Salisbury Use” was the accepted mode, and this provided for the
    child’s trine immersion. “The Prayerbook of Edward VI succeeded to
    the Salisbury Use in 1549; but in this too immersion has the place
    of honor—affusion is only for the weak. The English church has
    never sanctioned sprinkling (Blunt, 226). In 1664, the Westminster
    Assembly said ’sprinkle or pour,’ thus annulling what Christ
    commanded 1600 years before. Queen Elizabeth was immersed in 1533.
    If in 1641 immersion had been so generally and so long disused
    that men saw it with wonder and regarded it as a novelty, then the
    more distinct, emphatic, and peculiarly their own was the work of
    the Baptists. They come before the world, with no partners, or
    rivals, or abettors, or sympathizers, as the restorers and
    preservers of Christian baptism.”


(_f_) From the doctrine and practice of the Greek church.


    DeStourdza, the greatest modern theologian of the Greek church,
    writes; “βαπτίζω signifies literally and always ‘to plunge.’
    Baptism and immersion are therefore identical, and to say ‘baptism
    by aspersion’ is as if one should say ‘immersion by aspersion,’ or
    any other absurdity of the same nature. The Greek church maintain
    that the Latin church, instead of a βαπτισμός, practice a mere
    ῥαντισμός,—instead of baptism, a mere sprinkling”—quoted in Conant
    on Mat., appendix, 99. See also Broadus on Immersion, 18.

    The evidence that immersion is the original mode of baptism is
    well summed up by Dr. Marcus Dods, in his article on Baptism in
    Hastings’ Dictionary of Christ and the Apostles. Dr. Dods defines
    baptism as “a rite wherein by immersion in water the participant
    symbolizes and signalizes his transition from an impure to a pure
    life, his death to a past he abandons, and his birth to a future
    he desires.” As regards the “mode of baptism,” he remarks: “That
    the normal mode was by immersion of the whole body may be inferred
    (_a_) from the meaning of _baptizo_, which is the intensive or
    frequentative form of _bapto_, ‘I dip,’ and denotes to _immerse_
    or _submerge_—the point is, that ‘dip’ or ‘immerse’ is the
    primary, ‘wash’ the secondary meaning of _bapto_ or _baptizo_.
    (_b_) The same inference may be drawn from the law laid down
    regarding the baptism of proselytes: ‘As soon as he grows whole of
    the wound of circumcision, they bring him to baptism, and being
    placed in the water, they again instruct him in some weightier and
    in some lighter commands of the Law, which being heard, he plunges
    himself and comes up, and behold, he is an Israelite in all
    things’ (Lightfoot’s Horæ Hebraicæ). To use Pauline language, his
    old man is dead and buried in water, and he rises from this
    cleansing grave a new man. The full significance of the rite would
    have been lost had immersion not been practised. Again, it was
    required in proselyte baptism that ‘every person baptized must dip
    his whole body, now stripped and made naked, at one dipping. And
    wheresoever in the Law washing of the body or garments is
    mentioned, it means nothing else than the washing of the whole
    body.’ (_c_) That immersion was the mode of baptism adopted by
    John is the natural conclusion from his choosing the neighborhood
    of the Jordan as the scene of his labors; and from the statement
    of _John 3:23_ that he was baptizing in Enon ‘because there was
    much water there.’ (_d_) That this form was continued in the
    Christian Church appears from the expression _Loutron
    palingenesias_ (bath of regeneration, _Titus 3:5_), and from the
    use made by St. Paul in _Romans 6_ of the symbolism. This is well
    put by Bingham (Antiquities xi.2).” The author quotes Bingham to
    the effect that “total immersion under water” was the universal
    practice during the early Christian centuries “except in some
    particular cases of exigence, wherein they allow of sprinkling, as
    in the case of a clinic baptism, or where there is a scarcity of
    water.” Dr. Dods continues: “This statement exactly reflects the
    ideas of the Pauline Epistles and the ’_Didache_’” (Teaching of
    the Twelve Apostles).


The prevailing usage of any word determines the sense it bears, when found
in a command of Christ. We have seen, not only that the prevailing usage
of the Greek language determines the meaning of the word “baptize” to be
“immerse,” but that this is its fundamental, constant, and only meaning.
The original command to baptize is therefore a command to immerse.


    As evidence that quite diverse sections of the Christian world are
    coming to recognize the original form of baptism to be immersion,
    we may cite the fact that a memorial to the late Archbishop of
    Canterbury has recently been erected in the parish church of
    Lambeth, and that it is in the shape of a “font‐grave,” in which a
    believer can be buried with Christ in baptism; and also that the
    Rev. G. Campbell Morgan has had a baptistery constructed in the
    newly renovated Westminster Congregational Church in London.

    Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 2:211—“As in the case of the Lord’s
    Supper, so did Baptism also first receive its sacramental
    significance through Paul. As he saw in the immersing under water
    the symbolical repetition of the death and resurrection of Christ,
    baptism appeared to him as the act of spiritual dying and
    renovation, or regeneration, of incorporation into the mystical
    body of Christ, that ’new creation.’ As for Paul the baptism of
    adults only was in question, faith in Christ is already of course
    presupposed by it, and baptism is just the act in which faith
    realizes the decisive resolution of giving one’s self up actually
    as belonging to Christ and his community. Yet the outward act is
    not on that account a mere semblance of what is already present in
    faith, but according to the mysticism common to Paul with the
    whole ancient world, the symbolical act effectuates what it
    typifies, and therefore in this case the mortification of the
    carnal man and the animation of the spiritual man.” For the view
    that sprinkling or pouring constitutes valid baptism, see Hall,
    Mode of Baptism. _Per contra_, see Hovey, in Baptist Quarterly,
    April, 1875; Wayland, Principles and Practices of Baptists, 85;
    Carson, Noel, Judson, and Pengilly, on Baptism; especially recent
    and valuable is Burrage, Act of Baptism.


B. No church has the right to modify or dispense with this command of
Christ.


This is plain:

(_a_) From the nature of the church. Notice:

First,—that, besides the local church, no other visible church of Christ
is known to the New Testament. Secondly,—that the local church is not a
legislative, but is simply an executive, body. Only the authority which
originally imposed its laws can amend or abrogate them. Thirdly,—that the
local church cannot delegate to any organization or council of churches
any power which it does not itself rightfully possess. Fourthly,—that the
opposite principle puts the church above the Scriptures and above Christ,
and would sanction all the usurpations of Rome.


    _Mat. 5:19_—“_Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
    commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the
    kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall
    be called great in the kingdom of heaven_”; _cf._ _2 Sam.
    6:7_—“_And the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Uzzah; and God
    smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of
    God._” Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part I, 2:4—“Faith, I have been a
    truant in the law, And never yet could frame my will to it, And
    therefore frame the law unto my will.” As at the Reformation
    believers rejoiced to restore communion in both kinds, so we
    should rejoice to restore baptism as to its subjects and as to its
    meaning. To administer it to a wailing and resisting infant, or to
    administer it in any other form than that prescribed by Jesus’
    command and example, is to desecrate and destroy the ordinance.


(_b_) From the nature of God’s command:

First,—as forming a part, not only of the law, but of the fundamental law,
of the church of Christ. The power claimed for a church to change it is
not only legislative but constitutional. Secondly,—as expressing the
wisdom of the Lawgiver. Power to change the command can be claimed for the
church, only on the ground that Christ has failed to adapt the ordinance
to changing circumstances, and has made obedience to it unnecessarily
difficult and humiliating. Thirdly,—as providing in immersion the only
adequate symbol of those saving truths of the gospel which both of the
ordinances have it for their office to set forth, and without which they
become empty ceremonies and forms. In other words, the church has no right
to change the method of administering the ordinance, because such a change
vacates the ordinance of its essential meaning. As this argument, however,
is of such vital importance, we present it more fully in a special
discussion of the Symbolism of Baptism.


    Abraham Lincoln, in his debates with Douglas, ridiculed the idea
    that there could be any constitutional way of violating the
    Constitution. F. L. Anderson: “In human governments we change the
    constitution to conform to the will of the people; in the divine
    government we change the will of the people to conform to the
    Constitution.” For advocacy of the church’s right to modify the
    form of an ordinance, see Coleridge, Aids to Reflection, in Works,
    1:333‐348—“Where a ceremony answered, and was intended to answer,
    several purposes which at its first institution were blended in
    respect of the time, but which afterward, by change of
    circumstances, were necessarily disunited, then either the church
    hath no power or authority delegated to her, or she must be
    authorized to choose and determine to which of the several
    purposes the ceremony should be attached.” Baptism, for example,
    at the first symbolized not only entrance into the church of
    Christ, but personal faith in him as Savior and Lord. It is
    assumed that entrance into the church and personal faith are now
    necessarily disunited. Since baptism is in charge of the church,
    she can attach baptism to the former, and not to the latter.

    We of course deny that the separation of baptism from faith is
    ever necessary. We maintain, on the contrary, that thus to
    separate the two is to pervert the ordinance, and to make it teach
    the doctrine of hereditary church membership and salvation by
    outward manipulation apart from faith. We say with Dean Stanley
    (on Baptism, in the Nineteenth Century, Oct. 1879), though not, as
    he does, with approval, that the change in the method of
    administering the ordinance shows “how the spirit that lives and
    moves in human society can override the most sacred ordinances.”
    We cannot with him call this spirit “the free spirit of
    Christianity,”—we regard it rather as an evil spirit of
    disobedience and unbelief. “Baptists are therefore pledged to
    prosecute the work of the Reformation until the church shall
    return to the simple forms it possessed under the apostles” (G. M.
    Stone). See Curtis, Progress of Baptist Principles, 234‐245.

    _Objections_: 1. Immersion is often impracticable.—We reply that,
    when really impracticable, it is no longer a duty. Where the will
    to obey is present, but providential circumstances render outward
    obedience impossible, Christ takes the will for the deed.

    2. It is often dangerous to health and life.—We reply that, when
    it is really dangerous, it is no longer a duty. But then, we have
    no warrant for substituting another act for that which Christ has
    commanded. Duty demands simple delay until it can be administered
    with safety. It must be remembered that ardent feeling nerves even
    the body. “Brethren, if your hearts be warm, Ice and snow can do
    no harm.” The cold climate of Russia does not prevent the
    universal practice of immersion by the Greek church of that
    country.

    3. It is indecent.—We reply, that there is need of care to prevent
    exposure, but that with this care there is no indecency, more than
    in fashionable sea‐bathing. The argument is valid only against a
    careless administration of the ordinance, not against immersion
    itself.

    4. It is inconvenient.—We reply that, in a matter of obedience to
    Christ, we are not to consult convenience. The ordinance which
    symbolizes his sacrificial death, and our spiritual death with
    him, may naturally involve something of inconvenience, but joy in
    submitting to that inconvenience will be a test of the spirit of
    obedience. When the act is performed, it should be performed as
    Christ enjoined.

    5. Other methods of administration have been blessed to those who
    submitted to them.—We reply that God has often condescended to
    human ignorance, and has given his Spirit to those who honestly
    sought to serve him, even by erroneous forms, such as the Mass.
    This, however, is not to be taken as a divine sanction of the
    error, much less as a warrant for the perpetuation of a false
    system on the part of those who know that it is a violation of
    Christ’s commands. It is, in great part, the position of its
    advocates, as representatives of Christ and his church, that gives
    to this false system its power for evil.


3. The Symbolism of Baptism.


Baptism symbolizes the previous entrance of the believer into the
communion of Christ’s death and resurrection,—or, in other words,
regeneration through union with Christ.


A. Expansion of this statement as to the symbolism of baptism.


Baptism, more particularly, is a symbol:

(_a_) Of the death and resurrection of Christ.


    _Rom. 6:3_—“_Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into
    Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?_” _cf._ _Mat
    3:13_—“_Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto John, to
    be baptized of him_”; _Mark 10:38_—“_Are ye able to drink the cup
    that I drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am
    baptized with?_”; _Luke 12:50_—“_But I have a baptism to be
    baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!_”
    _Col. 2:12_—“_buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also
    raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised
    him from the dead._” For the meaning of these passages, see note
    on the baptism of Jesus, under B. (_a_), pages 942, 943.

    Denney, in Expositor’s Greek Testament, on _Rom. 6:3‐5_—“The
    argumentative requirements of the passage ... demand the idea of
    an actual union to, or incorporation in Christ.... We were buried
    with him [in the act of immersion] through that baptism into his
    death.... If the baptism, _which is a similitude of Christ’s
    death_, has had a reality answering to its obvious import, so that
    we have really died in it as Christ died, then we shall have a
    corresponding experience of resurrection. Baptism, inasmuch as one
    emerges from the water after being immersed, is a similitude of
    resurrection as well as of death.”


(_b_) Of the purpose of that death and resurrection,—namely, to atone for
sin, and to deliver sinners from its penalty and power.


    _Rom. 6:4_—“_We were buried therefore with him through baptism
    into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through
    the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of
    life_”; _cf._ _7, 10, 11_—“_for he that hath died is justified
    from sin.... For the death that he died, he died unto sin once:
    but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Even so reckon ye
    also yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ
    Jesus_”; _2 Cor. 5:14_—“_we thus judge, that one died for all,
    therefore all died._” Baptism is therefore a confession of
    evangelical faith both as to sin, and as to the deity and
    atonement of Christ. No one is properly a Baptist who does not
    acknowledge these truths which baptism signifies.

    T. W. Chambers, in Presb. and Ref. Rev., Jan. 1890:113‐118,
    objects that this view of the symbolism of baptism is based on two
    texts, _Rom. 6:4_ and _Col. 2:12_, which are illustrative and not
    explanatory, while the great majority of passages make baptism
    only an act of purification. Yet Dr. Chambers concedes: “It is to
    be admitted that nearly all modern critical expositors (Meyer,
    Godet, Alford, Conybeare, Lightfoot, Beet) consider that there is
    a reference here [in _Rom. 6:4_] to the act of baptism, which, as
    the Bishop of Durham says, ‘is the grave of the old man and the
    birth of the new—an image of the believer’s participation both in
    the death and in the resurrection of Christ.... As he sinks
    beneath the baptismal waters, the believer buries there all his
    corrupt affections and past sins; as he emerges thence, he rises
    regenerate, quickened to new hopes and a new life.’ ”


(_c_) Of the accomplishment of that purpose in the person baptized,—who
thus professes his death to sin and resurrection to spiritual life.


    _Gal. 3:27_—“_For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did
    put on Christ_”; _1 Pet. 3:21_—“_which_ [water] _also after a true
    likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of
    the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience
    toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ_”; _cf._
    _Gal. 2:19, 20_—“_For I through the law died unto the law, that I
    might live unto God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is
    no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that life
    which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is
    in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me_”;
    _Col. 3:3_—“_For ye died, and your life is hid with Christ in
    God._”

    C. H. M.: “A truly baptized person is one who has passed from the
    old world into the new.... The water rolls over his person,
    signifying that his place in nature is ignored, that his old
    nature is entirely set aside, in short, that he is a dead man,
    that the flesh with all that pertained thereto—its sins and its
    liabilities—is buried in the grave of Christ and can never come
    into God’s sight again.... When the believer rises up from the
    water, expression is given to the truth that he comes up as the
    possessor of a new life, even the resurrection life of Christ, to
    which divine righteousness inseparably attaches.”


(_d_) Of the method in which that purpose is accomplished,—by union with
Christ, receiving him and giving one’s self to him by faith.


    _Rom. 6:5_—“_For if we have become united_ [σύμφυτοι] _with him in
    the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his
    resurrection_”—σύμφυτοι, or συμπεφυκώς, is used of the man and the
    horse as grown together in the Centaur, by Lucian, Dial. Mort.,
    16:4, and by Xenophon, Cyrop., 4:3:18. _Col. 2:12_—“_having been
    buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him
    through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the
    dead._” Dr. N. S. Burton: “The oneness of the believer and Christ
    is expressed by the fact that the one act of immersion sets forth
    the death and resurrection of both Christ and the believer.” As
    the voluntary element in faith has two parts, a giving and a
    taking, so baptism illustrates both. Submergence = surrender to
    Christ; emergence = reception of Christ; see page 839, (_b_).
    “_Putting on Christ_” (_Gal. 3:27_) is the burying of the old life
    and the rising to a new. _Cf._ the active and the passive
    obedience of Christ (pages 749, 770), the two elements of
    justification (pages 854‐859), the two aspects of formal worship
    (page 23), the two divisions of the Lord’s Prayer.

    William Ashmore holds that incorporation into Christ is the root
    idea of baptism, union with Christ’s death and resurrection being
    only a part of it. We are “_baptized into Christ_” (_Rom. 6:3_),
    as the Israelites were “_baptized into Moses_” (_1 Cor. 10:2_). As
    baptism symbolizes the incorporation of the believer into Christ,
    so the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the incorporation of Christ into
    the believer. We go down into the water, but the bread goes down
    into us. We are “_in Christ_,” and Christ is “_in us_.” The
    candidate does not baptize himself, but puts himself wholly into
    the hands of the administrator. This seems symbolic of his
    committing himself entirely to Christ, of whom the administrator
    is the representative. Similarly in the Lord’s Supper, it is
    Christ who through his representative distributes the emblems of
    his death and life.

    E. G. Robinson regarded baptism as implying: 1. death to sin; 2.
    resurrection to new life in Christ; 3. entire surrender of
    ourselves to the authority of the triune God. Baptism “_into the
    name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit_” (_Mat
    28:19_) cannot imply supreme allegiance to the Father, and only
    subordinate allegiance to the Son. Baptism therefore is an
    assumption of supreme allegiance to Jesus Christ. N. E. Wood, in
    The Watchman, Dec. 3, 1896, 15—“Calvinism has its five points; but
    Baptists have also their own five points: the Trinity, the
    Atonement, Regeneration, Baptism, and an inspired Bible. All other
    doctrines gather round these.”


(_e_) Of the consequent union of all believers in Christ.


    _Eph. 4:5_—“_one Lord, one faith, one baptism_”; _1 Cor.
    12:13_—“_For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body,
    whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to
    drink of one Spirit_”; _cf._ _10:3, 4_—“_and did all eat the same
    spiritual food; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for
    they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock
    was Christ._”

    In _Eph. 4:5_, it is noticeable that, not the Lord’s Supper, but
    baptism, is referred to as the symbol of Christian unity. A. H.
    Strong, Cleveland Sermon, 1904—“Our fathers lived in a day when
    simple faith was subject to serious disabilities. The
    establishments frowned upon dissent and visited it with pains and
    penalties. It is no wonder that believers in the New Testament
    doctrine and polity felt that they must come out from what they
    regarded as an apostate church. They could have no sympathy with
    those who held back the truth in unrighteousness and persecuted
    the saints of God. But our doctrine has leavened all Christendom.
    Scholarship is on the side of immersion. Infant baptism is on the
    decline. The churches that once opposed us now compliment us on
    our stedfastness in the faith and on our missionary zeal. There is
    a growing spirituality in these churches, which prompts them to
    extend to us hands of fellowship. And there is a growing sense
    among us that the kingdom of Christ is wider than our own
    membership, and that loyalty to our Lord requires us to recognize
    his presence and blessing even in bodies which we do not regard as
    organized in complete accordance with the New Testament model.
    Faith in the larger Christ is bringing us out from our
    denominational isolation into an inspiring recognition of our
    oneness with the universal church of God throughout the world.”


