The church of Christ viewed in the midst of rival claimants...

Front matter

Chap.. Copyright No*.

Shelt__:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

CHAPTER I. — The Meaning of Ecclesia. — Its use among the Greeks, and in the Septuagint and New Testament scriptures ... 21

CHAPTER II. — When the Church was Constituted. — John the Baptist's ministry, the preparatory stage. Christ's ministry, the period of actual construction. Identity and objections answered 31

CHAPTER III. — The Distinguishing Features of the Church. — Four basal doctrines: Episcopacy opposed to the New Testament idea of the church. Baptismal salvation not scriptural. Infant baptism not of God. Regeneration the basal doctrine of the New Testament church 100

CHAPTER IV. — The Functions of the Church.— To preach the gospel to all, and keep the ordinances as they were delivered to the first churches, with the abuses to which both the functions of the church in general, and the ordinances in particular, have been subjected 194

CHAPTER V. — Historical Permanency of the Church. — The provisions made for it. The doctrine of church apostasy and reformation. Some views of the church in uninspired history.. 304

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

THE DIVINE CONSTITUTION OP THE EXTERNAL

INSTITUTIONS OP CHRISTIANITY. |

WITHIN the scope of human thought there is not to be found a question involving the destiny of man more than the one discussed by the writer of this book. Neither has there ever been a greater need of scriptural teaching on this question than at the present time. Hence, the writing of this volume requires no apology.

Not a more important inquiry can be made by the craving soul of the Christian reader. He wants to know, and has a right to know, whether or not the institution of which he is a member is fashioned after the apostolic model of Christ's church. He is not satisfied with the doctrine, so extensively accepted, that all the so-called churches have equal claims.

More than that, in the time of so much partisan strife, so many different opinions and theories, in the time of wild commotion and conflicting demands, in the midst of blended religions and civilizations, when "the Jews require a sign and the Greeks seek after wisdom," for one to arrive at an honest and satisfactory conclusion on this question, he must have the courage of his convictions and "faith in the gospel as the power and wisdom of God." Men of the highest intelligence, the broadest culture, and the deepest sense of integrity, whose scholarship and opinions on other questions command attention and respect, on this question are greatly biased and fall short of using the same logic that they are accustomed to use in the discussion of other questions. So much so, that we are often amazed and caused to wonder why it is that men can not give full scope to their reasoning faculties in religion as in other things.

In the discussion of the church question, it is but reasonable to assume that the external institutions of Christianity originated in the mind of the Divine Being. Their forms and order, delineated in the New Testament scriptures, are of divine appointment, and therefore of divine obligation. The Bible furnishes a definite and final constitution of the church, its ministry and all its ordinances, and is on this question, as on all questions pertaining to the Christian religion, the equally sufficient guide and only authority. Let no man supplement, take from, or commute in any manner, the divine model there given. He who tampers with G-od's word on this question acts on his own responsibility and at his own risk. "To obey is better than sacrifice." This is the position conscientiously taken and zealously defended by Baptists everywhere.

Against this position is arrayed a multitudinous throng of objectors, of individual opinions, of blended theories, and of combined purposes, often reaching the most inconsistent conclusions by resorting to the most glaring sophisms, However, these objectors may be reduced to two classes.

I

The principles inculcated and position taken by the first class embody what is commonly known as the doctrine of expediency. As in the time of Celsus, men say: "The man who can believe it possible for Greeks and Barbarians, in Asia, Europe, and Libya to agree in one code of religious laws, must be utterly devoid of sense." And the men who take this position and point out this way constitute no mean class.

These men, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, stand to-day as representatives of one of the most powerful elements of Christian civilization. They have increased in wealth, culture, social influence, and everything else which the circumstances tend to produce, until they have reached a point when they must be met, if met at all, by God's truth, presented in the most powerful manner.

With much tact and bold presumption, this class insists upon there being no divine requirement as to the form of Christian institutions. They teach that the form is a matter of expediency, to be determined by men themselves according to the varied and everchanging needs and conditions of human society. The German scholar, Neander, for thirty-eight years professor of Church History at the University of Berlin, his works winning for him the title of the "father of church history," explicitly says: "The apostles gave the church this particular organization, which, while it was best adapted to the circumstances and relations of the church at that time, was also best suited to the extension of the churches in their peculiar condition, and for the development of the inward principles of their communion. But forms may change with every change of circumstances. Whenever, at a later period, any form of church government has arisen out of a series of events according to the direction of divine providence, and is organized and governed with regard to the Lord's will, he may be said himself to have established it and to operate through it by his spirit."

In substance, Whately and Stillingfieet, and many modern popular leaders of religious thought, teach the same doctrine. According to these writers, all the different forms of church and of the ordinances are equally valid. The only requirement is the adaptation to the age and circumstances in which they exist. With them expediency is the paramount test of validity.

Eeplying to this class of objectors, we call attention to the following facts which we believe to be conclusive :

First. If the New Testament scriptures teach anything, they teach explicitly that the apostles were inspired expressly for the complete establishment of the Christian institutions. When Christ spoke these words unto them, "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" (Matt. 18:18), it is evident from the context that he referred to the order and government of the church. This, with other promises not less explicit, gave them assurance of divine sanction and guidance in their official acts in the completion of the external organization of Christianity. This example has for us, as well as for men of all ages, the binding authority of divine law. The apostles established these institutions with complete and definite form not to be changed in the future history of the church. The same condition of church membership, the same spiritual character, the same general duties, were required everywhere.

The same officers were ordained in every church. These officers were of two orders, bishops, or elders, and deacons (Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1-15). At all places where the apostles organized churches they instituted the same ordinances, baptism and the Lord's supper (Eom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 11:20-34). The men who labored with and under the direction of the apostles were instructed to establish churches with ordinances in accordance with the original model. In his epistles to Timothy and Titus, Paul uses the most painstaking care in directions in reference to the constitution and order of the "house of Grod, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:1-15; Tit. 1:5). In fact, while throughout the entire New Testament much space is given to the instruction on these external institutions, sparing no pains to emphasize their importance, so, also, is the permanence of their form clearly demonstrated. Doubtless, in a few instances, these instructions refer to usages purely local and transient, yet the main bulk of them are as manifestly permanent as Christianity itself, and are valid for all nations and for all ages. The whole drift of the teachings of the scriptures tends to prove that the church and the ordinances had a definite and well defined form and order in the apostolic age, and are everywhere understood and spoken of as being established by apostolic authority.

We do not undertake to say that there is to be found anywhere in the scriptures any formulated statement of an ecclesiastical constitution; neither is there to be found a formulated scientific statement of a system of Christianity. Yet no intelligent Christian man would say that the latter fact proves that the Bible contains no system of divine truth ; neither does the former fact prove that it does not contain a definite ecclesiastical constitution. Grod has plainly set forth, both in nature and in revelation, manifold principles; and as a means of mental and spiritual development, has made it obligatory on men, by the exercise of all their mental and spiritual powers in the careful investigation and comparison of these principles and facts, to evolve therefrom the system of truth and the ecclesiastical constitution found in the Bible. And if the apostles, in establishing these institutions, acted under the guidance of the infallible spirit, it necessarily follows that their example, on being clearly ascertained, furnishes all the force of a divine precept, and carries with it the same obligation as that of divine law. More than that, it follows that this ecclesiastical constitution delineated in the New Testament scriptures, having been divinely established by the apostles, there being no inspired authority subsequent to that of the apostles competent to change or abolish it, remains unchanged and unchangeable, and is alone valid.

Second. The scriptures prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Christ had in his mind a definite conception of a model church and its ordinances, and so taught his disciples. Cf. Matt. 18:17, where in giving directions respecting the discipline of an offending brother, when all other means should fail, he requires as the last resort: "Tell it unto the church; and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto them as the Grentile and the publican. " In this passage he addresses the apostles in a manner which compels one to believe that they clearly recognize the existence of the church as an ecclesiastical institution. Hence, it necessarily follows that it had either already been instituted by Christ or so clearly defined by him that they fully understood his meaning. He expressly appointed the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper. The form of the one he distinctly defined both by the word employed and also by his own example furnished ; the other by his own personal administration. The objector has gained nothing by denying that Christ established the institutions of the gospel; for we do know that they were either established by him, or appointed, and afterwards completely and perfectly established by the apostles according to the constitution and order which he had prescribed. If they were established by the apostles in accordance with the prescription and divine sanction of Christ , their example carries with it his full authority.