(_f_) Of the death and resurrection of the body,—which will complete the
work of Christ in us, and which Christ’s death and resurrection assure to
all his members.


    _1 Cor. 15:12, 22_—“_Now if Christ is preached that he hath been
    raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no
    resurrection of the dead?... For as in Adam all die, so also in
    Christ shall all be made alive._” In the Scripture passages quoted
    above, we add to the argument from the meaning of the word βαπτίζω
    the argument from the meaning of the ordinance. Luther wrote, in
    his Babylonish Captivity of the Church, section 103 (English
    translation in Wace and Buchheim, First Principles of the
    Reformation, 192): “Baptism is a sign both of death and
    resurrection. Being moved by this reason, I would have those that
    are baptized to be altogether dipped into the water, as the word
    means and the mystery signifies.” See Calvin on _Acts 8:38_;
    Conybeare and Howson on _Rom. 6:4_; Boardman, in Madison Avenue
    Lectures, 115‐135.


B. Inferences from the passages referred to.


(_a_) The central truth set forth by baptism is the death and resurrection
of Christ,—and our own death and resurrection only as connected with that.


    The baptism of Jesus in Jordan, equally with the subsequent
    baptism of his followers, was a symbol of his death. It was his
    death which he had in mind, when he said: “_Are ye able to drink
    the cup that I drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am
    baptized with?_” (_Mark 10:38_); “_But I have a baptism to be
    baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!_”
    (_Luke 12:50_). The being immersed and overwhelmed in waters is a
    frequent metaphor in all languages to express the rush of
    successive troubles; compare _Ps. 69:2_—“_I am come into deep
    waters, where the floods overflow me_”; _42:7_—“_All thy waves and
    thy billows are gone over me_”; _124:4, 5_—“_Then the waters had
    overwhelmed us, The stream had gone over our soul; Then the proud
    waters had gone over our soul._”

    So the suffering, death, and burial, which were before our Lord,
    presented themselves to his mind as a baptism, because the very
    idea of baptism was that of a complete submersion under the floods
    of waters. Death was not to be poured upon Christ,—it was no mere
    sprinkling of suffering which he was to endure, but a sinking into
    the mighty waters, and a being overwhelmed by them. It was the
    giving of himself to this, which he symbolized by his baptism in
    Jordan. That act was not arbitrary, or formal, or ritual. It was a
    public consecration, a consecration to death, to death for the
    sins of the world. It expressed the essential nature and meaning
    of his earthly work: the baptism of water at the beginning of his
    ministry consciously and designedly prefigured the baptism of
    death with which that ministry was to close.

    Jesus’ submission to John’s baptism of repentance, the rite that
    belonged only to sinners, can be explained only upon the ground
    that he was “_made to be sin on our behalf_” (_2 Cor. 5:21_). He
    had taken our nature upon him, without its hereditary corruption
    indeed, but with all its hereditary guilt, that he might redeem
    that nature and reunite it to God. As one with humanity, he had in
    his unconscious childhood submitted to the rites of circumcision,
    purification, and legal redemption (_Luke 2:21‐24_; _cf._ _Ex.
    13:2, 13_; see Lange, Alford, Webster and Wilkinson on _Luke
    2:24_)—all of them rites appointed for sinners. “_Made in the
    likeness of men_” (_Phil. 2:7_), “_the likeness of sinful flesh_”
    (_Rom. 8:3_), he was “_to put away sin by the sacrifice of
    himself_” (_Heb. 9:26_).

    In his baptism, therefore, he could say, “_Thus it becometh us to
    fulfil all righteousness_” (_Mat. 3:15_) because only through the
    final baptism of suffering and death, which this baptism in water
    foreshadowed, could he “_make an end of sins_” and “_bring in
    everlasting righteousness_” (_Dan. 9:24_) to the condemned and
    ruined world. He could not be “_the Lord our Righteousness_”
    (_Jer. 23:6_) except by first suffering the death due to the
    nature he had assumed, thereby delivering it from its guilt and
    perfecting it forever. All this was indicated in that act by which
    he was first “_made manifest to Israel_” (_John 1:31_). In his
    baptism in Jordan, he was buried in the likeness of his coming
    death, and raised in the likeness of his coming resurrection. _1
    John 5:6_—“_This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus
    Christ; not in the water only, but in the water and in the blood_”
    = in the baptism of water at the beginning of his ministry, and in
    the baptism of blood with which that ministry was to close.

    As that baptism pointed forward to Jesus’ death, so our baptism
    points backward to the same, as the centre and substance of his
    redeeming work, the one death by which we live. We who are
    “_baptized into Christ_” are “_baptized into his death_” (_Rom.
    6:3_), that is, into spiritual communion and participation in that
    death which he died for our salvation; in short, in baptism we
    declare in symbol that his death has become ours. On the Baptism
    of Jesus, see A. H. Strong, Philosophy and Religion, 226‐237.


(_b_) The correlative truth of the believer’s death and resurrection, set
forth in baptism, implies, first,—confession of sin and humiliation on
account of it, as deserving of death; secondly,—declaration of Christ’s
death for sin, and of the believer’s acceptance of Christ’s
substitutionary work; thirdly,—acknowledgment that the soul has become
partaker of Christ’s life, and now lives only in and for him.


    A false mode of administering the ordinance has so obscured the
    meaning of baptism that it has to multitudes lost all reference to
    the death of Christ, and the Lord’s Supper is assumed to be the
    only ordinance which is intended to remind us of the atoning
    sacrifice to which we owe our salvation. For evidence of this, see
    the remarks of President Woolsey in the Sunday School Times:
    “Baptism it [the Christian religion] could share in with the
    doctrine of John the Baptist, and if a similar rite had existed
    under the Jewish law, it would have been regarded as appropriate
    to a religion which inculcated renunciation of sin and purity of
    heart and life. But [in the Lord’s Supper] we go beyond the
    province of baptism to the very _penetrale_ of the gospel, to the
    efficacy and meaning of Christ’s death.”

    Baptism should be a public act. We cannot afford to relegate it to
    a corner, or to celebrate it in private, as some professedly
    Baptist churches of England are said to do. Like marriage, the
    essence of it is the joining of ourselves to another before the
    world. In baptism we merge ourselves in Christ, before God and
    angels and men. The Mohammedan stands five times a day, and prays
    with his face toward Mecca, caring not who sees him. _Luke
    12:8_—“_Every one who shall confess me before men, him shall the
    Son of man also confess before the angels of God._”


(_c_) Baptism symbolizes purification, but purification in a peculiar and
divine way,—namely, through the death of Christ and the entrance of the
soul into communion with that death. The radical defect of sprinkling or
pouring as a mode of administering the ordinance, is that it does not
point to Christ’s death as the procuring cause of our purification.


    It is a grievous thing to say by symbol, as those do say who
    practice sprinkling in place of immersion, that a man may
    regenerate himself, or, if not this, yet that his regeneration may
    take place without connection with Christ’s death. Edward
    Beecher’s chief argument against Baptist views is drawn from _John
    3:22‐25_—“_a questioning on the part of John’s disciples with a
    Jew about purifying._” Purification is made to be the essential
    meaning of baptism, and the conclusion is drawn that any form
    expressive of purification will answer the design of the
    ordinance. But if Christ’s death is the procuring cause of our
    purification, we may expect it to be symbolized in the ordinance
    which declares that purification; if Christ’s death is the central
    fact of Christianity, we may expect it to be symbolized in the
    initiatory rite of Christianity.


(_d_) In baptism we show forth the Lord’s death as the original source of
holiness and life in our souls, just as in the Lord’s Supper we show forth
the Lord’s death as the source of all nourishment and strength after this
life of holiness has been once begun. As the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the
sanctifying power of Jesus’ death, so baptism symbolizes its regenerating
power.


    The truth of Christ’s death and resurrection is a precious jewel,
    and it is given us in these outward ordinances as in a casket. Let
    us care for the casket lest we lose the gem. As a scarlet thread
    runs through every rope and cord of the British navy, testifying
    that it is the property of the Crown, so through every doctrine
    and ordinance of Christianity runs the red line of Jesus’ blood.
    It is their common reference to the death of Christ that binds the
    two ordinances together.


(_e_) There are two reasons, therefore, why nothing but immersion will
satisfy the design of the ordinance: first,—because nothing else can
symbolize the radical nature of the change effected in regeneration—a
change from spiritual death to spiritual life; secondly,—because nothing
else can set forth the fact that this change is due to the entrance of the
soul into communion with the death and resurrection of Christ.


    Christian truth is an organism. Part is bound to part, and all
    together constitute one vitalized whole. To give up any single
    portion of that truth is like maiming the human body. Life may
    remain, but one manifestation of life has ceased. The whole body
    of Christian truth has lost its symmetry and a part of its power
    to save.

    Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 2:212—“In the Eleusinian mysteries,
    the act of reception was represented as a regeneration, and the
    hierophant appointed to the temple service had to take a
    sacramental bath, out of which he proceeded as a ‘new man’ with a
    new name, which signifies that, as they were wont to say, ‘the
    first one was forgotten,’—that is, the old man was put off at the
    same time with the old name. The parallel of this Eleusinian rite
    with the thoughts which Paul has written about Baptism in the
    Epistle to the Romans, and therefore from Corinth, is so striking
    that a connection between the two may well be conjectured; and all
    the more that even in the case of the Lord’s Supper, Paul has
    brought in the comparison with the heathen festivals, in order to
    give a basis for his mystical theory.”


(_f_) To substitute for baptism anything which excludes all symbolic
reference to the death of Christ, is to destroy the ordinance, just as
substituting for the broken bread and poured out wine of the communion
some form of administration which leaves out all reference to the death of
Christ would be to destroy the Lord’s Supper, and to celebrate an
ordinance of human invention.


    Baptism, like the Fourth of July, the Passover, the Lord’s Supper,
    is a historical monument. It witnesses to the world that Jesus
    died and rose again. In celebrating it, we show forth the Lord’s
    death as truly as in the celebration of the Supper. But it is more
    than a historical monument. It is also a pictorial expression of
    doctrine. Into it are woven all the essential truths of the
    Christian scheme. It tells of the nature and penalty of sin, of
    human nature delivered from sin in the person of a crucified and
    risen Savior, of salvation secured for each human soul that is
    united to Christ, of obedience to Christ as the way to life and
    glory. Thus baptism stands from age to age as a witness for God—a
    witness both to the facts and to the doctrine of Christianity. To
    change the form of administering the ordinance is therefore to
    strike a blow at Christianity and at Christ, and to defraud the
    world of a part of God’s means of salvation. See Ebrard’s view of
    Baptism, in Baptist Quarterly, 1869:257, and in Olshausen’s Com.
    on N. T., 1:270, and 3:594. Also Lightfoot, Com. on _Colossians
    2:20_, and _3:1_.

    Ebrard: “Baptism = Death.” So Sanday, Com. on _Rom. 6_—“Immersion
    = Death; Submersion = Burial (the ratification of death);
    Emergence = Resurrection (the ratification of life).” William
    Ashmore: “Solomon’s Temple had two monumental pillars: _Jachin_,
    ‘he shall establish,’ and _Boaz_, ‘in it is strength.’ In
    Zechariah’s vision were two olive trees on either side of the
    golden candlestick. In like manner, Christ has left two monumental
    witnesses to testify concerning himself—Baptism and the Lord’s
    Supper.” The lady in the street car, who had inadvertently stuck
    her parasol into a man’s eye, very naturally begged his pardon.
    But he replied: “It is of no consequence, madame; I have still one
    eye left.” Our friends who sprinkle or pour put out one eye of the
    gospel witness, break down one appointed monument of Christ’s
    saving truth,—shall we be content to say that we have still one
    ordinance left? At the Rappahannock one of the Federal regiments,
    just because its standard was shot away, was mistaken by our own
    men for a regiment of Confederates, and was subjected to a
    murderous enfilading fire that decimated its ranks. Baptism and
    the Lord’s Supper are the two flags of Christ’s army,—we cannot
    afford to lose either one of them.


4. The Subjects of Baptism.


The proper subjects of baptism are those only who give credible evidence
that they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit,—or, in other words,
have entered by faith into the communion of Christ’s death and
resurrection.


A. Proof that only persons giving evidence of being regenerated are proper
subjects of baptism.


(_a_) From the command and example of Christ and his apostles, which show:

First, that those only are to be baptized who have previously been made
disciples.


    _Mat. 28:19_—“_Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the
    nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son
    and of the Holy Spirit_”; _Acts 2:41_—“_They then that received
    his word were baptized._”


Secondly, that those only are to be baptized who have previously repented
and believed.


    _Mat. 3:2, 3, 6_—“_Repent ye ... make ye ready the way of the Lord
    ... and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing
    their sins_”; _Acts 2:37, 38_—“_Now when they heard this, they
    were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of
    the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? And Peter said unto
    them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you_”; _8:12_—“_But
    when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the
    kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized,
    both men and women_”; _18:8_—“_And Crispus, the ruler of the
    synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his house; and many of
    the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized_”;
    _19:4_—“_John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto
    the people that they should believe on him that should come after
    him, that is, on Jesus._”


(_b_) From the nature of the church—as a company of regenerate persons.


    _John 3:5_—“_Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot
    enter into the kingdom of God_”; _Rom. 6:13_—“_neither present
    your members unto sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but
    present yourselves unto God, as alive from the dead, and your
    members as instruments of righteousness unto God._”


(_c_) From the symbolism of the ordinance,—as declaring a previous
spiritual change in him who submits to it.


    _Acts 10:47_—“_Can any man forbid the water, that these should not
    be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?_”
    _Rom. 6:2‐5_—“_We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live
    therein? Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into
    Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried
    therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ
    was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we
    also might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united
    with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the
    likeness of his resurrection_”; _Gal. 3:26, 27_—“_For ye are all
    sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as
    were baptized into Christ did put on Christ._”

    As marriage should never be solemnized except between persons who
    are already joined in heart and with whom the outward ceremony is
    only the sign of an existing love, so baptism should never be
    administered except in the case of those who are already joined to
    Christ and who signify in the ordinance their union with him in
    his death and resurrection. See Dean Stanley on Baptism, 24—“In
    the apostolic age and in the three centuries which followed, it is
    evident that, as a general rule, those who came to baptism came in
    full age, of their own deliberate choice. The liturgical service
    of baptism was framed for full‐grown converts, and is only by
    considerable adaptation applied to the case of infants”; Wayland,
    Principles and Practices of Baptists, 93; Robins, in Madison
    Avenue Lectures, 136‐159.


B. Inferences from the fact that only persons giving evidence of being
regenerate are proper subjects of baptism.


(_a_) Since only those who give credible evidence of regeneration are
proper subjects of baptism, baptism cannot be the means of regeneration.
It is the appointed sign, but is never the condition, of the forgiveness
of sins.

Passages like Mat. 3:11; Mark 1:4; 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Eph.
5:26; Titus 3:5; and Heb. 10:22, are to be explained as particular
instances “of the general fact that, in Scripture language, a single part
of a complex action, and even that part of it which is most obvious to the
senses, is often mentioned for the whole of it, and thus, in this case,
the whole of the solemn transaction is designated by the external symbol.”
In other words, the entire change, internal and external, spiritual and
ritual, is referred to in language belonging strictly only to the outward
aspect of it. So the other ordinance is referred to by simply naming the
visible “breaking of bread,” and the whole transaction of the ordination
of ministers is termed the “imposition of hands” (_cf._ Acts 2:42; 1 Tim.
4:14).


    _Mat. 3:11_—“_I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance_”;
    _Mark 1:4_—“_the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins_”;
    _16:16_—“_He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved_”;
    _John 3:5_—“_Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot
    enter into the kingdom of God_”—here Nicodemus, who was familiar
    with John’s baptism, and with the refusal of the Sanhedrin to
    recognize its claims, is told that the baptism of water, which he
    suspects may be obligatory, is indeed necessary to that complete
    change by which one enters outwardly, as well as inwardly, into
    the kingdom of God; but he is taught also, that to “_be born of
    water_” is worthless unless it is the accompaniment and sign of a
    new birth of “_the Spirit_”; and therefore, in the further
    statements of Christ, baptism is not alluded to; see _verses 6,
    8_—“_that which is born of the Spirit is spirit ... so is every
    one that is born of the Spirit._”

    _Acts 2:38_—“_Repent ye, and be baptized ... unto the remission of
    your sins_”—on this passage see Hackett: “The phrase ‘in order to
    the forgiveness of sins’ we connect naturally with both the
    preceding verbs (‘_repent_’ and ‘_be baptized_’). The clause
    states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and
    be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part to
    the exclusion of the other”—_i. e._, they were to repent for the
    remission of sins, quite as much as they were to be baptized for
    the remission of sins. _Acts 22:16_—“_arise, and be baptized, and
    wash away thy sins, calling on his name_”; _Eph. 5:26_—“_that he
    might sanctify it_ [the church], _having cleansed it by the
    washing of water with the word_”; _Tit. 3:5_—“_according __ to his
    mercy he saved as, through the washing of regeneration_ [baptism]
    _and renewing of the Holy Spirit_ [the new birth]”; _Heb.
    10:22_—“_having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience_
    [regeneration]: _and having our body washed with pure water_
    [baptism]”; _cf._ _Acts 2:42_—“_the breaking of bread_”; _1 Tim.
    4:14_—“_the laying on of the hands of the presbytery._”

    Dr. A. C. Kendrick: “Considering how inseparable they were in the
    Christian profession—believe and be baptized, and how imperative
    and absolute was the requisition upon the believer to testify his
    allegiance by baptism, it could not be deemed singular that the
    two should be thus united, as it were, in one complex
    conception.... We have no more right to assume that the birth from
    water involves the birth from the Spirit and thus do away with the
    one, than to assume that the birth from the Spirit involves the
    birth from water, and thus do away with the other. We have got to
    have them both, each in its distinctness, in order to fulfil the
    conditions of membership in the kingdom of God.” Without baptism,
    faith is like the works of a clock that has no dial or hands by
    which one can tell the time; or like the political belief of a man
    who refuses to go to the polls and vote. Without baptism,
    discipleship is ineffective and incomplete. The inward
    change—regeneration by the Spirit—may have occurred, but the
    outward change—Christian profession—is yet lacking.

    Campbellism, however, holds that instead of regeneration preceding
    baptism and expressing itself in baptism, it is completed only in
    baptism, so that baptism is a means of regeneration. Alexander
    Campbell: “I am bold to affirm that every one of them, who in the
    belief of what the apostle spoke was immersed, did, in the very
    instant in which he was put under water, receive the forgiveness
    of his sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.” But Peter commanded
    that men should be baptized because they had already received the
    Holy Spirit: _Acts 10:47_—“_Can any man forbid the water, that
    these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as
    well as we?_” Baptists baptize Christians; Disciples baptize
    sinners, and in baptism think to make them Christians. With this
    form of sacramentalism, Baptists are necessarily less in sympathy
    than with pedobaptism or with sprinkling. The view of the
    Disciples confines the divine efficiency to the word (see
    quotation from Campbell on page 821). It was anticipated by Claude
    Pajon, the Reformed theologian, in 1673: see Dorner, Gesch. prot.
    Theologie, 448‐450. That this was not the doctrine of John the
    Baptist would appear from Josephus, Ant., 18:5:2, who in speaking
    of John’s baptism says: “Baptism appears acceptable to God, not in
    order that those who were baptized might get free from certain
    sins, but in order that the body might be sanctified, because the
    soul beforehand had already been purified through righteousness.”

    Disciples acknowledge no formal creed, and they differ so greatly
    among themselves that we append the following statements of their
    founder and of later representatives. Alexander Campbell,
    Christianity Restored, 138 (in The Christian Baptist, 5:100): “In
    and by the act of immersion, as soon as our bodies are put under
    water, at that very instant our former or old sins are washed
    away.... Immersion and regeneration are Bible names for the same
    act.... It is not our faith in God’s promise of remission, but our
    going down into the water, that obtains the remission of sins.” W.
    E. Garrison, Alexander Campbell’s Theology, 247‐299—“Baptism, like
    naturalization, is the formal oath of allegiance by which an alien
    becomes a citizen. In neither case does the form in itself effect
    any magical change in the subject’s disposition. In both cases a
    change of opinion and of affections is presupposed, and the form
    is the culmination of a process.... It is as easy for God to
    forgive our sins in the act of immersion as in any other way.” All
    work of the Spirit is through the word, only through sensible
    means, emotions being no criterion. God is transcendent; all
    authority is external, enforced only by appeal to happiness—a
    thoroughly utilitarian system.

    Isaac Erret is perhaps the most able of recent Disciples. In his
    tract entitled “Our Position,” published by the Christian
    Publishing Company, St. Louis, he says: “As to the _design_ of
    baptism, we part company with Baptists, and find ourselves more at
    home on the other side of the house; yet we cannot say that our
    position is just the same with that of any of them. Baptists say
    they baptize believers _because they are forgiven_, and they
    insist that they shall have the evidence of pardon before they are
    baptized. But the language used in the Scriptures declaring what
    baptism is for, is so plain and unequivocal that the great
    majority of Protestants as well as the Roman Catholics admit it in
    their creeds to be, in some sense, for the remission of sins. The
    latter, however, and many of the former, attach to it the idea of
    regeneration, and insist that in baptism regeneration by the Holy
    Spirit is actually conferred. Even the Westminster Confession
    squints strongly in this direction, albeit its professed adherents
    of the present time attempt to explain away its meaning. We are as
    far from this ritualistic extreme as from the anti‐ritualism into
    which the Baptists have been driven. With us, regeneration must be
    so far accomplished before baptism that the subject is changed in
    heart, and in faith and penitence must have yielded up his heart
    to Christ—otherwise baptism is nothing but an empty form. But
    _forgiveness_ is something distinct from _regeneration_.
    Forgiveness is an act of the Sovereign—not a change of the
    sinner’s heart; and while it is extended in view of the sinner’s
    faith and repentance, it needs to be offered in a sensible and
    tangible form, such that the sinner can seize it and appropriate
    it with unmistakable definiteness. In baptism he _appropriates
    God’s promise of forgiveness_, relying on the divine testimonies:
    ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved’; ‘Repent and be
    baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the
    remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy
    Spirit.’ He thus lays hold of the promise of Christ and
    appropriates it as his own. He does not _merit_ it, nor _procure_
    it, nor _earn_ it, in being baptized; but he _appropriates_ what
    the mercy of God has provided and offered in the gospel. We
    therefore teach all who are baptized that, if they bring to their
    baptism a heart that renounces sin and implicitly trusts the power
    of Christ to save, they should rely on the Savior’s own
    promise—’He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.’”

    All these utterances agree in making forgiveness chronologically
    distinct from regeneration, as the concluding point is distinct
    from the whole. Regeneration is not entirely the work of God,—it
    must be completed by man. It is not wholly a change of heart, it
    is also a change in outward action. We see in this system of
    thought the beginnings of sacramentalism, and we regard it as
    containing the same germs of error which are more fully developed
    in pedobaptist doctrine. Shakespeare represents this view in Henry
    V, 1:2—“What you speak is in your conscience washed As pure as sin
    with baptism”; Othello, 2:3—Desdemona could “Win the Moor—were’t
    to renounce his baptism—All seals and symbols of redeemed sin.”

    Dr. G. W. Lasher, in the Journal and Messenger, holds that _Mat.
    3:11_—“_I indeed baptize you in water unto (εἰς) repentance_”—does
    not imply that baptism effects the repentance; the baptism was
    _because_ of the repentance, for John refused to baptize those who
    did not give evidence of repentance before baptism. _Mat.
    10:42_—“_whosoever shall give ... a cup of cold water only, in
    (εἰς) the name of a disciple_”—the cup of cold water does not put
    one into the name of a disciple, or make him a disciple. _Mat.
    12:41_—“_The men of Nineveh ... repented at (εἰς) the preaching of
    Jonah_” = because of. Dr. Lasher argues that, in all these cases,
    the meaning of εἰς is “in respect to,” “with reference to.” So he
    would translate _Acts 2:38_—“_Repent ye, and be baptized ... with
    respect to, in reference to, the remission of sins._” This is also
    the view of Meyer. He maintains that βαπτίζειν εἰς always means
    “_baptize with reference to_” (_cf._ _Mat. 28:19; 1 Cor. 10:12;
    Gal. 3:27; Acts 2:38; 8:16; 19:5_). We are brought through
    baptism, he would say, into fellowship with his death, so that we
    have a share ethically in his death, through the cessation of our
    life to sin.

    The better parallel, however, in our judgment, is found in _Rom.
    10:10_—“_with the heart man believeth unto (εἰς) righteousness;
    and with the mouth confession is made unto (εἰς)
    salvation,_”—where evidently salvation is the end _to_ which works
    the whole change and process, including both faith and confession.
    So Broadus makes John’s “_baptism unto repentance_” mean baptism
    in order to repentance, repentance including both the purpose of
    the heart and the outward expression of it, or baptism in order to
    complete and thorough repentance. Expositor’s Greek Testament, on
    _Acts 2:38_—“_unto the remission of your sins_”: “εἰς, _unto_,
    signifying the aim.” For the High Church view, see Sadler, Church
    Doctrine, 41‐124. On F. W. Robertson’s view of Baptismal
    Regeneration, see Gordon, in Bap. Quar., 1869:405. On the whole
    matter of baptism for the remission of sins, see Gates, Baptists
    and Disciples (advocating the Disciple view); Willmarth, in Bap.
    Quar., 1877:1‐26 (verging toward the Disciple view); and _per
    contra_, Adkins, Disciples and Baptists, booklet pub. by Am. Bap.
    Pub. Society (the best brief statement of the Baptist position);
    Bap. Quar., 1877:476‐489; 1872:214; Jacob, Eccl. Pol. of N. T.,
    255, 256.


(_b_) As the profession of a spiritual change already wrought, baptism is
primarily the act, not of the administrator, but of the person baptized.

Upon the person newly regenerate the command of Christ first terminates;
only upon his giving evidence of the change within him does it become the
duty of the church to see that he has opportunity to follow Christ in
baptism. Since baptism is primarily the act of the convert, no lack of
qualification on the part of the administrator invalidates the baptism, so
long as the proper outward act is performed, with intent on the part of
the person baptized to express the fact of a preceding spiritual renewal
(Acts 2:37, 38).


    _Acts 2:37, 38_—“_Brethren, what shall we do?... Repent ye and be
    baptized._” If baptism be primarily the act of the administrator
    or of the church, then invalidity in the administrator or the
    church renders the ordinance itself invalid. But if baptism be
    primarily the act of the person baptized—an act which it is the
    church’s business simply to scrutinize and further, then nothing
    but the absence of immersion, or of an intent to profess faith in
    Christ, can invalidate the ordinance. It is the erroneous view
    that baptism is the act of the administrator which causes the
    anxiety of High Church Baptists to deduce their Baptist lineage
    from regularly baptized ministers all the way back to John the
    Baptist, and which induces many modern endeavors of pedobaptists
    to prove that the earliest Baptists of England and the Continent
    did not immerse. All these solicitudes are unnecessary. We have no
    need to prove a Baptist apostolic succession. If we can derive our
    doctrine and practice from the New Testament, it is all we
    require.

    The Council of Trent was right in its Canon: “If any one saith
    that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of
    the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, with the
    intention of doing what the church doeth, is not true baptism, let
    him be anathema.” Dr. Norman Fox: “It is no more important who
    baptizes a man than who leads him to Christ.” John Spilsbury,
    first pastor of the church of Particular Baptists, holding to a
    limited atonement, in London, was newly baptized in 1633, on the
    ground that “baptizedness is not essential to the administrator,”
    and he repudiated the demand for apostolic succession, as leading
    logically to the “popedom of Rome.” In 1641, immersion followed,
    though two or three years before this, or in March, 1639, Roger
    Williams was baptized by Ezekiel Holliman in Rhode Island.
    Williams afterwards doubted its validity, thus clinging still to
    the notion of apostolic succession.


(_c_) As intrusted with the administration of the ordinances, however, the
church is, on its part, to require of all candidates for baptism credible
evidence of regeneration.

This follows from the nature of the church and its duty to maintain its
own existence as an institution of Christ. The church which cannot
restrict admission into its membership to such as are like itself in
character and aims must soon cease to be a church by becoming
indistinguishable from the world. The duty of the church to gain credible
evidence of regeneration in the case of every person admitted into the
body involves its right to require of candidates, in addition to a
profession of faith with the lips, some satisfactory proof that this
profession is accompanied by change in the conduct. The kind and amount of
evidence which would have justified the reception of a candidate in times
of persecution may not now constitute a sufficient proof of change of
heart.


    If an Odd Fellows’ Lodge, in order to preserve its distinct
    existence, must have its own rules for admission to membership,
    much more is this true of the church. The church may make its own
    regulations with a view to secure credible evidence of
    regeneration. Yet it is bound to demand of the candidate no more
    than reasonable proof of his repentance and faith. Since the
    church is to be convinced of the candidate’s fitness before it
    votes to receive him to its membership, it is generally best that
    the experience of the candidate should be related before the
    church. Yet in extreme cases, as of sickness, the church may hear
    this relation of experience through certain appointed
    representatives.

    Baptism is sometimes figuratively described as “the door into the
    church.” The phrase is unfortunate, since if by the church is
    meant the spiritual kingdom of God, then Christ is its only door;
    if the local body of believers is meant, then the faith of the
    candidate, the credible evidence of regeneration which he gives,
    the vote of the church itself, are all, equally with baptism, the
    door through which he enters. The door, in this sense, is a double
    door, one part of which is his confession of faith, and the other
    his baptism.


(_d_) As the outward expression of the inward change by which the believer
enters into the kingdom of God, baptism is the first, in point of time, of
all outward duties.

Regeneration and baptism, although not holding to each other the relation
of effect and cause, are both regarded in the New Testament as essential
to the restoration of man’s right relations to God and to his people. They
properly constitute parts of one whole, and are not to be unnecessarily
separated. Baptism should follow regeneration with the least possible
delay, after the candidate and the church have gained evidence that a
spiritual change has been accomplished within him. No other duty and no
other ordinance can properly precede it.


    Neither the pastor nor the church should encourage the convert to
    wait for others’ company before being baptized. We should aim
    continually to deepen the sense of individual responsibility to
    Christ, and of personal duty to obey his command of baptism just
    so soon as a proper opportunity is afforded. That participation in
    the Lord’s Supper cannot properly precede Baptism, will be shown
    hereafter.


(_e_) Since regeneration is a work accomplished once for all, the baptism
which symbolizes this regeneration is not to be repeated.

Even where the persuasion exists, on the part of the candidate, that at
the time of baptism he was mistaken in thinking himself regenerated, the
ordinance is not to be administered again, so long as it has once been
submitted to, with honest intent, as a profession of faith in Christ. We
argue this from the absence of any reference to second baptisms in the New
Testament, and from the grave practical difficulties attending the
opposite view. In Acts 19:1‐5, we have an instance, not of rebaptism, but
of the baptism for the first time of certain persons who had been wrongly
taught with regard to the nature of John the Baptist’s doctrine, and so
had ignorantly submitted to an outward rite which had in it no reference
to Jesus Christ and expressed no faith in him as a Savior. This was not
John’s baptism, nor was it in any sense true baptism. For this reason Paul
commanded them to be “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”


    In the respect of not being repeated, Baptism is unlike the Lord’s
    Supper, which symbolizes the continuous sustaining power of
    Christ’s death, while baptism symbolizes its power to begin a new
    life within the soul. In _Acts 19:1‐5_, Paul instructs the new
    disciples that the real baptism of John, to which they erroneously
    supposed they had submitted, was not only a baptism of repentance,
    but a baptism of faith in the coming Savior. “_And when they heard
    this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus_”—as they
    had not been before. Here there was no rebaptism, for the mere
    outward submersion in water to which they had previously
    submitted, with no thought of professing faith in Christ, was no
    baptism at all—whether Johannine or Christian. See Brooks, in
    Baptist Quarterly, April, 1867, art.: Rebaptism.

    Whenever it is clear, as in many cases of Campbellite immersion,
    that the candidate has gone down into the water, not with intent
    to profess a previously existing faith, but in order to be
    regenerated, baptism is still to be administered if the person
    subsequently believes on Christ. But wherever it appears that
    there was intent to profess an already existing faith and
    regeneration, there should be no repetition of the immersion, even
    though the ordinance has been administered by the Campbellites.

    To rebaptize whenever a Christian’s faith and joy are rekindled so
    that he begins to doubt the reality of his early experiences,
    would, in the case of many fickle believers, require many
    repetitions of the ordinance. The presumption is that, when the
    profession of faith was made by baptism, there was an actual faith
    which needed to be professed, and therefore that the baptism,
    though followed by much unbelief and many wanderings, was a valid
    one. Rebaptism, in the case of unstable Christians, tends to bring
    reproach upon the ordinance itself.


(_f_) So long as the mode and the subjects are such as Christ has
enjoined, mere accessories are matters of individual judgment.

The use of natural rather than of artificial baptisteries is not to be
elevated into an essential. The formula of baptism prescribed by Christ is
“into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”


    _Mat. 28:19_—“_baptizing them into the name of the Father and of
    the Son and of the Holy Spirit_”; _cf._ _Acts 8:16_—“_they had
    been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus_”; _Rom. 6:3_—“_Or
    are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus
    were baptized into his death?_” _Gal. 3:27_—“_For as many of you
    as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ._” Baptism is
    immersion into God, into the presence, communion, life of the
    Trinity; see Com. of Clark, and of Lange, on _Mat. 28:19_; also C.
    E. Smith, in Bap. Rev., 1881:305‐311. President Wayland and the
    Revised Version read, “_into the name_.” _Per contra_, see Meyer
    (transl., 1:281, note) on _Rom. 6:3;_ _cf._ _Mat. 10:41; 18:20_;
    in all which passages, as well as in _Mat. 28:19_, he claims that
    εἰς τὸ ὄνομα signifies “with reference to the name.” In _Acts
    2:38_, and _10:48_, we have “_in the name_.” For the latter
    translation of _Mat. 28:19_, see Conant, Notes on Mat., 171. On
    the whole subject of this section, see Dagg, Church Order, 13‐73;
    Ingham, Subjects of Baptism.


C. Infant Baptism.


This we reject and reprehend, for the following reasons:


(a) Infant baptism is without warrant, either express or implied, in the
Scripture.


First,—there is no express command that infants should be baptized.
Secondly,—there is no clear example of the baptism of infants.
Thirdly,—the passages held to imply infant baptism contain, when fairly
interpreted, no reference to such a practice. In Mat. 19:14, none would
have “forbidden,” if Jesus and his disciples had been in the habit of
baptizing infants. From Acts 16:15, _cf._ 40, and Acts 16:33, _cf._ 34,
Neander says that we cannot infer infant baptism. For 1 Cor. 16:15 shows
that the whole family of Stephanas, baptized by Paul, were adults (1 Cor.
1:16). It is impossible to suppose a whole heathen household baptized upon
the faith of its head. As to 1 Cor. 7:14, Jacobi calls this text “a sure
testimony against infant baptism, since Paul would certainly have referred
to the baptism of children as a proof of their holiness, if infant baptism
had been practised.” Moreover, this passage would in that case equally
teach the baptism of the unconverted husband of a believing wife. It
plainly proves that the children of Christian parents were no more
baptized and had no closer connection with the Christian church, than the
unbelieving partners of Christians.


    _Mat. 19:14_—“_Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to
    come unto me: for to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven_”; _Acts
    16:15_—“_And when she_ [Lydia] _was baptized, and her household_”;
    _cf._ _40_—“_And they went out of the prison, and entered into the
    house of Lydia: and when they had seen the brethren, they
    comforted them, and departed._” _Acts 16:33_—The jailor “_was
    baptized, he and all his, immediately_”; _cf._ _34_—“_And he
    brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and
    rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God_”; _1
    Cor. 16:15_—“_ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the
    firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have set themselves to
    minister unto the saints_”; _1:16_—“_And I baptized also the
    household of Stephanas_”; _7:14_—“_For the unbelieving husband is
    sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in
    the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they
    holy_”—here the sanctity or holiness attributed to unbelieving
    members of the household is evidently that of external connection
    and privilege, like that of the O. T. Israel.

    Broadus, Am. Com., on _Mat. 19:14_—“No Greek Commentator mentions
    infant baptism in connection with this passage, though they all
    practised that rite.” Schleiermacher, Glaubenslehre, 2:383—“All
    the traces of infant baptism which it has been desired to find in
    the New Testament must first be put into it.” Pfleiderer,
    Grundriss, 184‐187—“Infant baptism cannot be proved from the N.
    T., and according to _1 Cor. 7:14_ it is antecedently improbable;
    yet it was the logical consequence of the command, _Mat. 28:19_
    _sq._, in which the church consciousness of the 2d century
    prophetically expressed Christ’s appointment that it should be the
    universal church of the nations.... Infant baptism represents one
    side of the Biblical sacrament, the side of the divine grace; but
    it needs to have the other side, appropriation of that grace by
    personal freedom, added in confirmation.”

    Dr. A. S. Crapsey, formerly an Episcopal rector in Rochester, made
    the following statement in the introduction to a sermon in defence
    of infant baptism: “Now in support of this custom of the church,
    we can bring no express command of the word of God, no certain
    warrant of holy Scripture, nor can we be at all sure that this
    usage prevailed during the apostolic age. From a few obscure hints
    we may conjecture that it did, but it is only conjecture after
    all. It is true St. Paul baptized the household of Stephanas, of
    Lydia, and of the jailor at Philippi, and in these households
    there may have been little children; but we do not know that there
    were, and these inferences form but a poor foundation upon which
    to base any doctrine. Better say at once, and boldly, that infant
    baptism is not expressly taught in holy Scripture. Not only is the
    word of God silent on this subject, but those who have studied the
    subject tell us that Christian writers of the very first age say
    nothing about it. It is by no means sure that this custom obtained
    in the church earlier than in the middle of the second or the
    beginning of the third century.” Dr. C. M. Mead, in a private
    letter, dated May 27, 1895—“Though a Congregationalist, I cannot
    find any Scriptural authorization of pedobaptism, and I admit also
    that immersion seems to have been the prevalent, if not the
    universal, form of baptism at the first.”