Third. Besides, the outward institutions of Christianity must needs have in the New Testament some distinguishing characteristics by which they are clearly known; otherwise the duties enjoined in connection with them could never be performed with any degree of certainty. If the scriptures fail to tell what a church is, how can a believer know that he is a member of a church? If they do not make plain what baptism is, how can he know that he has been baptized! Such a condition of things is not in accordance with God's character, plan, and teachings. He never says do a thing without giving explicit directions how to do it. In reference to this question, the duties required necessarily imply a divinely revealed form of the church and the ordinances. Otherwise God would have imposed the most solemn obligations upon men without affording them any means of knowing how to perform them. The necessity of divine direction and the authority of apostolic example are universally recognized. As proof of this fact, it is only necessary to notice with what zeal all religious bodies, in the final struggle for support, seek to maintain the validity of their organizations and ordinances by an appeal to the teachings of the New Testament scriptures, showing conclusively the felt necessity of the support contained therein.

Fourth. The Mosaic institutions were established by divine appointment and after a divine model, not to be changed or abolished by the fallible judgment of man. The Old Testament scriptures are filled with positive and unmistakable evidence of this fact. The reason is found in their character as symbols of divine truth. To change the symbol would be to change the object symbolized, which would be the destruction of the whole matter. The entire ancient ritual of Judaism was a visible revelation of God's thoughts; and he alone could select and direct the mode of their expression. Monuments of the violation of God's direct commands stand out in bold relief on the pages of sacred history and bid men beware how they treat his authority. Men, ignorant of the truths to be expressed, could not originate these symbols, neither could they change them without changing the ideas to be symbolized. Consequently God himself established institutions, forms, and ordinances, and made them unchangeable by man, so that there was nothing left on the part of man but to obey. So, also, the Christian institutions, like the Mosaic, are a visible expression of divine truth, and a change of form by man must needs impair or pervert their meaning as symbols of God's thought. All the reasons which forbade man's changing the form of these ancient institutions still exist with full force to forbid a change in the Christian, and a higher reason besides. Just as the significance of Christianity is higher than that of Judaism, so the forms in which the former finds expression are of higher importance and more obligatory than those of the latter, and should be regarded more sacred and preserved more zealously from human mutilation.

II

The second class of objectors whose arguments have to be met, are those who give undue weight to the authority of the church fathers. They hold to the doctrine that these Christian institutions to which we have referred existed only in germ form at the end of the apostolic period, that neither Christ nor the apostles positively established a model church with definite form and ordinances. They regard the writings of the church fathers up to the end of the sixth century as supplementing the teachings of the New Testament scriptures, and accept with equal force the authority of Christ and the apostles, and that of the fathers. Their doctrine differs from that of expediency in that they restrict the length of time during which the Christian institutions may be subject to changes. With them "the church of the living God" is the church of the first six centuries, and not that of the New Testament.

To this class we reply that we concede that the fathers are of great value in the history of biblical interpretation, in the history of dogmas, creeds, rituals, even in the history of the constitution of the church, and, indeed, in every part of historical theology; nor is there any part of theology in which they may not be made highly useful. In the great internal struggles of the church the importance of the fathers as witnesses or authority has been recognized by all claimants. We further grant that this recognition is not restricted to the earlier history of the Christian religion, but is found in the most recent controversies. Notwithstanding this fact, it is plainly to be seen :

First. That the scriptures give no intimation of imperfection in the apostolic organization of Christianity; on the contrary, in their teachings they expressly require a conformity to the apostolic model. Paul in his epistle to Titus (Tit. 1:5) addresses him in the following language: "For this cause left I 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. ' ' Explicit directions are not wanting respecting the membership, the officers, and discipline of the churches, and the ordinances to be administered, with no intimation of any change to be made in after years by clearer and more specific instructions. There is no doubt but that the germ form of these Christian institutions was gradually developed during the apostolic period, but all the evidence tends to prove that they reached their ultimate constitution before the end of the time when men acted, spoke, and wrote by the direction of divine inspiration.

Second. According to the representation of the Christian institutions by the writings of the fathers, they were radically different at different times during what is known as the patristic period. For instance, there was much difference between the forms and practices of the second and those of the fifth century. The churches of the second century were simple and parochial, each complete within itself, electing its own bishop, deacons, and presbyters, while the world-organization, called the church of the fifth century, with its hierarchy of metropolitan, diocesan bishops and multitudinous priestly officials was modeled after the constitution of the Roman Empire. The difference was so radical and fundamental, both in form and in principle, that the former can not be conceived as being the germ from which the latter was developed. Hence, if we were dependent upon the fathers for information, such an appeal would leave us in utter uncertainty in reference to the true church.