    A review of the passages held by pedobaptists to support their
    views leads us to the conclusion expressed in the North British
    Review, Aug. 1852:211, that infant baptism is utterly unknown to
    Scripture. Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 270‐275—“Infant baptism
    is not mentioned in the N. T. No instance of it is recorded there;
    no allusion is made to its effects; no directions are given for
    its administration.... It is not an apostolic ordinance.” See also
    Neander’s view, in Kitto, Bib. Cyclop., art.: Baptism; Kendrick,
    in Christian Rev., April, 1863; Curtis, Progress of Baptist
    Principles, 96; Wayland, Principles and Practices of Baptists,
    125; Cunningham, lect. on Baptism, in Croall Lectures for 1886.


(b) Infant baptism is expressly contradicted.


First,—by the Scriptural prerequisites of faith and repentance, as signs
of regeneration. In the great commission, Matthew speaks of baptizing
disciples, and Mark of baptizing believers; but infants are neither of
these. Secondly,—by the Scriptural symbolism of the ordinance. As we
should not bury a person before his death, so we should not symbolically
bury a person by baptism until he has in spirit died to sin. Thirdly,—by
the Scriptural constitution of the church. The church is a company of
persons whose union with one another presupposes and expresses a previous
conscious and voluntary union of each with Jesus Christ. But of this
conscious and voluntary union with Christ infants are not capable.
Fourthly,—by the Scriptural prerequisites for participation in the Lord’s
Supper. Participation in the Lord’s Supper is the right only of those who
can discern the Lord’s body (1 Cor. 11:29). No reason can be assigned for
restricting to intelligent communicants the ordinance of the Supper, which
would not equally restrict to intelligent believers the ordinance of
Baptism.


    Infant baptism has accordingly led in the Greek church to infant
    communion. This course seems logically consistent. If baptism is
    administered to unconscious babes, they should participate in the
    Lord’s Supper also. But if confirmation or any intelligent
    profession of faith is thought necessary before communion, why
    should not such confirmation or profession be thought necessary
    before baptism? On Jonathan Edwards and the Halfway Covenant, see
    New Englander, Sept. 1884:601‐614; G. L. Walker, Aspects of
    Religious Life of New England, 61‐82; Dexter, Congregationalism,
    487, note—“It has been often intimated that President Edwards
    opposed and destroyed the Halfway Covenant. He did oppose
    Stoddardism, or the doctrine that the Lord’s Supper is a
    converting ordinance, and that unconverted men, because they are
    such, should be encouraged to partake of it.” The tendency of his
    system was adverse to it; but, for all that appears in his
    published writings, he could have approved and administered that
    form of the Halfway Covenant then current among the churches. John
    Fiske says of Jonathan Edwards’s preaching: “The prominence he
    gave to spiritual conversion, or what was called ‘change of
    heart,’ brought about the overthrow of the doctrine of the Halfway
    Covenant. It also weakened the logical basis of infant baptism,
    and led to the winning of hosts of converts by the Baptists.”

    Other pedobaptist bodies than the Greek Church save part of the
    truth, at the expense of consistency, by denying participation in
    the Lord’s Supper to those baptized in infancy until they have
    reached years of understanding and have made a public profession
    of faith. Dr. Charles E. Jefferson, at the International
    Congregational Council of Boston, September, 1899, urged that the
    children of believers are already church members, and that as such
    they are entitled, not only to baptism, but also to the Lord’s
    Supper—“an assertion that started much thought”! Baptists may well
    commend Congregationalists to the teaching of their own Increase
    Mather, The Order of the Gospel (1700), 11—“The Congregational
    Church discipline is not suited for a worldly interest or for a
    formal generation of professors. It will stand or fall as
    godliness in the power of it does prevail, or otherwise.... If the
    begun Apostacy should proceed as fast the next thirty years as it
    has done these last, surely it will come that in New England
    (except the gospel itself depart with the order of it) that the
    most conscientious people therein will think themselves concerned
    _to gather churches out of churches_.”

    How much of Judaistic externalism may linger among nominal
    Christians is shown by the fact that in the Armenian Church animal
    sacrifices survived, or were permitted to converted heathen
    priests, in order they might not lose their livelihood. These
    sacrifices continued in other regions of Christendom, particularly
    in the Greek church, and Pope Gregory the Great permitted them;
    see Conybeare, in Am. Jour. Theology, Jan. 1893:62‐90. In The Key
    of Truth, a manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia, whose date
    in its present form is between the seventh and the ninth
    centuries, we have the Adoptianist view of Christ’s person, and of
    the subjects and the mode of baptism: “Thus also the Lord, having
    learned from the Father, proceeded to teach us to perform baptism
    and all other commandments at the age of full growth and at no
    other time.... For some have broken and destroyed the holy and
    precious canons which by the Father Almighty were delivered to our
    Lord Jesus Christ, and have trodden them underfoot with their
    devilish teaching, ... baptizing those who are irrational, and
    communicating the unbelieving.”

    Minority is legally divided into three septennates: 1. From the
    first to the seventh year, the age of complete irresponsibility,
    in which the child cannot commit a crime; 2. from the seventh to
    the fourteenth year, the age of partial responsibility, in which
    intelligent consciousness of the consequences of actions is not
    assumed to exist, but may be proved in individual instances; 3.
    from the fourteenth to the twenty‐first year, the age of
    discretion, in which the person is responsible for criminal
    action, may choose a guardian, make a will, marry with consent of
    parents, make business contracts not wholly void, but is not yet
    permitted fully to assume the free man’s position in the State.
    The church however is not bound by these hard and fast rules.
    Wherever it has evidence of conversion and of Christian character,
    it may admit to baptism and church membership, even at a very
    tender age.


(c) The rise of infant baptism in the history of the church.


The rise of infant baptism in the history of the church is due to
sacramental conceptions of Christianity, so that all arguments in its
favor from the writings of the first three centuries are equally arguments
for baptismal regeneration.


    Neander’s view may be found in Kitto, Cyclopædia, 1:287—“Infant
    baptism was established neither by Christ nor by his apostles.
    Even in later times Tertullian opposed it, the North African
    church holding to the old practice.” The newly discovered Teaching
    of the Apostles, which Bryennios puts at 140‐160 A.D., and
    Lightfoot at 80‐110 A. D., seems to know nothing of infant
    baptism.

    Professor A. H. Newman, in Bap. Rev., Jan. 1884—“Infant baptism
    has always gone hand in hand with State churches. It is difficult
    to conceive how an ecclesiastical establishment could be
    maintained without infant baptism or its equivalent. We should
    think, if the facts did not show us so plainly the contrary, that
    the doctrine of justification by faith alone would displace infant
    baptism. But no. The _establishment_ must be maintained. The
    rejection of infant baptism implies insistence upon a baptism of
    believers. Only the baptized are properly members of the church.
    Even adults would not all receive baptism on professed faith,
    unless they were actually compelled to do so. Infant baptism must
    therefore be retained as the necessary concomitant of a State
    church.

    “But what becomes of the justification by faith? Baptism, if it
    symbolizes anything, symbolizes regeneration. It would be
    ridiculous to make the symbol to forerun the fact by a series of
    years. Luther saw the difficulty; but he was sufficient for the
    emergency. ‘Yes,’ said he, ‘justification is by faith alone. No
    outward rite, apart from faith, has any efficacy.’ Why, it was
    against _opera operata_ that he was laying out all his strength.
    Yet baptism is the symbol of regeneration, and baptism must be
    administered to infants, or the State church falls. With an
    audacity truly sublime, the great reformer declares that infants
    are regenerated in connection with baptism, and that they are
    _simultaneously justified by personal faith_. An infant eight days
    old believe? ‘Prove the contrary if you can!’ triumphantly
    ejaculates Luther, and his point is gained. If this kind of
    personal faith is said to justify infants, is it wonderful that
    those of maturer years learned to take a somewhat superficial view
    of the faith that justifies?”

    Yet Luther had written: “Whatever is without the word of God is by
    that very fact against God”; see his Briefe, ed. DeWette, II:292;
    J. G. Walch, De Fide in Utero. There was great discordance between
    Luther as reformer, and Luther as conservative churchman. His
    Catholicism, only half overcome, broke into all his views of
    faith. In his early years, he stood for reason and Scripture; in
    his later years he fought reason and Scripture in the supposed
    interest of the church.

    _Mat. 18:10_—“_See that ye despise not one of these little
    ones_”—which refers not to little children but to childlike
    believers, Luther adduces as a proof of infant baptism, holding
    that the child is said to believe—“_little ones that believe on
    me_” (_verse 6_)—because it has been circumcised and received into
    the number of the elect. “And so, through baptism, children become
    believers. How else could the children of Turks and Jews be
    distinguished from those of Christians?” Does this involve the
    notion that infants dying unbaptized are lost? To find the very
    apostle of justification by faith saying that a little child
    becomes a _believer_ by being baptized, is humiliating and
    disheartening (so Broadus. Com. on Matthew, page 384, note).

    Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 2:342‐345, quotes from Lang as
    follows: “By mistaking and casting down the Protestant spirit
    which put forth its demands on the time in Carlstadt, Zwingle, and
    others, Luther made Protestantism lose its salt; he inflicted
    wounds upon it from which it has not yet recovered to‐day; and the
    ecclesiastical struggle of the present is just a struggle of
    spiritual freedom against Lutherism.” E. G. Robinson: “Infant
    baptism is a rag of Romanism. Since regeneration is always through
    the truth, baptismal regeneration is an absurdity.” See Christian
    Review, Jan. 1851; Neander, Church History, 1:311, 313; Coleman,
    Christian Antiquities, 258‐260; Arnold, in Bap. Quarterly,
    1869:32; Hovey, in Bap. Quarterly, 1871:75.


(d) The reasoning by which it is supported is unscriptural, unsound, and
dangerous in its tendency.


First,—in assuming the power of the church to modify or abrogate a command
of Christ. This has been sufficiently answered above. Secondly,—in
maintaining that infant baptism takes the place of circumcision under the
Abrahamic covenant. To this we reply that the view contradicts the New
Testament idea of the church, by making it a hereditary body, in which
fleshly birth, and not the new birth, qualifies for membership. “As the
national Israel typified the spiritual Israel, so the circumcision which
immediately followed, not preceded, natural birth, bids us baptize
children, not before, but after spiritual birth.” Thirdly,—in declaring
that baptism belongs to the infant because of an organic connection of the
child with the parent, which permits the latter to stand for the former
and to make profession of faith for it,—faith already existing germinally
in the child by virtue of this organic union, and certain for the same
reason to be developed as the child grows to maturity. “A law of organic
connection as regards character subsisting between the parent and the
child,—such a connection as induces the conviction that the character of
the one is actually included in the character of the other, as the seed is
formed in the capsule.” We object to this view that it unwarrantably
confounds the personality of the child with that of the parent;
practically ignores the necessity of the Holy Spirit’s regenerating
influences in the case of children of Christian parents; and presumes in
such children a gracious state which facts conclusively show not to exist.


    What takes the place of circumcision is not baptism but
    regeneration. Paul defeated the attempt to fasten circumcision on
    the church, when he refused to have that rite performed on Titus.
    But later Judaizers succeeded in perpetuating circumcision under
    the form of infant baptism, and afterward of infant sprinkling
    (McGarvey, Com. on Acts). E. G. Robinson: “Circumcision is not a
    type of baptism: 1. It is purely a gratuitous assumption that it
    is so. There is not a word in Scripture to authorize it; 2.
    Circumcision was a national, a theocratic, and not a personal,
    religious rite; 3. If circumcision be a type, why did Paul
    circumcise Timothy? Why did he not explain, on an occasion so
    naturally calling for it, that circumcision was replaced by
    baptism?”

    On the theory that baptism takes the place of circumcision, see
    Pepper, Baptist Quarterly, April, 1857; Palmer, in Baptist
    Quarterly, 1871:314. The Christian Church is either a natural,
    _hereditary_ body, or it was merely _typified_ by the Jewish
    people. In the former case, baptism belongs to all children of
    Christian parents, and the church is indistinguishable from the
    world. In the latter case, it belongs only to spiritual
    descendants, and therefore only to true believers. “That Jewish
    Christians, who of course had been circumcised, were also
    baptized, and that a large number of them insisted that Gentiles
    who had been baptized should also be circumcised, shows
    conclusively that baptism did not take the place of
    circumcision.... The notion that the family is the unit of society
    is a relic of barbarism. This appears in the Roman law, which was
    good for property but not for persons. It left none but a servile
    station to wife or son, thus degrading society at the fountain of
    family life. To gain freedom, the Roman wife had to accept a form
    of marriage which opened the way for unlimited liberty of
    divorce.”

    Hereditary church‐membership is of the same piece with hereditary
    priesthood, and both are relics of Judaism. J. J. Murphy, Nat.
    Selection and Spir. Freedom, 81—“The institution of hereditary
    priesthood, which was so deeply rooted in the religions of
    antiquity and was adopted into Judaism, has found no place in
    Christianity; there is not, I believe, any church whatever calling
    itself by the name of Christ, in which the ministry is
    hereditary.” Yet there is a growing disposition to find in infant
    baptism the guarantee of hereditary church membership. Washington
    Gladden, What is Left? 252‐254—“Solidarity of the generations
    finds expression in infant baptism. Families ought to be Christian
    and not individuals only. In the Society of Friends every one born
    of parents belonging to the Society is a birthright member.
    Children of Christian parents are heirs of the kingdom. The State
    recognizes that our children are organically connected with it.
    When parents are members of the State, children are not aliens.
    They are not called to perform duties of citizenship until a
    certain age, but the rights and privileges of citizenship are
    theirs from the moment of their birth. The State is the mother of
    her children; shall the church be less motherly than the State?...
    Baptism does not make the child God’s child; it simply recognizes
    and declares the fact.”

    Another illustration of what we regard as a radically false view
    is found in the sermon of Bishop Grafton of Fond du Lac, at the
    consecration of Bishop Nicholson in Philadelphia: “Baptism is not
    like a function in the natural order, like the coronation of a
    king, an acknowledgment of what the child already is. The child,
    truly God’s loved offspring by way of creation, is in baptism
    translated into the new creation and incorporated into the
    Incarnate One, and made his child.” Yet, as the great majority of
    the inmates of our prisons and the denizens of the slums have
    received this “baptism,” it appears that this “loved offspring”
    very early lost its “new creation” and got “translated” in the
    wrong direction. We regard infant baptism as only an ancient
    example of the effort to bring in the kingdom of God by externals,
    the protest against which brought Jesus to the cross. Our modern
    methods of salvation by sociology and education and legislation
    are under the same indictment, as crucifying the Son of God afresh
    and putting him to open shame.

    Prof. Moses Stuart urged that the form of baptism was immaterial,
    but that the temper of heart was the thing of moment. Francis
    Wayland, then a student of his, asked: “If such is the case, with
    what propriety can baptism be administered to those who cannot be
    supposed to exercise any temper of heart at all, and with whom the
    form must be everything?”—The third theory of organic connection
    of the child with its parents is elaborated by Bushnell, in his
    Christian Nurture, 90‐223. _Per contra_, see Bunsen, Hippolytus
    and his Times, 179, 211; Curtis, Progress of Baptist Principles,
    262. Hezekiah’s son Manasseh was not godly; and it would be rash
    to say that all the drunkard’s children are presumptively
    drunkards.


(e) The lack of agreement among pedobaptists.


The lack of agreement among pedobaptists as to the warrant for infant
baptism and as to the relation of baptized infants to the church, together
with the manifest decline of the practice itself, are arguments against
it.

The propriety of infant baptism is variously argued, says Dr. Bushnell,
upon the ground of “natural innocence, inherited depravity, and federal
holiness; because of the infant’s own character, the parent’s piety, and
the church’s faith; for the reason that the child is an heir of salvation
already, and in order to make it such.... No settled opinion on infant
baptism and on Christian nurture has ever been attained to.”


    Quot homines, tot sententiæ. The belated traveler in a
    thunderstorm prayed for a little more light and less noise.
    Bushnell, Christian Nurture, 9‐89, denies original sin, denies
    that hereditary connection can make a child guilty. But he seems
    to teach transmitted righteousness, or that hereditary connection
    can make a child holy. He disparages “sensible experiences” and
    calls them “explosive conversions.” But because we do not know the
    time of conversion, shall we say that there never was a time when
    the child experienced God’s grace? See Bib. Sac., 1872:665.
    Bushnell said: “I don’t know what right we have to say that a
    child can’t be born again before he is born the first time.” Did
    not John the Baptist preach Christ before he was born? (_Luke
    1:15, 41, 44_). The answer to Bushnell is simply this, that
    regeneration is through the truth, and an unborn child cannot know
    the truth. To disjoin regeneration from the truth, is to make it a
    matter of external manipulation in which the soul is merely
    passive and the whole process irrational. There is a secret work
    of God in the soul, but it is always accompanied by an awakening
    of the soul to perceive the truth and to accept Christ.

    Are baptized infants members of the Presbyterian Church? We answer
    by citing the following standards: 1. The Confession of Faith,
    25:2—“The visible church ... consists of all those throughout the
    world, that profess the true religion, together with their
    children.” 2. The Larger Catechism, 62—“The visible church is a
    society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world
    do profess the true religion, and of their children.” 166—“Baptism
    is not to be administered to any that are not of the visible
    church ... till they profess their faith in Christ and obedience
    to him: but infants descending from parents either both or but one
    of them professing faith in Christ and obedience to him are in
    that respect within the covenant and are to be baptized.” 3. The
    Shorter Catechism, 96—“Baptism is not to be administered to any
    that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith
    in Christ and obedience to him: but the infants of such as are
    members of the visible church are to be baptized.” 4. Form of
    Government, 3—“A particular church consists of a number of
    professing Christians, with their offspring.” 5. Directory for
    Worship, 1—“Children born within the pale of the visible church
    and dedicated to God in baptism are under the inspection and
    government of the church.... When they come to years of
    discretion, if they be free from scandal, appear sober and steady,
    and to have sufficient knowledge to discern the Lord’s body, they
    ought to be informed it is their duty and their privilege to come
    to the Lord’s Supper.”

    The Maplewood Congregational Church of Malden, Mass., enrolls as
    members all children baptized by the church. The relation
    continues until they indicate a desire either to continue it or to
    dissolve it. The list of such members is kept distinct from that
    of the adults, but they are considered as members under the care
    of the church. Dr. W. G. T. Shedd: “The infant of a believer is
    born into the church as the infant of a citizen is born into the
    State. A baptized child in adult years may renounce his baptism,
    become an infidel, and join the synagogue of Satan, but until he
    does this, he must be regarded as a member of the church of
    Christ.”

    On the Decline of Infant Baptism, see Vedder, in Baptist Review,
    April, 1882:173‐189, who shows that in fifty years past the
    proportion of infant baptisms to communicants in general has
    decreased from one in seven to one in eleven; among the Reformed,
    from one in twelve to one in twenty; among the Presbyterians, from
    one in fifteen to one in thirty‐three; among the Methodists, from
    one in twenty‐two to one in twenty‐nine; among the
    Congregationalists, from one in fifty to one in seventy‐seven.


(f) The evil effects of infant baptism.


First,—in forestalling the voluntary act of the child baptized, and thus
practically preventing his personal obedience to Christ’s commands.


    The person baptized in infancy has never performed any act with
    intent to obey Christ’s command to be baptized, never has put
    forth a single volition looking toward obedience to that command;
    see Wilkinson, The Baptist Principle, 40‐46. Every man has the
    right to choose his own wife. So every man has the right to choose
    his own Savior.


Secondly,—in inducing superstitious confidence in an outward rite as
possessed of regenerating efficacy.


    French parents still regard infants before baptism as only animals
    (Stanley). The haste with which the minister is summoned to
    baptize the dying child shows that superstition still lingers in
    many an otherwise evangelical family in our own country. The
    English Prayerbook declares that in baptism the infant is “made a
    child of God and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.” Even the
    Westminster Assembly’s Catechism, 28:6, holds that grace is
    actually conferred in baptism, though the efficacy of it is
    delayed till riper years. Mercersburg Review: “The objective
    medium or instrumental cause of regeneration is baptism. Men are
    not regenerated outside the church and then brought into it for
    preservation, but they are regenerated by being incorporated with
    or engrafted into the church through the sacrament of baptism.”
    Catholic Review: “Unbaptized, these little ones go into darkness;
    but baptized, they rejoice in the presence of God forever.”

    Dr. Beebe of Hamilton went after a minister to baptize his sick
    child, but before he returned the child died. Reflection made him
    a Baptist, and the Editor of The Examiner. Baptists unhesitatingly
    permit converts to die unbaptized, showing plainly that they do
    not regard baptism as essential to salvation. Baptism no more
    makes one a Christian, than putting a crown on one’s head makes
    him a king. Zwingle held to a symbolic interpretation of the
    Lord’s Supper, but he clung to the sacramental conception of
    Baptism. E. H. Johnson, Uses and Abuses of Ordinances, 33, claims
    that, while baptism is not a justifying or regenerating ordinance,
    it is a sanctifying ordinance,—sanctifying, in the sense of
    setting apart. Yes, we reply, but only as church going and prayer
    are sanctifying; the efficacy is not in the outward act but in the
    spirit which accompanies it. To make it signify more is to admit
    the sacramental principle.

    In the Roman Catholic Church the baptism of bells and of rosaries
    shows how infant baptism has induced the belief that grace can be
    communicated to irrational and even material things. In Mexico
    people bring caged birds, cats, rabbits, donkeys, and pigs, for
    baptism. The priest kneels before the altar in prayer, reads a few
    words in Latin, then sprinkles the creature with holy water. The
    sprinkling is supposed to drive out any evil spirit that may have
    vexed the bird or beast. In Key West, Florida, a town of 22,000
    inhabitants, infant baptism has a stronger hold than anywhere else
    at the South. Baptist parents had sometimes gone to the Methodist
    preachers to have their children baptized. To prevent this, the
    Baptist pastors established the custom of laying their hands upon
    the heads of infants in the congregation, and “blessing” them, _i.
    e._, asking God’s blessing to rest upon them. But this custom came
    to be confounded with christening, and was called such. Now the
    Baptist pastors are having a hard struggle to explain and limit
    the custom which they themselves have introduced. Perverse human
    nature will take advantage of even the slightest additions to N.
    T. prescriptions, and will bring out of the germs of false
    doctrine a fearful harvest of evil. Obsta principiis—“Resist
    beginnings.”


Thirdly,—in obscuring and corrupting Christian truth with regard to the
sufficiency of Scripture, the connection of the ordinances, and the
inconsistency of an impenitent life with church‐membership.


    Infant baptism in England is followed by confirmation, as a matter
    of course, whether there has been any conscious abandonment of sin
    or not. In Germany, a man is always understood to be a Christian
    unless he expressly states to the contrary—in fact, he feels
    insulted if his Christianity is questioned. At the funerals even
    of infidels and debauchees the pall used may be inscribed with the
    words: “Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord.” Confidence in
    one’s Christianity and hopes of heaven based only on the fact of
    baptism in infancy, are a great obstacle to evangelical preaching
    and to the progress of true religion.

    Wordsworth, The Excursion, 596, 602 (book 5)—“At the baptismal
    font. And when the pure And consecrating element hath cleansed The
    original stain, the child is thus received Into the second ark,
    Christ’s church, with trust That he, from wrath redeemed therein
    shall float Over the billows of this troublesome world To the fair
    land of everlasting life.... The holy rite That lovingly consigns
    the babe to the arms Of Jesus and his everlasting care.” Infant
    baptism arose in the superstitious belief that there lay in the
    water itself a magical efficacy for the washing away of sin, and
    that apart from baptism there could be no salvation. This was and
    still remains the Roman Catholic position. Father Doyle, in Anno
    Domini, 2:182—“Baptism regenerates. By means of it the child is
    born again into the newness of the supernatural life.” Theodore
    Parker was baptized, but not till he was four years old, when his
    “Oh, don’t!”—in which his biographers have found prophetic
    intimation of his mature dislike for all conventional forms—was
    clearly the small boy’s dislike of water on his face; see
    Chadwick, Theodore Parker, 6, 7. “How do you know, my dear, that
    you have been christened?” “Please, mum, ’cos I’ve got the marks
    on my arm now, mum!”


Fourthly,—in destroying the church as a spiritual body, by merging it in
the nation and the world.


    Ladd, Principles of Church Polity: “Unitarianism entered the
    Congregational churches of New England through the breach in one
    of their own avowed and most important tenets, namely, that of a
    regenerate church‐membership. Formalism, indifferentism, neglect
    of moral reforms, and, as both cause and results of these, an
    abundance of unrenewed men and women, were the causes of their
    seeming disasters in that sad epoch.” But we would add, that the
    serious and alarming decline of religion which culminated in the
    Unitarian movement in New England had its origin in infant
    baptism. This introduced into the Church a multitude of
    unregenerate persons and permitted them to determine its doctrinal
    position.

    W. B. Matteson: “No one practice of the church has done so much to
    lower the tone of its life and to debase its standards. The first
    New England churches were established by godly and regenerated
    men. They received into their churches, through infant baptism,
    children presumptively, but alas not actually, regenerated. The
    result is well known—swift, startling, seemingly irresistible
    decline. ‘The body of the rising generation,’ writes Increase
    Mother, ‘is a poor perishing, inconverted, and, except the Lord
    pour out his Spirit, an undone generation.’ The ‘Halfway Covenant’
    was at once a token of preceding, and a cause of further, decline.
    If God had not indeed poured out his Spirit in the great awakening
    under Edwards, New England might well, as some feared, ‘be lost
    even to New England and buried in its own ruins.’ It was the new
    emphasis on personal religion—an emphasis which the Baptists of
    that day largely contributed—that gave to the New England churches
    a larger life and a larger usefulness. Infant baptism has never
    since held quite the same place in the polity of those churches.
    It has very generally declined. But it is still far from extinct,
    even among evangelical Protestants. The work of Baptists is not
    yet done. Baptists have always stood, but they need still to
    stand, for a believing and regenerated church‐membership.”


Fifthly,—in putting into the place of Christ’s command a commandment of
men, and so admitting the essential principle of all heresy, schism, and
false religion.


    There is therefore no logical halting‐place between the Baptist
    and the Romanist positions. The Roman Catholic Archbishop Hughes
    of New York, said well to a Presbyterian minister: “We have no
    controversy with you. Our controversy is with the Baptists.” Lange
    of Jena: “Would the Protestant church fulfil and attain to its
    final destiny, the baptism of infants must of necessity be
    abolished.” The English Judge asked the witness what his religious
    belief was. Reply: “I haven’t any.” “Where do you attend church?”
    “Nowhere.” “Put him down as belonging to the Church of England.”
    The small child was asked where her mother was. Reply: “She has
    gone to a Christian and devil meeting.” The child meant a
    Christian Endeavor meeting. Some systems of doctrine and ritual,
    however, answer her description, for they are a mixture of
    paganism and Christianity. The greatest work favoring the doctrine
    which we here condemn is Wall’s History of Infant Baptism. For the
    Baptist side of the controversy see Arnold, in Madison Avenue
    Lectures, 160‐182; Curtis, Progress of Baptist Principles, 274,
    275; Dagg, Church Order, 144‐202.



II. The Lord’s Supper.


The Lord’s Supper is that outward rite in which the assembled church eats
bread broken and drinks wine poured forth by its appointed representative,
in token of its constant dependence on the once crucified, now risen
Savior, as source of its spiritual life; or, in other words, in token of
that abiding communion of Christ’s death and resurrection through which
the life begun in regeneration is sustained and perfected.


    Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, 31, 33, says that the
    Scripture nowhere speaks of the wine as “poured forth”; and in _1
    Cor. 11:24_—“_my body which is broken for you,_” the Revised
    Version omits the word “_broken_”; while on the other hand the
    Gospel according to John (_19:36_) calls especial attention to the
    fact that Christ’s body was _not_ broken. We reply that Jesus, in
    giving his disciples the cup, did speak of his blood as “_poured
    out_” (_Mark 14:24_); and it was not the body, but “_a bone of
    him_,” which was not to be broken. Many ancient manuscripts add
    the word “_broken_” in _1 Cor. 11:24_. On the Lord’s Supper in
    general, see Weston, in Madison Avenue Lectures, 183‐195; Dagg,
    Church Order, 203‐214.


1. The Lord’s Supper an ordinance instituted by Christ.


(_a_) Christ appointed an outward rite to be observed by his disciples in
remembrance of his death. It was to be observed after his death; only
after his death could it completely fulfil its purpose as a feast of
commemoration.


    _Luke 22:19_—“_And be took bread, and when he had given thanks, he
    brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given
    for you: this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner
    after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood,
    even that which is poured out for you_”; _1 Cor. 11:23‐25_—“_For I
    received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that
    the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;
    and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my
    body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like
    manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new
    covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in
    remembrance of me._” Observe that this communion was Christian
    communion before Christ’s death, just as John’s baptism was
    Christian baptism before Christ’s death.


(_b_) From the apostolic injunction with regard to its celebration in the
church until Christ’s second coming, we infer that it was the original
intention of our Lord to institute a rite of perpetual and universal
obligation.


    _1 Cor. 11:26_—“_For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the
    cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come_”; _cf._ _Mat.
    26:29_—“_But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this
    fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in
    my Father’s kingdom_”; _Mark 14:25_—“_Verily I say unto you, I
    will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I
    drink it new in the kingdom of God._” As the paschal supper
    continued until Christ came the first time in the flesh, so the
    Lord’s Supper is to continue until he comes the second time with
    all the power and glory of God.


(_c_) The uniform practice of the N. T. churches, and the celebration of
such a rite in subsequent ages by almost all churches professing to be
Christian, is best explained upon the supposition that the Lord’s Supper
is an ordinance established by Christ himself.


    _Acts 2:42_—“_And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’
    teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the
    prayers_”; _46_—“_And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one
    accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their
    food with gladness and singleness of heart_”—on the words here
    translated “_at home_” (κατ᾽ οἶκον), but meaning, as Jacob
    maintains, “from one worship‐room to another,” see page 961. _Acts
    20:7_—“_And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered
    together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them_”; _1 Cor.
    10:16_—“_The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion
    of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a
    communion of the body of Christ? seeing that we, who art many, are
    one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread._”


2. The Mode of administering the Lord’s Supper.


(_a_) The elements are bread and wine.


    Although the bread which Jesus broke at the institution of the
    ordinance was doubtless the unleavened bread of the Passover,
    there is nothing in the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper which
    necessitates the Romanist use of the wafer. Although the wine
    which Jesus poured out was doubtless the ordinary fermented juice
    of the grape, there is nothing in the symbolism of the ordinance
    which forbids the use of unfermented juice of the grape,—obedience
    to the command “_This do in remembrance of me_” (_Luke 22:19_)
    requires only that we should use the “_fruit of the vine_” (_Mat.
    26:29_).

    Huguenots and Roman Catholics, among Parkman’s Pioneers of France
    in the New World, disputed whether the sacramental bread could be
    made of the meal of Indian corn. But it is only as food, that the
    bread is symbolic. Dried fish is used in Greenland. The bread only
    symbolizes Christ’s life and the wine only symbolizes his death.
    Any food or drink may do the same. It therefore seems a very
    conscientious but unnecessary literalism, when Adoniram Judson
    (Life by his Son, 352) writes from Burma: “No wine to be procured
    in this place, on which account we are unable to meet with the
    other churches this day in partaking of the Lord’s Supper.” For
    proof that Bible wines, like all other wines, are fermented, see
    Presb. Rev., 1881:80‐114; 1882:78‐108, 394‐399, 586; Hovey, in
    Bap. Quar. Rev., April, 1887:152‐180. _Per contra_, see Samson,
    Bible Wines. On the Scripture Law of Temperance, see Presb. Rev.,
    1882:287‐324.


(_b_) The communion is of both kinds,—that is, communicants are to partake
both of the bread and of the wine.


    The Roman Catholic Church withholds the wine from the laity,
    although it considers the whole Christ to be present under each of
    the forms. Christ, however, says: “_Drink ye all of it_” (_Mat.
    26:27_). To withhold the wine from any believer is disobedience to
    Christ, and is too easily understood as teaching that the laity
    have only a portion of the benefits of Christ’s death. Calvin: “As
    to the bread, he simply said ‘_Take, eat_.’ Why does he expressly
    bid them _all_ drink? And why does Mark explicitly say that ‘_they
    all drank of it_’ (_Mark 14:23_)?” Bengel: Does not this suggest
    that, if communion in “one kind alone were sufficient, it is the
    cup which should be used? The Scripture thus speaks, foreseeing
    what Rome would do.” See Expositor’s Greek Testament on _1 Cor.
    11:27_. In the Greek Church the bread and wine are mingled and are
    administered to communicants, not to infants only but also to
    adults, with a spoon.


(_c_) The partaking of these elements is of a festal nature.


    The Passover was festal in its nature. Gloom and sadness are
    foreign to the spirit of the Lord’s Supper. The wine is the symbol
    of the death of Christ, but of that death by which we live. It
    reminds us that he drank the cup of suffering in order that we
    might drink the wine of joy. As the bread is broken to sustain our
    physical life, so Christ’s body was broken by thorns and nails and
    spear to nourish our spiritual life.

    _1 Cor. 11:29_—“_For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and
    drinketh judgment onto himself, if he discern not the body._” Here
    the Authorized Version wrongly had “damnation” instead of
    “_judgment_.” Not eternal condemnation, but penal judgment in
    general, is meant. He who partakes “_in an unworthy manner_”
    (_verse 27_), _i. e._, in hypocrisy, or merely to satisfy bodily
    appetites, and not discerning the body of Christ of which the
    bread is the symbol (_verse 29_), draws down upon him God’s
    judicial sentence. Of this judgment, the frequent sickness and
    death in the church at Corinth was a token. See _verses 30‐34_,
    and Meyer’s Com.; also Gould, in Am. Com. on _1 Cor.
    11:27_—“_unworthily_”—“This is not to be understood as referring
    to the unworthiness of the person himself to partake, but to the
    unworthy manner of partaking.... The failure to recognize
    practically the symbolism of the elements, and hence the treatment
    of the Supper as a common meal, is just what the apostle has
    pointed out as the fault of the Corinthians, and it is what he
    characterizes as an unworthy eating and drinking.” The Christian
    therefore should not be deterred from participation in the Lord’s
    Supper by any feeling of his personal unworthiness, so long as he
    trusts Christ and aims to obey him, for “All the fitness he
    requireth Is to feel our need of him.”


(_d_) The communion is a festival of commemoration,—not simply bringing
Christ to our remembrance, but making proclamation of his death to the
world.


    _1 Cor. 11:24, 26_—“_this do in remembrance of me.... For as often
    as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s
    death till he come._” As the Passover commemorated the deliverance
    of Israel from Egypt, and as the Fourth of July commemorates our
    birth as a nation, so the Lord’s Supper commemorates the birth of
    the church in Christ’s death and resurrection. As a mother might
    bid her children meet over her grave and commemorate her, so
    Christ bids his people meet and remember him. But subjective
    remembrance is not its only aim. It is public proclamation also.
    Whether it brings perceptible blessing to us or not, it is to be
    observed as a means of confessing Christ, testifying our faith,
    and publishing the fact of his death to others.


(_e_) It is to be celebrated by the assembled church. It is not a solitary
observance on the part of individuals. No “showing forth” is possible
except in company.


    _Acts 20:7_—“_gathered together to break bread_”; _1 Cor. 11:18,
    20, 22, 33, 34_—“_when ye come together in the church ... assemble
    yourselves together ... have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?
    or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have
    not? ... when ye come together to eat.... If any man is hungry,
    let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto
    judgment._”

    Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 191‐194, claims that in _Acts
    2:46_—“_breaking bread at home_”—where we have οἶκος, not οἶκία,
    οἶκος is not a private house, but a “worship‐room,” and that the
    phrase should be translated “breaking bread from one worship‐room
    to another,” or “in various worship‐rooms.” This meaning seems
    very apt in _Acts 5:42_—“_And every day, in the temple and at
    home_ [rather, ‘_in various worship‐rooms_’], they ceased not to
    teach and to preach Jesus as the Christ”; _8:3_—“_But Saul laid
    waste the church, entering into every house_ [rather, ‘_every
    worship‐room_’] _and dragging men and women committed them to
    prison_”; _Rom. 16:5_—“_salute the church that is in their house_
    [rather, ‘_in their worship‐room_’]”; _Titus 1:11_—“_men who
    overthrow whole houses_ [rather, ‘_whole worship‐rooms_’],
    _teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake._”
    _Per contra_, however, see _1 Cor. 11:34_—“_let him eat at home,_”
    where οἶκος is contrasted with the place of meeting; so also _1
    Cor. 14:35_ and _Acts 20:20_, where οἶκος seems to mean a private
    house.

    The celebration of the Lord’s Supper in each family by itself is
    not recognized in the New Testament. Stanley, in Nineteenth
    Century, May, 1878, tells us that as infant communion is forbidden
    in the Western Church, and evening communion is forbidden by the
    Roman Church, so solitary communion is forbidden by the English
    Church, and death‐bed communion by the Scottish Church. E. G.
    Robinson: “No single individual in the New Testament ever
    celebrates the Lord’s Supper by himself.” Mrs. Browning recognized
    the essentially social nature of the ordinance, when she said that
    truth was like the bread at the Sacrament—to be passed on. In this
    the Supper gives us a type of the proper treatment of all the
    goods of life, both temporal and spiritual.

    Dr. Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, claims that the Lord’s
    Supper is no more an exclusively church ordinance than is singing
    or prayer; that the command to observe it was addressed, not to an
    organized church, but only to individuals; that every meal in the
    home was to be a Lord’s Supper, because Christ was remembered in
    it. But we reply that Paul’s letter with regard to the abuses of
    the Lord’s Supper was addressed, not to individuals, but to “_the
    church of God which is at Corinth._” (_1 Cor. 1:2_). Paul reproves
    the Corinthians because in the Lord’s Supper each ate without
    thought of others: “_What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink
    in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that
    have not?_” (_11:22_). Each member having appeased his hunger at
    home, the members of the church “_come together to eat_”
    (_11:30_), as the spiritual body of Christ. All this shows that
    the celebration of the Lord’s Supper was not an appendage to every
    ordinary meal.