Third. If we are to depend upon the authority of men other than the apostles to decide the question as to the form of the Christian institutions, logically speaking, we can not possibly be restricted to the patristic period. Hence, in that case, we should be compelled to accept the Romish doctrine of a continued inspiration in reference to the church. This patristic doctrine is in perfect harmony with authority based upon an inspiration to be continued through all ages to supplement the Bible by defining and perfecting its statements of doctrine and duty according to the Roman Catholic notion. There is no sufficient reason for restricting the time of changing and developing forms to any particular period ; but on the contrary, if such a change were indicated or allowed, the logical conclusion would be that the process would continue through all ages even unto the end of time.

The patristic theory of development, which denies the sufficiency of the scriptures, subverts the fundamental principles of Protestantism and has no logical place among Protestants; on the contrary, it is in harmony with Roman Catholicism which boldly claims the right to lead the minds of men away from the infallible authority of God's word to the fallible authority of man. The only difference between the patristic and the Eoman theories consists in a lack of consistency in the former, which is found in the latter, and yet both are equally unscriptural. To accept the one is to accept the other.

We claim that neither the doctrine of expediency nor the patristic theory has its fundamental principles based upon the teachings of the New Testament scriptures, and they should not to be accepted. Baptists universally claim that these external institutions originated in the mind of God; that these forms and ordinances are delineated in the scriptures, and that no system of religion is valid, which has not been evolved out of the principles contained therein. Dr. Harvey, whose arguments are invaluable on this subject, states a most admirable truth when he says: "The Bible, therefore, is the all-sufficient guide and the only authority in respect to the outward institutions of Christianity. Whatever principles it inculcates, whatever forms it establishes, as pertaining to these institutions, are of solemn obligation. No man has the right to disregard or alter or abolish them ; every such assumption is an invasion of the prerogatives of God. ' '

God's word is infinitely severe to those who are disposed to follow the natural inclinations of their own minds, yet infinitely gentle to those who are ready to respond to its teachings, and whose lives are controlled by its claims. May the principles of that word, so ably and admirably presented by the writer of this volume, be the means of leading many believers into the church whose model was conceived and prescribed by Christ and completely established by his apostles, and many unregenerated souls into the light and liberty of Grod's children. Rev. S. H. Ballakd, A. M.

CHAPTER I.

THE MEANING OP THE WORD ECCLESIA OR

CHURCH.

Definition of the Term Ecclesia.

N TO question of Christian history is fraught with * ^ greater interests, nor has any been the cause of more partisan strife than that of the church. This suggests the prevalence of a variety of conflicting theories and opinions on the question. Theories in conflict, as to when and how the church at first arose, of whom composed, for what purpose it exists, and its relation to the ordinances of the New Testament. These theories in general, have been divided into endless minor theories, greatly adding to the perplexity of the public mind on the question. It is a question to which every Christian student should bring a prayerful heart and submissive will, since, if the word of God provides for the church, it is the duty of every Christian to be a member of it.

It is obvious that in determining this question, final appeal is to be had to the scriptures, since the church is the creature of the same, and not the creature of uninspired history. The place occupied by history is negative, showing rather what is not the church than what is the church. To illustrate: Since the church is presumably the creature of the word of God, and not that of uninspired history, it is manifest that a church of purely uninspired historic origin can lay no claim to biblical origin, and hence none to the church.

Thus uninspired history serves to show what may not be called the church, by pointing out the beginning of many so-called churches far this side of the close of the canon of the New Testament.

The historic beginning, the features, the functions, and the historical permanency of the church, must be provided for in God's word, else it does not constitute a court of final appeal in things pertaining to the church. My duty to the class may be stated in the following manner:

I. Define the term ecclesia or church. II. Show ivhen first constituted.

III. Point out the distinguishing feature of the church.

IV. Show ivliat the functions of the church are.

V. Point out the historical permanency of the church.

Addressing myself to this task, I call your attention to the first proposition :

What does the word ecclesia or church mean!

Many of the annoying divisions existing among those who are God's children, are due to a vagueness in defining the term. And it should be admitted in the outset, that Baptists have contributed somewhat to this condition of things. A speaker or writer announces his theme, the church, which he defines to be an assembly convoked by the call of the gospel, and for the ends of the gospel. He soon reaches the conclusion that the Baptist church has all the elements required by the word ecclesia, and, therefore, must be the church.