    In _Acts 20:7_—“_upon the first day of the week, when we were
    gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them_”—the
    natural inference is that the Lord’s Supper was a sacred rite,
    observed apart from any ordinary meal, and accompanied by
    religious instruction. Dr. Fox would go back of these later
    observances to the original command of our Lord. He would
    eliminate all that we do not find in Mark, the earliest gospel.
    But this would deprive us of the Sermon on the Mount, the parable
    of the Prodigal Son, and the discourses of the fourth gospel.
    McGiffert gives A. D. 52, as the date of Paul’s first letter to
    the Corinthians, and this ante‐dates Mark’s gospel by at least
    thirteen years. Paul’s account of the Lord’s Supper at Corinth is
    therefore an earlier authority than Mark.


(_f_) The responsibility of seeing that the ordinance is properly
administered rests with the church as a body; and the pastor is, in this
matter, the proper representative and organ of the church. In cases of
extreme exigency, however, as where the church has no pastor and no
ordained minister can be secured, it is competent for the church to
appoint one from its own number to administer the ordinance.


    _1 Cor. 11:2, 23_—“_Now I praise you that ye remember me in all
    things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to
    you.... For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered
    unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was
    betrayed took bread._” Here the responsibility of administering
    the Lord’s Supper is laid upon the body of believers.


(_g_) The frequency with which the Lord’s Supper is to be administered is
not indicated either by the N. T. precept or by uniform N. T. example. We
have instances both of its daily and of its weekly observance. With
respect to this, as well as with respect to the accessories of the
ordinance, the church is to exercise a sound discretion.


    _Acts 2:46_—“_And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one
    accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home_ [or perhaps,
    ‘_in various worship‐rooms_’]”; _20:7_—“_And upon the first day of
    the week, when we were gathered together to break bread._” In
    1878, thirty‐nine churches of the Establishment in London held
    daily communion; in two churches it was held twice each day. A few
    churches of the Baptist faith in England and America celebrate the
    Lord’s Supper on each Lord’s day. Carlstadt would celebrate the
    Lord’s Supper only in companies of twelve, and held also that
    every bishop must marry. Reclining on couches, and meeting in the
    evening, are not commanded; and both, by their inconvenience,
    might in modern times counteract the design of the ordinance.


3. The Symbolism of the Lord’s Supper.


The Lord’s Supper sets forth, in general, the death of Christ as the
sustaining power of the believer’s life.


A. Expansion of this statement.


(_a_) It symbolizes the death of Christ for our sins.


    _1 Cor. 11:26_—“_For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the
    cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come_”; _cf._ _Mark
    14:24_—“_This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for
    many_”—the blood upon which the covenant between God and Christ,
    and so between God and us who are one with Christ, from eternity
    past was based. The Lord’s Supper reminds us of the covenant which
    ensures our salvation, and of the atonement upon which the
    covenant was based; _cf._ _Heb. 13:20_—“_blood of an eternal
    covenant._”

    Alex. McLaren: “The suggestion of a violent death, implied in the
    _doubling_ of the symbols, by which the body is separated from
    that of the blood, and still further implied in the _breaking_ of
    the bread, is made prominent in the words in reference to the cup.
    It symbolizes the blood of Jesus which is ‘shed.’ That shed blood
    is covenant blood. By it the New Covenant, of which Jeremiah had
    prophesied, one article of which was, ‘Their sins and iniquities I
    will remember no more,’ is sealed and ratified, not for Israel
    only but for an indefinite ‘many,’ which is really equivalent to
    all. Could words more plainly declare that Christ’s death was a
    sacrifice? Can we understand it, according to his own
    interpretation of it, unless we see in his words here a reference
    to his previous words (_Mat. 20:28_) and recognize that in
    shedding his blood ‘for many,’ he ‘gave his life a ransom for
    many’? The Lord’s Supper is the standing witness, voiced by Jesus
    himself, that he regarded his death as the very centre of his
    work, and that he regarded it not merely as a martyrdom, but as a
    sacrifice by which he put away sins forever. Those who reject that
    view of that death are sorely puzzled what to make of the Lord’s
    Supper.”


(_b_) It symbolizes our personal appropriation of the benefits of that
death.


    _1 Cor. 11:24_—“_This is my body, which is for you_”; _cf._ _1
    Cor. 5:7_—“_Christ our passover is sacrificed for us_”; or R.
    V.—“_our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ_”; here
    it is evident not only that the showing forth of the Lord’s death
    is the primary meaning of the ordinance, but that our partaking of
    the benefits of that death is as clearly taught as the Israelites’
    deliverance was symbolized in the paschal supper.


(_c_) It symbolizes the method of this appropriation, through union with
Christ himself.


    _1 Cor. 10:16_—“_The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a
    communion of_ [marg.: ‘_participation in_’] _the blood of Christ?
    The bread which we break, is it not a communion of_ [marg.:
    ‘_participation in_’] _the body of Christ?_” Here “_is it not a
    participation_” = “does it not symbolize the participation?” So
    _Mat. 26:26_—“_this is my body_” = “this symbolizes my body.”


(_d_) It symbolizes the continuous dependence of the believer for all
spiritual life upon the once crucified, now living, Savior, to whom he is
thus united.


    _Cf._ _John 6:53_—“_Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat
    the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life
    in yourselves_”—here is a statement, not with regard to the Lord’s
    Supper, but with regard to spiritual union with Christ, which the
    Lord’s Supper only symbolizes; see page 965, (_a_). Like Baptism,
    the Lord’s Supper presupposes and implies evangelical faith,
    especially faith in the Deity of Christ; not that all who partake
    of it realize its full meaning, but that this participation
    logically implies the five great truths of Christ’s preëxistence,
    his supernatural birth, his vicarious atonement, his literal
    resurrection, and his living presence with his followers. Because
    Ralph Waldo Emerson perceived that the Lord’s Supper implied
    Christ’s omnipresence and deity, he would no longer celebrate it,
    and so broke with his church and with the ministry.


(_e_) It symbolizes the sanctification of the Christian through a
spiritual reproduction in him of the death and resurrection of the Lord.


    _Rom. 8:10_—“_And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of
    sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness_”; _Phil.
    3:10_—“_that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection,
    and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed unto his
    death; if by any means I may attain unto the resurrection from the
    dead._” The bread of life nourishes; but it transforms me, not I
    it.


(_f_) It symbolizes the consequent union of Christians in Christ, their
head.


    _1 Cor. 10:17_—“_seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one
    body: for we all partake of the one bread._” The Roman Catholic
    says that bread is the unity of many kernels, the wine the unity
    of many berries, and all are changed into the body of Christ. We
    can adopt the former part of the statement, without taking the
    latter. By being united to Christ, we become united to one
    another; and the Lord’s Supper, as it symbolizes our common
    partaking of Christ, symbolizes also the consequent oneness of all
    in whom Christ dwells. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, IX—“As
    this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, and being
    gathered together became one, so may thy church be gathered
    together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom.”


(_g_) It symbolizes the coming joy and perfection of the kingdom of God.


    _Luke 22:18_—“_for I say unto you, I shall not drink from
    henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God
    shall come_”; _Mark 14:25_—“_Verily I say unto you, I will no more
    drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new
    in the kingdom of God_”; _Mat. 26:29_—“_But I say unto you, I
    shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that
    day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom._”

    Like Baptism, which points forward to the resurrection, the Lord’s
    Supper is anticipatory also. It brings before us, not simply
    death, but life; not simply past sacrifice, but future glory. It
    points forward to the great festival, “_the marriage supper of the
    Lamb_” (_Rev. 19:9_). Dorner: “Then Christ will keep the Supper
    anew with us, and the hours of highest solemnity in this life are
    but a weak foretaste of the powers of the world to come.” See
    Madison Avenue Lectures, 176‐216; The Lord’s Supper, a Clerical
    Symposium, by Pressensé, Luthardt, and English Divines.


B. Inferences from this statement.


(_a_) The connection between the Lord’s Supper and Baptism consists in
this, that they both and equally are symbols of the death of Christ. In
Baptism, we show forth the death of Christ as the procuring cause of our
new birth into the kingdom of God. In the Lord’s Supper, we show forth the
death of Christ as the sustaining power of our spiritual life after it has
once begun. In the one, we honor the sanctifying power of the death of
Christ, as in the other we honor its regenerating power. Thus both are
parts of one whole,—setting before us Christ’s death for men in its two
great purposes and results.


    If baptism symbolized purification only, there would be no point
    of connection between the two ordinances. Their common reference
    to the death of Christ binds the two together.


(_b_) The Lord’s Supper is to be often repeated,—as symbolizing Christ’s
constant nourishment of the soul, whose new birth was signified in
Baptism.


    Yet too frequent repetition may induce superstitious confidence in
    the value of communion as a mere outward form.


(_c_) The Lord’s Supper, like Baptism, is the symbol of a previous state
of grace. It has in itself no regenerating and no sanctifying power, but
is the symbol by which the relation of the believer to Christ, his
sanctifier, is vividly expressed and strongly confirmed.


    We derive more help from the Lord’s Supper than from private
    prayer, simply because it is an _external_ rite, impressing the
    sense as well as the intellect, celebrated in company with other
    believers whose faith and devotion help our own, and bringing
    before us the profoundest truths of Christianity—the death of
    Christ, and our union with Christ in that death.


(_d_) The blessing received from participation is therefore dependent
upon, and proportioned to, the faith of the communicant.


    In observing the Lord’s Supper, we need to discern the body of the
    Lord (_1 Cor. 11:29_)—that is, to recognize the spiritual meaning
    of the ordinance, and the presence of Christ, who through his
    deputed representatives gives to us the emblems, and who nourishes
    and quickens our souls as these material things nourish and
    quicken the body. The faith which thus discerns Christ is the gift
    of the Holy Spirit.


(_e_) The Lord’s Supper expresses primarily the fellowship of the
believer, not with his brethren, but with Christ, his Lord.


    The Lord’s Supper, like Baptism, symbolizes fellowship with the
    brethren only as consequent upon, and incidental to, fellowship
    with Christ. Just as we are all baptized “_into one body_” (_1
    Cor. 12:13_) only by being “_baptized into Christ_” (_Rom. 6:3_),
    so we commune with other believers in the Lord’s Supper, only as
    we commune with Christ. Christ’s words: “_this do in remembrance
    of me_” (_1 Cor. 11:24_), bid us think, not of our brethren, but
    of the Lord. Baptism is not a test of personal worthiness. Nor is
    the Lord’s Supper a test of personal worthiness, either our own or
    that of others. It is not primarily an expression of Christian
    fellowship. Nowhere in the New Testament is it called a communion
    of Christians with one another. But it is called a communion of
    the body and blood of Christ (_1 Cor. 10:16_)—or, in other words,
    a participation in him. Hence there is not a single cup, but many:
    “_divide it among yourselves_” (_Luke 22:17_). Here is warrant for
    the individual communion‐cup. Most churches use more than one cup:
    if more than one, why not many?

    _1 Cor. 11:26_—“_as often as ye eat ... ye proclaim the Lord’s
    death_”—the Lord’s Supper is a teaching ordinance, and is to be
    observed, not simply for the good that comes to the communicant
    and to his brethren, but for the sake of the witness which it
    gives to the world that the Christ who died for its sins now lives
    for its salvation. A. H. Ballard, in The Standard, Aug. 18, 1900,
    on _1 Cor. 11:29_—“_eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if
    he discern not the body_”—“He who eats and drinks, and does not
    discern that he is redeemed by the offering of the body of Jesus
    Christ once for all, eats and drinks a double condemnation,
    because he does not discern the redemption which is symbolized by
    the things which he eats and drinks. To turn his thought away from
    that sacrificial body to the company of disciples assembled is a
    grievous error—the error of all those who exalt the idea of
    fellowship or communion in the celebration of the ordinance.”

    The offence of a Christian brother, therefore, even if committed
    against myself, should not prevent me from remembering Christ and
    communing with the Savior. I could not commune at all, if I had to
    vouch for the Christian character of all who sat with me. This
    does not excuse the church from effort to purge its membership
    from unworthy participants; it simply declares that the church’s
    failure to do this does not absolve any single member of it from
    his obligation to observe the Lord’s Supper. See Jacob, Eccl.
    Polity of N. T., 285.


4. Erroneous views of the Lord’s Supper.


A. The Romanist view.


The Romanist view,—that the bread and wine are changed by priestly
consecration into the very body and blood of Christ; that this
consecration is a new offering of Christ’s sacrifice; and that, by a
physical partaking of the elements, the communicant receives saving grace
from God. To this doctrine of “transubstantiation” we reply:

(_a_) It rests upon a false interpretation of Scripture. In Mat. 26:26,
“this is my body” means: “this is a symbol of my body.” Since Christ was
with the disciples in visible form at the institution of the Supper, he
could not have intended them to recognize the bread as being his literal
body. “The body of Christ is present in the bread, just as it had been in
the passover lamb, of which the bread took the place” (John 6:53 contains
no reference to the Lord’s Supper, although it describes that spiritual
union with Christ which the Supper symbolizes; _cf._ 63. In 1 Cor. 10:16,
17, κοινωίαν τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ is a figurative expression for the
spiritual partaking of Christ. In Mark 8:33, we are not to infer that
Peter was actually “Satan,” nor does 1 Cor. 12:12 prove that we are all
Christs. _Cf._ Gen. 41:26; 1 Cor. 10:4).


    _Mat. 26:28_—“_This is my blood ... which is poured out,_” cannot
    be meant to be taken literally, since Christ’s blood was not yet
    shed. Hence the Douay version (Roman Catholic), without warrant,
    changes the tense and reads, “which shall be shed.” At the
    institution of the Supper, it is not conceivable that Christ
    should hold his body in his own hands, and then break it to the
    disciples. There were not two bodies there. Zwingle: “The words of
    institution are not the mandatory ‘become’: they are only an
    explanation of the sign.” When I point to a picture and say: “This
    is George Washington,” I do not mean that the veritable body and
    blood of George Washington are before me. So when a teacher points
    to a map and says: “This is New York,” or when Jesus refers to
    John the Baptist, and says: “_this is Elijah, that is to come_”
    (_Mat. 11:14_). Jacob, The Lord’s Supper, Historically
    Considered—“It originally marked, not a real presence, but a real
    absence, of Christ as the Son of God made man”—that is, a real
    absence of his _body_. Therefore the Supper, reminding us of his
    body, is to be observed in the church “_till he come_” (_1 Cor.
    11:26_).

    _John 6:53_—“_Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink
    his blood, ye have not life in yourselves_” must be interpreted by
    _verse 63_—“_It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh
    profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are
    spirit, and are life._” _1 Cor. 10:16_—“_The cup of blessing which
    we bless, is it not a communion of_ [marg.: ‘_participation in_’]
    _the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a
    communion of_ [marg. ‘_participation in_’] _the body of
    Christ?_”—see Expositor’s Greek Testament, _in loco_; _Mark
    8:33_—“_But he turning about, and seeing his disciples, rebuked
    Peter, and saith, Get thee behind me, Satan_”; _1 Cor.
    12:12_—“_For the body is one, and hath many members, and all the
    members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is
    Christ._” _cf._ _Gen. 41:26_—“_The seven good kine are seven
    years; and the seven good ears are seven years: the dream is
    one;_” _1 Cor. 10:4_—“_they drank of a spiritual rock that
    followed them: and the rock was Christ._”

    Queen Elizabeth: “Christ was the Word that spake it: He took the
    bread and brake it; And what that Word did make it, That I believe
    and take it.” Yes, we say; but what does the Lord make it? Not his
    body, but only a symbol of his body. Sir Thomas More went back to
    the doctrine of transubstantiation which the wisdom of his age was
    almost unanimous in rejecting. In his Utopia, written to earlier
    years, he had made deism the ideal religion. Extreme Romanism was
    his reaction from this former extreme. Bread and wine are mere
    remembrancers, as were the lamb and bitter herbs at the Passover.
    The partaker is spiritually affected by the bread and wine, only
    as was the pious Israelite in receiving the paschal symbols; see
    Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, 25, 42.

    E. G. Robinson: “The greatest power in Romanism is its power of
    visible representation. Ritualism is only elaborate symbolism. It
    is interesting to remember that this prostration of the priest
    before the consecrated wafer is no part of even original Roman
    Catholicism.” Stanley, Life and Letters, 2:213—“The pope, when he
    celebrates the communion, always stands in exactly the opposite
    direction [to that of modern ritualists], not with his back but
    with his face to the people, no doubt following the primitive
    usage.” So in Raphael’s picture of the Miracle of Bolsina, the
    priest is at the north end of the table, in the very attitude of a
    Protestant clergyman. Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 2:211—“The
    unity of the bread, of which each enjoys a part, represents the
    unity of the body of Christ, which consists in the community of
    believers. If we are to speak of a presence of the body of Christ
    in the Lord’s Supper, that can only be thought of, in the sense of
    Paul, as pertaining to the mystical body, _i. e._, the Christian
    Community. Augustine and Zwingle, who have expressed most clearly
    this meaning of the Supper, have therefore caught quite correctly
    the sense of the Apostle.”

    Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, 40‐53—“The phrase
    ‘consecration of the elements’ is unwarranted. The leaven and the
    mustard seed were in no way consecrated when Jesus pronounced them
    symbols of divine things. The bread and wine are not arbitrarily
    appointed remembrancers, they are remembrancers in their very
    nature. There is no change in them. So every other loaf is a
    symbol, as well as that used in the Supper. When St. Patrick held
    up the shamrock as the symbol of the Trinity, he meant that every
    such sprig was the same. Only the bread of the daily meal is
    Christ’s body. Only the washing of dirty feet is the fulfilment of
    Christ’s command. The loaf not eaten to satisfy hunger is not
    Christ’s symbolic body at all.” Here we must part company with Dr.
    Fox. We grant the natural fitness of the elements for which he
    contends. But we hold also to a divine appointment of the bread
    and wine for a special and sacred use, even as the “_bow in the
    cloud_” (_Gen. 9:13_), because it was a natural emblem, was
    consecrated to a special religious use.


(_b_) It contradicts the evidence of the senses, as well as of all
scientific tests that can be applied. If we cannot trust our senses as to
the unchanged material qualities of bread and wine, we cannot trust them
when they report to us the words of Christ.


    Gibbon was rejoiced at the discovery that, while the real presence
    is attested by only a single sense—our sight [as employed in
    reading the words of Christ]—the real presence is disproved by
    three of our senses, sight, touch, and taste. It is not well to
    purchase faith in this dogma at the price of absolute scepticism.
    Stanley, on Baptism, in his Christian Institutions, tells us that,
    in the third and fourth centuries, the belief that the water of
    baptism was changed into the blood of Christ was nearly as firmly
    and widely fixed as the belief that the bread and wine of the
    communion were changed into his flesh and blood. Döllinger: “When
    I am told that I must swear to the truth of these doctrines [of
    papal infallibility and apostolic succession], my feeling is just
    as if I were asked to swear that two and two make five, and not
    four.” Teacher: “Why did Henry VIII quarrel with the pope?”
    Scholar: “Because the pope had commanded him to put away his wife
    on pain of transubstantiation.” The transubstantiation of Henry
    VIII is quite as rational as the transubstantiation of the bread
    and wine in the Eucharist.


(_c_) It involves the denial of the completeness of Christ’s past
sacrifice, and the assumption that a human priest can repeat or add to the
atonement made by Christ once for all (Heb. 9:28—ἅπαξ προσενεχθείς). The
Lord’s Supper is never called a sacrifice, nor are altars, priests, or
consecrations ever spoken of, in the New Testament. The priests of the old
dispensation are expressly contrasted with the ministers of the new. The
former “ministered about sacred things,” _i. e._, performed sacred rites
and waited at the altar; but the latter “preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:13,
14).


    _Heb. 9:28_—“_so Christ also, having been once offered_”—here ἅπαξ
    means “once for all,” as in _Jude 3_—“_the faith which was once
    for all delivered unto the saints_”; _1 Cor. 9:13, 14_—“_Know ye
    not that they that minister about sacred things eat of the things
    of the temple, and they that wait upon the altar have their
    portion with the altar? Even so did the Lord ordain that they that
    proclaim the gospel should live of the gospel._” Romanism
    introduces a mediator between the soul and Christ, namely, bread
    and wine,—and the priest besides.

    Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:680‐687 (Syst. Doct., 4: 146‐163)—“Christ
    is thought of as at a distance, and as represented only by the
    priest who offers anew his sacrifice. But Protestant doctrine
    holds to a perfect Christ, applying the benefits of the work which
    he long ago and once for all completed upon the cross.”
    Chillingworth: “Romanists hold that the validity of every
    sacrament but baptism depends upon its administration by a priest;
    and without priestly absolution there is no assurance of
    forgiveness. But the intention of the priest is essential in
    pronouncing absolution, and the intention of the bishop is
    essential in consecrating the priest. How can any human being know
    that these conditions are fulfilled?” In the New Testament, on the
    other hand, Christ appears as the only priest, and each human soul
    has direct access to him.

    Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, 22—“The adherence of the
    first Christians to the Mosaic law makes it plain that they did
    not hold the doctrine of the modern Church of Rome that the bread
    of the Supper is a sacrifice, the table an altar, and the minister
    a priest. For the old altar, the old sacrifice, and the old
    priesthood still remained, and were still in their view appointed
    media of atonement with God. Of course they could not have
    believed in two altars, two priesthoods and two contemporaneous
    sets of sacrifices.” Christ is the only priest. A. A. Hodge,
    Popular Lectures, 257—“The three central dangerous errors of
    Romanism and Ritualism are: 1. the perpetuity of the apostolate;
    2. the priestly character and offices of Christian ministers; 3.
    the sacramental principle, or the depending upon sacraments, as
    the essential, initial, and ordinary channels of grace.”
    “Hierarchy,” says another, “is an infraction of the divine order;
    it imposes the weight of an outworn symbolism on the true
    vitalities of the gospel; it is a remnant rent from the shroud of
    the dead past, to enwrap the limbs of the living present.”


(_d_) It destroys Christianity by externalizing it. Romanists make all
other service a mere appendage to the communion. Physical and magical
salvation is not Christianity, but is essential paganism.


    Council of Trent, Session VII, On Sacraments in General, Canon IV:
    “If any one saith that the sacraments of the New Testament are not
    necessary to salvation, but are superfluous, and that without
    them, and without the desire thereof, men attain of God, through
    faith alone, the grace of justification; though all [the
    sacraments] are not indeed necessary for every individual: let him
    be anathema.” On Baptism, Canon IV: “If any one saith that the
    baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father,
    Son and Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the church
    doth, is not true baptism, let him be anathema.” Baptism, in the
    Romanist system, is necessary to salvation: and baptism, even
    though administered by heretics, is an admission to the church.
    All baptized persons who, through no fault of their own, but from
    lack of knowledge or opportunity, are not connected outwardly with
    the true church, though they are apparently attached to some sect,
    yet in reality belong _to the soul_ of the true church. Many
    belong merely _to the body_ of the Catholic church, and are
    counted as its members, but do not belong _to its soul_. So says
    Archbishop Lynch, of Toronto; and Pius IX extended the doctrine of
    invincible ignorance, so as to cover the case of every dissentient
    from the church whose life shows faith working by love.

    Adoration of the Host (Latin _hostia_, victim) is a regular part
    of the service of the Mass. If the Romanist view were correct that
    the bread and wine were actually changed into the body and blood
    of Christ, we could not call this worship idolatry. Christ’s body
    in the sepulchre could not have been a proper object of worship,
    but it was so after his resurrection, when it became animated with
    a new and divine life. The Romanist error is that of holding that
    the priest has power to transform the elements; the worship of
    them follows as a natural consequence, and is none the less
    idolatrous for being based upon the false assumption that the
    bread and wine are really Christ’s body and blood.

    The Roman Catholic system involves many absurdities, but the
    central absurdity is that of making religion a matter of machinery
    and outward manipulation. Dr. R. S. MacArthur calls sacramentalism
    “the pipe‐line conception of grace.” There is no patent Romanist
    plumbing. Dean Stanley said that John Henry Newman “made
    immortality the consequence of frequent participation of the Holy
    Communion.” Even Faber made game of the notion, and declared that
    it “degraded celebrations to be so many breadfruit trees.” It is
    this transformation of the Lord’s Supper into the Mass that turns
    the church into “the Church of the Intonement.” “Cardinal
    Gibbons,” it was once said, “makes his own God—the wafer.” His
    error is at the root of the super‐sanctity and celibacy of the
    Romanist clergy, and President Garrett forgot this when he made
    out the pass on his railway for “Cardinal Gibbons and wife.” Dr.
    C. H. Parkhurst: “There is no more place for an altar in a
    Christian church than there is for a golden calf.” On the word
    “priest” in the N. T., see Gardiner, in O. T. Student, Nov.
    1889:285‐291; also Bowen, in Theol. Monthly, Nov. 1889:316‐329.
    For the Romanist view, see Council of Trent, session XIII, canon
    III: _per contra_, see Calvin, Institutes, 2:585‐602; C. Hebert,
    The Lord’s Supper: History of Uninspired Teaching.


B. The Lutheran and High Church view.


The Lutheran and High Church view,—that the communicant, in partaking of
the consecrated elements, eats the veritable body and drinks the veritable
blood of Christ in and with the bread and wine, although the elements
themselves do not cease to be material. To this doctrine of
“consubstantiation” we object:

(_a_) That the view is not required by Scripture.—All the passages cited
in its support may be better interpreted as referring to a partaking of
the elements as symbols. If Christ’s body be ubiquitous, as this theory
holds, we partake of it at every meal, as really as at the Lord’s Supper.

(_b_) That the view is inseparable from the general sacramental system of
which it forms a part.—In imposing physical and material conditions of
receiving Christ, it contradicts the doctrine of justification only by
faith; changes the ordinance from a sign, into a means, of salvation;
involves the necessity of a sacerdotal order for the sake of properly
consecrating the elements; and logically tends to the Romanist conclusions
of ritualism and idolatry.

(_c_) That it holds each communicant to be a partaker of Christ’s
veritable body and blood, whether he be a believer or not,—the result, in
the absence of faith, being condemnation instead of salvation. Thus the
whole character of the ordinance is changed from a festival occasion to
one of mystery and fear, and the whole gospel method of salvation is
obscured.


    Encyc. Britannica, art.: Luther, 15:81—“Before the peasants’ war,
    Luther regarded the sacrament as a secondary matter, compared with
    the right view of faith. In alarm at this war and at Carlstadt’s
    mysticism, he determined to abide by the tradition of the church,
    and to alter as little as possible. He could not accept
    transubstantiation, and he sought a _via media_. Occam gave it to
    him. According to Occam, matter can be present in two ways, first,
    when it occupies a distinct place by itself, excluding every other
    body, as two stones mutually exclude each other; and, secondly,
    when it occupies the same space as another body at the same time.
    Everything which is omnipresent must occupy the same space as
    other things, else it could not be ubiquitous. Hence
    consubstantiation involved no miracle. Christ’s body was in the
    bread and wine naturally, and was not brought into the elements by
    the priest. It brought a blessing, not because of Christ’s
    presence, but because of God’s promise that this particular
    presence of the body of Christ should bring blessings to the
    faithful partaker.” Broadus, Am. Com. on Mat., 529—“Luther does
    not say how Christ is in the bread and wine, but his followers
    have compared his presence to that of heat or magnetism in iron.
    But how then could this presence be in the bread and wine
    separately?”

    For the view here combated, see Gerhard, x: 352—“The bread, apart
    from the sacrament instituted by Christ, is not the body of
    Christ, and therefore it is ἀρτολατρία (bread‐worship) to adore
    the bread in these solemn processions” (of the Roman Catholic
    church). 397—“Faith does not belong to the substance of the
    Eucharist; hence it is not the faith of him who partakes that
    makes the bread a communication of the body of Christ; nor on
    account of unbelief in him who partakes does the bread cease to be
    a communication of the body of Christ.” See also Sadler, Church
    Doctrine, 124‐199; Pusey, Tract No. 90, of the Tractarian Series;
    Wilberforce, New Birth; Nevins, Mystical Presence.

    _Per contra_, see Calvin, Institutes, 2:525‐584; G. P. Fisher, in
    Independent, May 1, 1884—“Calvin differed from Luther, in holding
    that Christ is received only by the believer. He differed from
    Zwingle, in holding that Christ is truly, though spiritually,
    received.” See also E. G. Robinson, in Baptist Quarterly,
    1869:85‐109; Rogers, Priests and Sacraments. Consubstantiation
    accounts for the doctrine of apostolic succession and for the
    universal ritualism of the Lutheran Church. Bowing at the name of
    Jesus, however, is not, as has been sometimes maintained, a relic
    of the papal worship of the Real Presence, but is rather a
    reminiscence of the fourth century, when controversies about the
    person of Christ rendered orthodox Christians peculiarly anxious
    to recognize Christ’s deity.

    “There is no ‘corner’ in divine grace” (C. H. Parkhurst). “All
    notions of a needed ‘priesthood,’ to bring us into connection with
    Christ, must yield to the truth that Christ is ever with us” (E.
    G. Robinson). “The priest was the conservative, the prophet the
    progressive. Hence the conflict between them. Episcopalians like
    the idea of a priesthood, but do not know what to do with that of
    prophet.” Dr. A. J. Gordon: “Ritualism, like eczema in the human
    body, is generally a symptom of a low state of the blood. As a
    rule, when the church becomes secularized, it becomes ritualized,
    while great revivals, pouring through the church, have almost
    always burst the liturgical bands and have restored it to the
    freedom of the Spirit.”

    Puseyism, as defined by Pusey himself, means: “1. high thoughts of
    the two sacraments; 2. high estimate of Episcopacy as God’s
    ordinance; 3. high estimate of the visible church as the body
    wherein we are made and continue to be members of Christ; 4.
    regard for ordinances as directing our devotions and disciplining
    us, such as daily public prayers, fasts and feasts; 5. regard for
    the visible part of devotion, such as the decoration of the house
    of God, which acts insensibly on the mind; 6. reverence for and
    deference to the ancient church, instead of the reformers, as the
    ultimate expounder of the meaning of our church.” Pusey declared
    that he and Maurice worshiped different Gods.


5. Prerequisites to Participation in the Lord’s Supper.


A. There are prerequisites.


This we argue from the fact:

(_a_) That Christ enjoined the celebration of the Supper, not upon the
world at large, but only upon his disciples; (_b_) that the apostolic
injunctions to Christians, to separate themselves from certain of their
number, imply a limitation of the Lord’s Supper to a narrower body, even
among professed believers; (_c_) that the analogy of Baptism, as belonging
only to a specified class of persons, leads us to believe that the same is
true of the Lord’s Supper.


    The analogy of Baptism to the Lord’s Supper suggests a general
    survey of the connections between the two ordinances: 1. Both
    ordinances symbolize primarily the death of Christ; then
    secondarily our spiritual death to sin because we are one with
    him; it being absurd, where there is no such union, to make our
    Baptism the symbol of his death. 2. We are merged in Christ first
    in Baptism; then in the Supper Christ is more and more taken into
    us; Baptism = we in Christ, the Supper = Christ in us. 3. As
    regeneration is instantaneous and sanctification continues in
    time, so Baptism should be for once, the Lord’s Supper often; the
    first single, the second frequent. 4. If one ordinance, the
    Supper, requires discernment of the Lord’s body, so does the
    other, the ordinance of Baptism; the subject of Baptism should
    know the meaning of his act. 5. The order of the ordinances
    teaches Christian doctrine, as the ordinances do; to partake of
    the Lord’s Supper before being baptized is to say in symbol that
    one can be sanctified without being regenerated. 6. Both
    ordinances should be public, as both “show forth” the Lord’s death
    and are teaching ordinances; no celebration of either one is to be
    permitted in private. 7. In both the administrator does not act at
    his own option, but is the organ of the church; Philip acts as
    organ of the church at Jerusalem when he baptizes the eunuch. 8.
    The ordinances stand by themselves, and are not to be made
    appendages of other meetings or celebrations; they belong, not to
    associations or conventions, but to the local church. 9. The
    Lord’s Supper needs scrutiny of the communicant’s qualifications
    as much as Baptism; and only the local church is the proper judge
    of these qualifications. 10. We may deny the Lord’s Supper to one
    whom we know to be a Christian, when he walks disorderly or
    disseminates false doctrine, just as we may deny Baptism to such a
    person. 11. Fencing the tables, or warning the unqualified not to
    partake of the Supper, may, like instruction with regard to
    Baptism, best take place before the actual administration of the
    ordinance; and the pastor is not a special policeman or detective
    to ferret out offences. See Expositor’s Greek Testament on _1 Cor.
    10:1‐6_.


B. The prerequisites are those only which are expressly or implicitly laid
down by Christ and his apostles.


(_a_) The church, as possessing executive but not legislative power, is
charged with the duty, not of framing rules for the administering and
guarding of the ordinance, but of discovering and applying the rules given
it in the New Testament. No church has a right to establish any terms of
communion; it is responsible only for making known the terms established
by Christ and his apostles. (_b_) These terms, however, are to be
ascertained not only from the injunctions, but also from the precedents,
of the New Testament. Since the apostles were inspired, New Testament
precedent is the “common law” of the church.


    English law consists mainly of precedent, that is, past decisions
    of the courts. Immemorial customs may be as binding as are the
    formal enactments of a legislature. It is New Testament precedent
    that makes obligatory the observance of the first day, instead of
    the seventh day, of the week. The common law of the church
    consists, however, not of any and all customs, but only of the
    customs of the apostolic church interpreted in the light of its
    principles, or the customs universally binding because sanctioned
    by inspired apostles. Has New Testament precedent the authority of
    a divine command? Only so far, we reply, as it is an adequate,
    complete and final expression of the divine life in Christ. This
    we claim for the ordinances of Baptism and of the Lord’s Supper,
    and for the order of these ordinances. See Proceedings of the
    Baptist Congress, 1896:23.

    The Mennonites, thinking to reproduce even the incidental phases
    of N. T. action, have adopted: 1. the washing of feet; 2. the
    marriage only of members of the same faith; 3. non‐resistance to
    violence; 4. the use of the ban, and the shunning of expelled
    persons; 5. refusal to take oaths; 6. the kiss of peace; 7. formal
    examination of the spiritual condition of each communicant before
    his participation in the Lord’s Supper; 8. the choice of officials
    by lot. And they naturally break up into twelve sects, dividing
    upon such points as holding all things in common; plainness of
    dress, one sect repudiating buttons and using only hooks upon
    their clothing, whence their nickname of Hookers; the holding of
    services in private houses only; the asserted possession of the
    gift of prophecy (A. S. Carman).


C. On examining the New Testament, we find that the prerequisites to
participation in the Lord’s Supper are four.


First,—Regeneration.


The Lord’s Supper is the outward expression of a life in the believer,
nourished and sustained by the life of Christ. It cannot therefore be
partaken of by one who is “dead through ... trespasses and sins.” We give
no food to a corpse. The Lord’s Supper was never offered by the apostles
to unbelievers. On the contrary, the injunction that each communicant
“examine himself” implies that faith which will enable the communicant to
“discern the Lord’s body” is a prerequisite to participation.


    _1 Cor. 11:27‐29_—“_Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or
    drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty
    of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove
    himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.
    For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto
    himself, if he discern not the Lord’s body._” Schaff, in his
    Church History, 2:517, tells us that in the Greek Church, in the
    seventh and eighth centuries, the bread was dipped in the wine,
    and both elements were delivered in a spoon. See Edwards, on
    Qualifications for Full Communion, in Works, 1:81.


Secondly,—Baptism.


In proof that baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper, we urge the
following considerations:

(_a_) The ordinance of baptism was instituted and administered long before
the Supper.


    _Mat. 21:25_—“_The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or
    from men?_”—Christ here intimates that John’s baptism had been
    instituted by God before his own.


(_b_) The apostles who first celebrated it had, in all probability, been
baptized.


    _Acts 1:21, 22_—“_Of the men therefore that have companied with us
    all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us,
    beginning from the baptism of John ... of these must one become a
    witness with us of his resurrection_”; _19:4_—“_John baptized with
    the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should
    believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus._”

    Several of the apostles were certainly disciples of John. If
    Christ was baptized, much more his disciples. Jesus recognized
    John’s baptism as obligatory, and it is not probable that he would
    take his apostles from among those who had not submitted to it.
    John the Baptist himself, the first administrator of baptism, must
    have been himself unbaptized. But the twelve could fitly
    administer it, because they had themselves received it at John’s
    hands. See Arnold, Terms of Communion, 17.


(_c_) The command of Christ fixes the place of baptism as first in order
after discipleship.


    _Mat. 28:19, 20_—“_Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the
    nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son
    and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things
    whatsoever I commanded you_”—here the first duty is to make
    disciples, the second to baptize, the third to instruct in right
    Christian living. Is it said that there is no formal command to
    admit only baptized persons to the Lord’s Supper? We reply that
    there is no formal command to admit only regenerate persons to
    baptism. In both cases, the practice of the apostles and the
    general connections of Christian doctrine are sufficient to
    determine our duty.


(_d_) All the recorded cases show this to have been the order observed by
the first Christians and sanctioned by the apostles.


    _Acts 2:41, 46_—“_They then that received his word were
    baptized.... And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord
    in the temple, and breaking bread at home_ [rather, ‘_in various
    worship‐rooms_’] _they took their food with gladness and
    singleness of heart_”; _8:12_—“_But when they believed Philip ...
    they were baptized_”; _10:47, 48_—“_Can any man forbid the water,
    that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy
    Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the
    name of Jesus Christ_”; _22:16_—“_And now why tarriest thou?
    arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his
    name._”


(_e_) The symbolism of the ordinances requires that baptism should precede
the Lord’s Supper. The order of the facts signified must be expressed in
the order of the ordinances which signify them; else the world is taught
that sanctification may take place without regeneration. Birth must come
before sustenance—“_nascimur_, _pascimur_.” To enjoy ceremonial
privileges, there must be ceremonial qualifications. As none but the
circumcised could eat the passover, so before eating with the Christian
family must come adoption into the Christian family.


    As one must be “_born of the Spirit_” before he can experience the
    sustaining influence of Christ, so he must be “_born of water_”
    before he can properly be nourished by the Lord’s Supper. Neither
    the unborn nor the dead can eat bread or drink wine. Only when
    Christ had raised the daughter of the Jewish ruler to life, did he
    say: “_Give her to eat_.” The ordinance which symbolizes
    regeneration, or the impartation of new life, must precede the
    ordinance which symbolizes the strengthening and perfecting of the
    life already begun. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, dating
    back to the second half of the second century, distinctly declares
    (9:5, 10)—“Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist except those
    baptized into the name of the Lord; for as regards this also the
    Lord has said: ‘Give not that which is holy unto the dogs’.... The
    Eucharist shall be given only to the baptized.”