Our contention is, that standing on its own merits and usus loquendi, there is nothing in the word ecclesia which proves more than the mere fact of an assembly. The character and purposes of the assembly are to be determined by other sources than the mere meaning of the term.

The word ecclesia has by some been given undue prominence in the settlement of the question, while by still others its importance has been minimized.

Let us now seek to determine the value of this word in the definition of the proposition.

I. The meaning of the term in Greek usage. Perhaps the Greek ecclesia reached its most ideal state under Solon's Codification of Greek Laws. The executive department of the government was in the hands of the Archons. This body, composed of nine persons, was no part of the ecclesia. Executive functions, therefore, did not belong to the Greek ecclesia. There was also a judiciary body — the Areopagus, and a senate which was nominally an executive body. Legislative functions were either appointed into the hands of special persons, or assumed by some tyrant. The ecclesia of the Greeks was neither executive, judiciary, nor legislative. What then was its unique position in the Greek polity?

It ivas the assembly of all the citizens, at the call of heralds, having free ballot and hence the power of approval or veto.

This was the general usage of the term in Greek history. The inherent idea of the word is simply that of an assembly. The fact of its prerogatives must be determined from the instrument calling the ecclesia into being..

II. The Greek use of the term in the translation of the Hebrew scriptures in what is known as the Septuagint.

In the Hebrew scriptures, frequent mention is made of the assemblies of Israel, and the Hebrew word used is hahal; now the seventy translate this word by ecclesia, without regard to the character or functions of the particular assembly.

In Judges 21:8, the hosts of Israel that assembled to cut off the tribe of Benjamin, is called an ecclesia, a church. Here the character and purpose of this particular church is learned from the cause, or call, which led to the comiug together. In Job 15:34, we have this use: "For the ecclesia of the hypocrites shall be desolate;' 7 and in Proverbs 21:16, we have this use of it: "Shall remain in the ecclesia — church — of the dead. 7 '

In fact, it was the word used when speaking of an assembly or multitude of men variously brought together, and for various purposes, as an assembly of troops, of nations, of the dead, and of hypocrites.

III. The use of the term ecclesia in the New Testament.

And here we have an equal diversity of uses.

In his defense, Stephen uses the term as descriptive of the children of Israel during the forty years of wilderness wanderings, whether they were engaged in worshiping the golden calf, or in murmuring against God and Moses, or whether engaged, as they sometimes were, in devout and holy service. "This is he

Definition of the Term Bcclesia. 25

that was with the ecclesia in the wilderness." Acts 7:38. From this use of the word, some conclude that the church existed in Old Testament times. This would be a legitimate deduction, if the word were never applied to any character of assembly but that of the New Testament church. But in Acts 19:32, 39, and 41, the term is applied to the idolatrous mob instigated by Demetrius, the silversmith at Ephesus. It is more than certain that this mob was not a New Testament church, and yet it was an ecclesia, in the lawful use of that term.

In general, throughout Greek usage, the word was applied to any assembly of people, for whatever ends assembled, or in whatever manner brought together, unless otherwise specifically called by another name. The methods of calling, the character of the assembly, with its functions and ends in view, are to be determined by other considerations than the meaning of the word. It is not wise to claim for a word more than its current use warrants.

This has been done for this word both by Baptists and pedobaptists. Apart from other considerations, it simply means an assembly. Taken in connection with the instrument of calling, in the New Testament, it means assembled together by the call of the gospel, and for the ends conferred by the gospel.

It will be observed that the character of the called, the manner of confederation, and the ends contemplated, are to be determined by the instrument of the call or the cause of assembling.

One or two examples will serve to illustrate. Take the assembly of the dead, a moment ago referred too. The instrument of the call in that instance was death, the character of the assembly was that of persons dead, the manner of association was dying, and the end in view was the dominion of death. All of this may be known as true, just as soon as we speak of the assembly of the dead.

Another example is that of the riotous ecclesia of Acts, 19th chapter. The instrument of the call was one Demetrius, a silversmith whose business was being interf erred with by the preaching of Paul. The character of the assembly was that of idolators. The manner of association, or the bond of coming together, was idolatry. The ends contemplated to ere high tariff ends, protection of the silver craft, and ascription of praise to Diana.

And in like manner was it of the Jews under the law, when assembled. There was the instrument of the call, the law of Moses. There was the character of the people assembled, circumcised Hebrews and aliens. There was the manner of association, the bonds of the law. And there was the end in view, the keeping of the law, in the observation of the requirements of the same.