(_f_) The standards of all evangelical denominations, with unimportant
exceptions, confirm the view that this is the natural interpretation of
the Scripture requirements respecting the order of the ordinances.


    “The only protest of note has been made by a portion of the
    English Baptists.” To these should be added the comparatively
    small body of the Free Will Baptists in America. Pedobaptist
    churches in general refuse full membership, office‐holding, and
    the ministry, to unbaptized persons. The Presbyterian church does
    not admit to the communion members of the Society of Friends. Not
    one of the great evangelical denominations accepts Robert Hall’s
    maxim that the only terms of communion are terms of salvation. If
    individual ministers announce this principle and conform their
    practice to it, it is only because they transgress the standards
    of the churches to which they belong.

    See Tyerman’s Oxford Methodists, preface, page vi—“Even in
    Georgia, Wesley excluded dissenters from the Holy Communion, on
    the ground that they had not been properly baptized; and he would
    himself baptize only by immersion, unless the child or person was
    in a weak state of health.” Baptist Noel gave it as his reason for
    submitting to baptism, that to approach the Lord’s Supper
    conscious of not being baptized would be to act contrary to all
    the precedents of Scripture. See Curtis, Progress of Baptist
    Principles, 304.

    The dismission of Jonathan Edwards from his church at Northampton
    was due to his opposing the Halfway Covenant, which admitted
    unregenerate persons to the Lord’s Supper as a step on the road to
    spiritual life. He objected to the doctrine that the Lord’s Supper
    was “a converting ordinance.” But these very unregenerated persons
    had been baptized, and he himself had baptized many of them. He
    should have objected to infant baptism, as well as to the Lord’s
    Supper, in the case of the unregenerate.


(_g_) The practical results of the opposite view are convincing proof that
the order here insisted on is the order of nature as well as of Scripture.
The admission of unbaptized persons to the communion tends always to, and
has frequently resulted in, the disuse of baptism itself, the obscuring of
the truth which it symbolizes, the transformation of Scripturally
constituted churches into bodies organized after methods of human
invention, and the complete destruction of both church and ordinances as
Christ originally constituted them.


    Arnold, Terms of Communion, 76—The steps of departure from
    Scriptural precedent have not unfrequently been the following: (1)
    administration of baptism on a weekday evening, to avoid giving
    offence; (2) reception, without baptism, of persons renouncing
    belief in the baptism of their infancy; (3) giving up of the
    Lord’s Supper as non‐essential,—to be observed or not observed by
    each individual, according as he finds it useful; (4) choice of a
    pastor who will not advocate Baptist views; (5) adoption of
    Congregational articles of faith; (6) discipline and exclusion of
    members for propagating Baptist doctrine. John Bunyan’s church,
    once either an open communion church or a mixed church both of
    baptized and unbaptized believers, is now a regular Congregational
    body. Armitage, History of the Baptists, 482 _sq._, claims that it
    was originally a Baptist church. Vedder, however, in Bap. Quar.
    Rev., 1886:289, says that “The church at Bedford is proved by
    indisputable documentary evidence never to have been a Baptist
    church in any strict sense.” The results of the principle of open
    communion are certainly seen in the Regent’s Park church in
    London, where some of the deacons have never been baptized. The
    doctrine that baptism is not essential to church membership is
    simply the logical result of the previous practice of admitting
    unbaptized persons to the communion table. If they are admitted to
    the Lord’s Supper, then there is no bar to their admission to the
    church. See Proceedings of the Baptist Congress, Boston, November,
    1902; Curtis, Progress of Baptist Principles, 296‐298.


Thirdly,—Church membership.


(_a_) The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, observed by churches of
Christ as such. For this reason, membership in the church naturally
precedes communion. Since communion is a family rite, the participant
should first be a member of the family.


    _Acts 2:46 47_—“_breaking bread at home_ [rather, ‘_in various
    worship‐rooms_’]” (see Com. of Meyer); _20:7_—“_upon the first day
    of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread_”; _1
    Cor. 11:18, 22_—“_when ye come together in the church ... have ye
    not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of
    God, and put them to shame that have not?_”


(_b_) The Lord’s Supper is a symbol of church fellowship. Excommunication
implies nothing, if it does not imply exclusion from the communion. If the
Supper is simply communion of the individual with Christ, then the church
has no right to exclude any from it.


    _1 Cor. 10:17_—“_we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we
    all partake of the one bread._” Though the Lord’s Supper primarily
    symbolizes fellowship with Christ, it symbolizes secondarily
    fellowship with the church of Christ. Not all believers in Christ
    were present at the first celebration of the Supper, but only
    those organized into a body—the apostles. I can invite proper
    persons to my tea‐table, but that does not give them the right to
    come uninvited. Each church, therefore, should invite visiting
    members of sister churches to partake with it. The Lord’s Supper
    is an ordinance by itself, and should not be celebrated at
    conventions and associations, simply to lend dignity to something
    else.

    The Panpresbyterian Council at Philadelphia, in 1880, refused to
    observe the Lord’s Supper together, upon the ground that the
    Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed only by those who are
    amenable to the discipline of the body, and therefore not to be
    observed by separate church organizations acting together.
    Substantially upon this ground, the Old School General Assembly
    long before, being invited to unite at the Lord’s table with the
    New School body with whom they had dissolved ecclesiastical
    relations, declined to do so. See Curtis, Progress of Baptist
    Principles, 304; Arnold, Terms of Communion, 36.


Fourthly,—An orderly walk.


Disorderly walking designates a course of life in a church member which is
contrary to the precepts of the gospel. It is a bar to participation in
the Lord’s Supper, the sign of church fellowship. With Arnold, we may
class disorderly walking under four heads:—

(_a_) Immoral conduct.


    _1 Cor. 5:1‐13_—Paul commands the Corinthian church to exclude the
    incestuous person: “_I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no
    company with fornicators;... but now I write unto you not to keep
    company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or
    covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or __ an
    extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat.... Put away the
    wicked man from among yourselves._”—Here it is evident that the
    most serious forms of disorderly walking require exclusion not
    only from church fellowship but from Christian fellowship as well.


(_b_) Disobedience to the commands of Christ.


    _1 Cor. 14:37_—“_If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or
    spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto
    you, that they are the commandments of the Lord_”; _2 Thess. 3:6,
    11, 15_—“_Now we command you, brethren,... that ye withdraw
    yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not
    after the tradition which they received of us... For we hear of
    some that walk among you disorderly, that work not at all, but are
    busybodies.... And if any man obeyeth not our word by this
    epistle, note that man, that ye have no company with him, to the
    end that he may be ashamed. And yet count him not as an enemy, but
    admonish him as a brother._”—Here is exclusion from church
    fellowship, and from the Lord’s Supper its sign, while yet the
    offender is not excluded from Christian fellowship, but is still
    counted “_a brother_.” _Versus_ G. B. Stevens, in N. Englander,
    1887:40‐47.

    In these passages Paul intimates that “not to walk after the
    tradition received from him, not to obey the word contained in his
    epistles, is the same as disobedience to the commands of Christ,
    and as such involves the forfeiture of church fellowship and its
    privileged tokens” (Arnold, Prerequisites to Communion, 68). Since
    Baptism is a command of Christ, it follows that we cannot properly
    commune with the unbaptized. To admit such to the Lord’s Supper is
    to give the symbol of church fellowship to those who, in spite of
    the fact that they are Christian brethren, are, though perhaps
    unconsciously, violating the fundamental law of the church. To
    withhold protest against plain disobedience to Christ’s commands
    is to that extent to countenance such disobedience. The same
    disobedience which in the church member we should denominate
    disorderly walking must _a fortiori_ destroy all right to the
    Lord’s Supper on the part of those who are not members of the
    church.


(_c_) Heresy, or the holding and teaching of false doctrine.


    _Titus 3:10_—“_A man that is heretical_ [Am. Revisers: ‘_a
    factious man_’] _after a first and second admonition refuse_”; see
    Ellicott, Com., _in loco_: “αἱρετικὸς ἄνθρωπος = one who gives
    rise to divisions by erroneous teaching, not necessarily of a
    fundamentally heterodox nature, but of the kind just described in
    _verse 9_.” _Cf._ _Acts 20:30_—“_from among your own selves shall
    men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples
    after them_”; _1 John 4:2, 3_—“_Hereby know ye the Spirit of God:
    every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the
    flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not
    of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist._” B. B.
    Bosworth: “Heresy, in the N. T., does not necessarily mean the
    holding of erroneous opinions,—it may also mean the holding of
    correct opinions in an unbrotherly or divisive spirit.” We grant
    that the word “_heretical_” may also mean “_factious_”; but we
    claim that false doctrine is the chief source of division, and is
    therefore in itself a disqualification for participation in the
    Lord’s Supper. Factiousness is an additional bar, and we treat it
    under the next head of Schism.

    The Panpresbyterian Council, mentioned above, refused to admit to
    their body the Cumberland Presbyterians, because, though the
    latter adhere to the Presbyterian form of church government, they
    are Arminian in their views of the doctrines of grace. As we have
    seen, on pages 940‐942, that Baptism is a confession of
    evangelical faith, so here we see that the Lord’s Supper also is a
    confession of evangelical faith, and that no one can properly
    participate in it who denies the doctrines of sin, of the deity,
    incarnation and atonement of Christ, and of justification by
    faith, which the Lord’s Supper symbolizes. Such denial should
    exclude from all Christian fellowship as well.

    There is heresy which involves exclusion only from church
    fellowship. Since pedobaptists hold and propagate false doctrine
    with regard to the church and its ordinances—doctrines which
    endanger the spirituality of the church, the sufficiency of the
    Scriptures, and the lordship of Christ—we cannot properly admit
    them to the Lord’s Supper. To admit them or to partake with them,
    would be to treat falsehood as if it were truth. Arnold,
    Prerequisites to Communion, 72—“Pedobaptists are guilty of
    teaching that the baptized are not members of the church, or that
    membership in the church is not voluntary; that there are two
    sorts of baptism, one of which is a profession of faith of the
    person baptized, and the other is profession of faith of another
    person; that regeneration is given in and by baptism, or that the
    church is composed in great part of persons who do not give, and
    were never supposed to give, any evidence of regeneration; that
    the church has a right to change essentially one of Christ’s
    institutions, or that it is unessential whether it be observed as
    he ordained it or in some other manner; that baptism may be
    rightfully administered in a way which makes much of the language
    in which it is described in the Scriptures wholly unsuitable and
    inapplicable, and which does not at all represent the facts and
    doctrines which baptism is declared in the Scriptures to
    represent; that the Scriptures are not in all religious matters
    the sufficient and only binding rule of faith and practice.”


(_d_) Schism, or the promotion of division and dissension in the
church.—This also requires exclusion from church fellowship, and from the
Lord’s Supper which is its appointed sign.


    _Rom. 16:17_—“_Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are
    causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling contrary to the
    doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them._” Since
    pedobaptists, by their teaching and practice, draw many away from
    Scripturally constituted churches,—thus dividing true believers
    from each other and weakening the bodies organized after the model
    of the New Testament,—it is imperative upon us to separate
    ourselves from them, so far as regards that communion at the
    Lord’s table which is the sign of church fellowship. Mr. Spurgeon
    admits pedobaptists to commune with his church “for two or three
    months.” Then they are kindly asked whether they are pleased with
    the church, its preaching, doctrine, form of government, _etc._ If
    they say they are pleased, they are asked if they are not disposed
    to be baptized and become members? If so inclined, all is well;
    but if not, they are kindly told that it is not desirable for them
    to commune longer. Thus baptism is held to precede church
    membership and permanent communion, although temporary communion
    is permitted without it.

    Arnold, Prerequisites to Communion, 80—“It may perhaps be objected
    that the passages cited under the four preceding subdivisions
    refer to church fellowship in a general way, without any specific
    reference to the Lord’s Supper. In reply to this objection, I
    would answer, in the first place, that having endeavored
    previously to establish the position that the Lord’s Supper is an
    ordinance to be celebrated in the church, and expressive of church
    fellowship, I felt at liberty to use the passages that enjoin the
    withdrawal of that fellowship as constructively enjoining
    exclusion from the Communion, which is its chief token. I answer,
    secondly, that the principle here assumed seems to me to pervade
    the Scriptural teachings so thoroughly that it is next to
    impossible to lay down _any_ Scriptural terms of communion at the
    Lord’s table, except upon the admission that the ordinance is
    inseparably connected with church fellowship. To treat the subject
    otherwise, would be, as it appears to me, a violent putting
    asunder of what the Lord has joined together. The objection
    suggests an additional argument in favor of our position that the
    Lord’s Supper is a _church_ ordinance.” “Who Christ’s body doth
    divide, Wounds afresh the Crucified; Who Christ’s people doth
    perplex, Weakens faith and comfort wrecks; Who Christ’s order doth
    not see, Works in vain for unity; Who Christ’s word doth take for
    guide, With the Bridegroom loves the Bride.”


D. The local church is the judge whether these prerequisites are
fulfilled.


The local church is the judge whether these prerequisites are fulfilled in
the case of persons desiring to partake of the Lord’s Supper.—This is
evident from the following considerations:

(_a_) The command to observe the ordinance was given, not to individuals,
but to a company.

(_b_) Obedience to this command is not an individual act, but is the joint
act of many.

(_c_) The regular observance of the Lord’s Supper cannot be secured, nor
the qualifications of persons desiring to participate in it be
scrutinized, unless some distinct organized body is charged with this
responsibility.

(_d_) The only organized body known to the New Testament is the local
church, and this is the only body, of any sort, competent to have charge
of the ordinances. The invisible church has no officers.

(_e_) The New Testament accounts indicate that the Lord’s Supper was
observed only at regular appointed meetings of local churches, and was
observed by these churches as regularly organized bodies.

(_f_) Since the duty of examining the qualifications of candidates for
baptism and for membership is vested in the local church and is essential
to its distinct existence, the analogy of the ordinances would lead us to
believe that the scrutiny of qualifications for participation in the
Lord’s Supper rests with the same body.

(_g_) This care that only proper persons are admitted to the ordinances
should be shown, not by open or forcible debarring of the unworthy at the
time of the celebration, but by previous public instruction of the
congregation, and, if needful in the case of persistent offenders, by
subsequent private and friendly admonition.


    “What is everybody’s business is nobody’s business.” If there be
    any power of effective scrutiny, it must be lodged in the local
    church. The minister is not to administer the ordinance of the
    Lord’s Supper at his own option, any more than the ordinance of
    Baptism. He is simply the organ of the church. He is to follow the
    rules of the church as to invitations and as to the mode of
    celebrating the ordinance, of course instructing the church as to
    the order of the New Testament. In the case of sick members who
    desire to communicate, brethren may be deputed to hold a special
    meeting of the church at the private house or sick room, and then
    only may the pastor officiate. If an invitation to the Communion
    is given, it may well be in the following form: “Members in good
    standing of other churches of like faith and practice are
    cordially invited to partake with us.” But since the comity of
    Baptist churches is universally acknowledged, and since Baptist
    views with regard to the ordinances are so generally understood,
    it should be taken for granted that all proper persons will be
    welcome even if no invitation of any sort is given.

    Mr. Spurgeon, as we have seen, permitted unbaptized persons
    temporarily to partake of the Lord’s Supper unchallenged, but if
    there appeared a disposition to make participation habitual, one
    of the deacons in a private interview explained Baptist doctrine
    and urged the duty of baptism. If this advice was not taken,
    participation in the Lord’s Supper naturally ceased. Dr. P. S.
    Henson proposes a middle path between open and close communion, as
    follows: “Preach and urge faith in Jesus and obedience to him.
    Leave choice with participants themselves. It is not wise to set
    up a judgment‐seat at the Lord’s table. Always preach the
    Scriptural order—1. Faith in Jesus; 2. Obedience in Baptism; 2.
    Observance of the Lord’s Supper.” J. B. Thomas: “Objections to
    strict communion come with an ill grace from pedobaptists who
    withhold communion from their own baptized, whom they have
    forcibly made quasi‐members in spite of the only protest they are
    capable of offering, and whom they have retained as subjects of
    discipline without their consent.”

    A. H. Strong, Cleveland Sermon on Our Denominational Outlook, May
    19, 1904—“If I am asked whether Baptists still hold to restricted
    communion, I answer that our principle has not changed, but that
    many of us apply the principle in a different manner from that of
    our fathers. We believe that Baptism logically precedes the Lord’s
    Supper, as birth precedes the taking of nourishment, and
    regeneration precedes sanctification. We believe that the order of
    the ordinances is an important point of Christian doctrine, and
    itself teaches Christian doctrine. Hence we proclaim it and adhere
    to it, in our preaching and our practice. But we do not turn the
    Lord’s Supper into a judgment‐seat, or turn the officers of the
    church into detectives. We teach the truth, and expect that the
    truth will win its way. We are courteous to all who come among us;
    and expect that they in turn will have the courtesy to respect our
    convictions and to act accordingly. But there is danger here that
    we may break from our moorings and drift into indifferentism with
    regard to the ordinances. The recent advocacy of open church‐
    membership is but the logical consequence of a previous concession
    of open communion. I am persuaded that this new doctrine is
    confined to very few among us. The remedy for this false
    liberalism is to be found in that same Christ who solves for us
    all other problems. It is this Christ who sets the solitary in
    families, and who makes of one every nation that dwells on the
    face of the earth. Christian denominations are at least
    temporarily his appointment. Loyalty to the body which seems to us
    best to represent his truth is also loyalty to him. Love for
    Christ does not involve the surrender of the ties of family, or
    nation, or denomination, but only consecrates and ennobles them.

    “Yet Christ is King in Zion. There is but one army of the living
    God, even though there are many divisions. We can emphasize our
    unity with other Christian bodies, rather than the differences
    between us. We can regard them as churches of the Lord Jesus, even
    though they are irregularly constituted. As a marriage ceremony
    may be valid, even though performed without a license and by an
    unqualified administrator; and as an ordination may be valid, even
    though the ordinary laying‐on of hands be omitted; so the
    ordinance of the Lord’s Supper as administered in pedobaptist
    churches may be valid, though irregular in its accompaniments and
    antecedents. Though we still protest against the modern
    perversions of the New Testament doctrine as to the subjects and
    mode of Baptism, we hold with regard to the Lord’s Supper that
    irregularity is not invalidity, and that we may recognize as
    churches even those bodies which celebrate the Lord’s Supper
    without having been baptized. Our faith in the larger Christ is
    bringing us out from our denominational isolation into an
    inspiring recognition of our oneness with the universal church of
    God throughout the world.” On the whole subject, see Madison
    Avenue Lectures, 217‐260; and A. H. Strong, on Christian Truth and
    its Keepers, in Philosophy and Religion, 238‐244.


E. Special objections to open communion.


The advocates of this view claim that baptism, as not being an
indispensable term of salvation, cannot properly be made an indispensable
term of communion.


    Robert Hall, Works, 1:285, held that there can be no proper terms
    of communion which are not also terms of salvation. He claims that
    “we are expressly commanded to tolerate in the church all those
    diversities of opinion which are not inconsistent with salvation.”
    For the open communion view, see also John M. Mason, Works, 1:369;
    Princeton Review, Oct. 1850; Bib. Sac., 21:449; 24:482; 25: