ru
o
ESEMTED
jiORCH OF ENGLAND BOOK SOCIETY
PRESENTED
BY THE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND
BOOK SOCIETY,
11, ADAM STREET, LONDON.
iTrfasiircr:
FRANK A. BEVAN, ESQ.
-Srrrrtaru:
JOHN SHRIMPTON, ESQ.
T^^f ^
KNOTS UNTIED.
BEING
PLAIN STATEMENTS ON DISPUTED POINTS IN RELIGION,
FROM THE
STANDPOINT OF AN EVANGELICAL CHURCHMAN.
BY
JOHN CHAELES KYLE, D.D.,
LORD BISHOP OF LIVERPOOL.
Author of " Expository Thoughts on the Gost
(Solution.
(SPECIAL ISSUE.)
LONDON:
WILLIAM HUNT AND COMPANY,
12 PATERNOSTER ROW.
1885.
PREFACE TO THE TENTH EDITION.
IN sending forth a tenth edition of this volume, I do not think
it necessary to add anything to the original preface which I
drew up when it first appeared.
The general principles which I asserted and maintained
when I was much younger than I am now, I firmly assert
and maintain in 1885. I find nothing to retract, cancel, or
withdraw in the nineteen papers which compose the volume.
I frankly admit, after careful examination of " Knots
Untied," that I observe in _its_pages occasional sharp and
strong expressions which perhaps I should not use if I wrote
the book over again in the present year. But I think it
better to make no change, and to leave the original language
alone. I wish my readers to understand that the views
which I hold as a presbyter I still hold as a bishop; and I
fear that any alteration might lead to misconstruction and
misrepresentation .
That God may continue to bless the book and make it
useful is my earnest prayer.
J. C. LIVERPOOL.
PALACE, LIVERPOOL,
February 9, 1885.
SPECIAL ISSUE OF "KNOTS UNTIED."
THIS special edition unabridged has been prepared at the request f
of many of the clergy and laity, who are anxious to promote the f f
circulation of this valuable work among university and other if
students. Application for terms to be made to the publishers,!
by whom this edition will be sent direct.
PREFACE.
THE volume now in the reader s hands requires a few words of
explanation. It consists of nineteen papers on subjects which
are matters of dispute among English Churchmen in the present
day, systematically arranged. A moment s glance at the table
of contents will show that there is hardly any point of theo
logical controversy belonging to this era, which is not discussed,
with more or less fulness, in these papers.
The doctrinal tone of the volume will be found distinctly and
decidedly " Evangelical." I avow that, without hesitation, at
the outset. The opinions expressed and advocated about the
matters discussed, are those of an Evangelical Churchman.
What THAT means every intelligent Englishman knows, and it
is mere affectation to profess ignorance about the point. They
are not popular opinions, I am aware, and arc only held,
perhaps, by a minority of the English clergy. But they are the
only opinions which I can find in Holy Scripture, in the Thirty -
iv
PREFACE. V
nine Articles, in the Prayer-book fairly interpreted, in the works
of the Reformers, or in the writings of the pre-Caroline divines.
In the faith of these opinions I have lived for thirty-five years,
and have seen no reason to be ashamed of them, however rudely
they may have been assailed.
The object of sending forth this volume is to meet the wants
of those who may wish to see theological questions fully dis
cussed and examined from an " Evangelical " standpoint, and
complain that they cannot find a book that does this. There
are hundreds of English Churchmen who will never look at a
tract (though St. Paul s Epistles, when first sent forth, were only
tracts), but are willing to read a volume. To them I offer this
volume, and respectfully invite their attention to its contents.
If it does nothing else, I hope it may convince some readers that
in the controversies of this day the reasonings and arguments
are not all on one side.
The friendly readers of the many popular tracts which God
has enabled me to write in the last twenty-five years, will not
find in this volume much that is new to them. They will find
some of their old acquaintances, though altered, remodelled,
recast, and partially divested of their direct and familiar style.
But they will find the same argument the same matter, and the
same substance, though presented in a new form, and adapted
VI PKEFACE.
to the tastes of a different order of minds. I am sure they will
agree with me, that it is well to use every means of doing good,
and, if possible, to meet the wants of every class of readers.
Whether the volume will do any good remains to be seen.
At any rate it is an honest effort to untie sonic theological
knots, and to supply some clear statements of truth from the
standpoint of an Evangelical Churchman. That God may bless
the effort, and make it useful to the cause of Christ and to the
Church of England, is my earnest prayer.
J. C. RYLE.
STKADBROKE VICARAGE.
1877.
CONTENTS.
NO.
PAfJK
I. EVANGELICAL RELIGION, ..... 1
II. ONLY ONE WAY OF SALVATION, .... 26
III. PRIVATE JUDGMENT, ... .44
IV. THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES, . ... 62
V. BAPTISM, ....... 87
VI. REGENERATION, ..... 110
VII. PRAYER-BOOK STATEMENTS ABOUT REGENERATION, . 130
viii. THE LORD S SUPPER, . . . . .163
IX. THE REAL PRESENCE, . . . . .190
X. THE CHURCH, . . . . . 212
XI. THE PRIEST, ...... 242
XII. CONFESSION, ...... 260
XIII. WORSHIP, .... 277
XIV. THE SABBATH, .*.... 298
XV. PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES, .... 825
XVI. DIVERS AND STRANGE DOCTRINES, . . . 347
XVII. THE FALLIBILITY OF MINISTERS, .... 363
XVIII. APOSTOLIC FEARS, ...... 385
XIX. IDOLATRY, . . 400
KNOTS UNTIED,
i.
EVANGELICAL RELIGION.
IT may be Laid down as a rule, with tolerable confidence, that
the absence of accurate definitions is the very life of religious
controversy. If men would only define with precision the
theological terms which they use, many disputes would die.
Scores of excited disputants would discover that they do not
really differ, and that their disputes have arisen from their
own neglect of the great duty of explaining the meaning of
words.
In opening the subject of this paper, I desire to remember
carefully this important rule. "Without further preface, I shall
begin by explaining what I mean when I speak of " Evangelical
Religion."
By "Evangelical Religion," I do not mean Christianity as
compared with Heathenism, or Protestantism as compared with
Romanism, or Trinitarianism as compared with Socinianism or
Deism. I do not propose to argue with the Sceptic or the
Neologian, with the Papist or the Jew. What I do want to
consider is the religion which is peculiar to that party in the
Church of England which is commonly called " Evangelical."
To that point I shall confine myself, and to that alone.
I will not waste time by proving the existence of such a
party as "the Evangelical party." It is a fact as patent as the
sun in heaven. When it began first to be called by this name,
and why it was so called, are points into which it is not worth
while now to inquire. It is a simple fact that it exists.
A
2 KNOTS UNTIED.
Whether -we like it or not, whether it be right or wrong, the
well-known tripartite division is correct and may be assumed as
true. There are three great schools of thought in the Church
of England, High Church, Broad Church, and Evangelical ;
and the man who cannot see them is in a very curious state of
mind.* Now what are the distinctive peculiarities of the
religion of the Evangelical school 1 That it has some leading
tenets or principles is unmistakable and undeniable. What are
those principles which distinguish it from other schools ? This
in plain words is my subject, Has Evangelical Religion any
distinctive principles? I answer, it has. Are they worth
contending for ? I answer, they are.
I approach the subject with a deep sense of its difficulty. It
cannot be handled without touching points of extreme nicety,
and treading on very delicate ground. It necessitates com
parison between section and section of our Church; and all
comparisons are odious. It lays a writer open to the charge of
being "party-spirited, narrow-minded, combative, pugnacious,"
and what not. But there are times when comparisons are a
positive duty. It is an apostolic command to " try things that
differ." (Phil. i. 10.) The existence of parties in the Church of
England is a fact that cannot be ignored. To pretend that we
do not see them is absurd. Everybody else can see them, talk
about them, and criticise them. To attempt to deny their
existence is mere squeamishness and affectation. Whether
we like it or not, there they are, and the world around us
knows it.
But while I have a deep sense of the difficulty of the subject,
I have a deeper sense of its importance. The clouds are
gathering round the Church of England ; her very existence is
in peril. Conflicting opinions bid fair to rend her in twain.
A strife has arisen within her pale in the last thirty or forty
years, not about the trappings and vestments of religion, but
about the very foundations of the Gospel. It remains to be seen
whether our beloved Church will survive the struggle. Surely
* Beneath this tripartite division there are, no doubt, many sub-divisions,
and subordinate shades of difference. There is certainly a very distinct line
of demarcation between the old High Church party and the modern
Ritualistic section of the Church of England. The famous pamphlet entitled
" Quousque " is a striking proof of this.
EVANGELICAL KELIGION. 3
it is high time for Evangelical clergymen and laymen to review
calmly their position, and to consider seriously what it is they
have got to maintain and defend. Let us walk round our
lines. Let us mark well our bulwarks. Let us clearly see the
Malakhoffs and Redans that we have to man. Let us distinctly
understand the principles which are characteristic of our body.
It must do us good ; it can do us no harm.
In defining what Evangelical Religion is, I admit at the
outset that I have no written creed, no formal declaration of
principles, to refer to. The reader will do me the justice to
believe that I feel that want very keenly. I can only bring-
forward the results of such reading, study, and observation, as
are within the reach of all ordinary men. But for many
years I have examined carefully the published works of most
of the Fathers of the Evangelical school, and especially of the
men of the last century, and I have formed decided opinions
about their peculiar principles. I may be wrong in my estimate
of their merits ; but I can honestly say that I have not arrived
at my conclusions without prayer, thought, and pains.*
There are three questions which I wish to bring under the
notice of the readers of this paper.
I. What Evangelical Religion is.
II. What it is not.
III. What makes much religion not Evangelical.
Each of these questions I shall attempt to touch very briefly.
I. To the question "wJiat Evangelical Religion is?" the
simplest answer I can give is to point out what appear to be its
leading features. These I consider to be five in number.
(a) The first leading feature in Evangelical Religion is the
absolute supremacy it assigns to Holy Scripture, as the only rule
of faith and practice, the only test of truth, the only judge of
controversy.
* Of course my readers will understand that, throughout this paper, I am
only expressing my own individual opinion. I do not for a moment pretend
to be a mouthpiece of the Evangelical party, or to speak for anybody but
myself. Indeed I am not sure that all who are called Evangelical will agree
with all that this paper contains. I am only describing what I, personally,
believe to be the leading sentiments of most Evangelical Churchmen, arid my
description must be taken for what it is worth.
4 KNOTS UNTIED.
Its theory is that man is required to believe nothing, as
necessary to salvation, which is not read in God s Word written,
or can be proved thereby. It totally denies that there is any
other guide for man s soul, co-equal or co-ordinate with the
Bible. It refuses to listen to such arguments as "the Church
says so," "the Fathers say so," "primitive antiquity says
so," "Catholic tradition says so," "the Councils say so,"
"the ancient liturgies say so," "the Prayer-book says so,"
"the universal conscience of mankind says so," " the verifying
light within says so," unless it can be shown that what is said
is in harmony with Scripture.
The supreme authority of the Bible, in one word, is one of
the corner-stones of our system. Show us anything plainly
written in that Book, and, however trying to flesh and blood,
we will receive it, believe it, and submit to it. Show us any
thing, as religion, which is contrary to that Book, and, however
specious, plausible, beautiful, and apparently desirable, we will
not have it at any price. It may come before us endorsed by
Fathers, schoolmen, and catholic writers; it may be commended
by reason, philosophy, science, the inner light, the verifying
faculty, the universal conscience of mankind. It signifies
nothing. Give us rather a few plain texts. If the thing is
not in the Bible, deducible from the Bible, or in manifest
harmony with the Bible, we will have none of it. Like the
forbidden fruit, we dare not touch it, lest we die. Our faith
can find no resting-place except in the Bible, or in Bible
arguments. Here is rock : all else is sand.
(b) The second leading feature in Evangelical Religion is the
depth and prominence it assigns to the doctrine of human sinful-
ness and corruption.
Its theory is that in consequence of Adam s fall, all men are
as far as possible gone from original righteousness, and are of
their own natures inclined to evil. They are not only in a
miserable, pitiable, and bankrupt condition, but in a state of
uilt, imminent danger, and condemnation before God. They
are not only at enmity with their Maker, and have no title to
heaven, but they have no will to serve their Maker, no love to
their Maker, and no meetness for heaven.
We hold that a mighty spiritual disease like this requires a
mighty spiritual medicine for its cure. We dread giving the
D
EVANGELICAL RELIGION. 5
slightest countenance to any religious system of dealing with
man s soul, which even seems to encourage the notion that his
deadly wound can be easily healed. We dread fostering man s
favourite notion that a little church-going and sacrament-receiv
ing, a little patching, and mending, and whitewashing, and
gilding, and polishing, and varnishing, and painting the out
side, is all that his case requires. Hence we protest with all
our heart against formalism, sacramentalism, and every species
of mere external or vicarious Christianity. We maintain that
all such religion is founded on an inadequate view of man s
spiritual need. It requires far more than this to save, or satisfy,
or sanctify, a soul. It requires nothing less than the blood of
God the Son applied to the conscience, and the grace of God
the Holy Ghost entirely renewing the heart. Man is radically
diseased, and man needs a radical cure. I believe that igno
rance of the extent of the fall, and of the whole doctrine of
original sin, is one grand reason why many can neither under
stand, appreciate, nor receive Evangelical Religion. Next to
the Bible, as its foundation, it is based on a clear view of
original sin.
(c) The third leading feature of Evangelical Religion is the
paramount importance it attaches to the work and office of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and to the nature of the salvation which He
has wrought out for man.
Its theory is that the eternal Son of God, Jesus Christ, has
by His life, death, and resurrection, as our Representative and
Substitute, obtained a complete salvation for sinners, and a
redemption from the guilt, power, and consequences of sin, and
that all who believe on Him are, even while they live, com
pletely forgiven and justified from all things, are reckoned
completely righteous before God, are interested in Christ and
all His benefits.
We hold that nothing whatever is needed between the soul
of man the sinner and Christ the Saviour, but simple, childlike
faith, and that all means, helps, ministers, and ordinances are
useful just so far as they help this faith, but no further ; but
that rested in and relied on as ends and not as means, they
become downright poison to the soul.
We hold that an experimental knowledge of Christ crucified
and interceding, is the very essence of Christianity, and that in
6 K2COTS UNTIED,
teaching men the Christian religion we can never dwell too
much on Christ Himself, and can never speak too strongly of
the fulness, freeness, presentness, and simplicity of the salva
tion there is in Him for every one that "believes.
Not least, we hold most firmly that the true doctrine about
Christ is precisely that which the natural heart most dislikes.
The religion which man craves after is one of sight and sense,
and not of faith. An external religion, of which the essence is
"doing something," and not an inward and spiritual one, of
which the essence is " believing," this is the religion that man
naturally loves. Hence we maintain that people ought to be
continually warned not to make a Christ of the Church, or of
the ministry, or of the forms of worship, or of baptism, or of
the Lord s Supper. We say that life eternal is to know Christ,
believe in Christ, abide in Christ, have daily heart communion
with Christ, by simple personal faith, and that everything in
religion is useful so far as it helps forward that life of faith, but
no further.
(d) The fourth leading feature in Evangelical Eeligion is the
high place which it assigns to the inward work of the Holy
Spirit in the heart of man.
Its theory is that the root and foundation of all vital Chris
tianity in any one, is a work of grace in the heart, and that
until there is real experimental business within a man, his
religion is a mere husk, and shell, and name, and form, and can
neither comfort nor save. We maintain that the things which
need most to be pressed on men s attention are those mighty
works of the Holy Spirit, inward repentance, inward faith,
inward hope, inward hatred of sin, and inward love to God s
law. And we say that to tell men to take comfort in their
baptism or Church-membership, when these all-important graces
are unknown, is not merely a mistake, but positive cruelty.
We hold that, as an inward work of the Holy Ghost is
a necessary thing to a man s salvation, so also it is a thing
that must be inwardly felt. We admit that feelings are
often deceptive, and that a man may feel much, or weep
much, or rejoice much, and yet remain dead in trespasses and
sins. But we maintain firmly that there can be no real conver
sion to God, no new creation in Christ, no new birth of the
Spirit, where there is nothing felt and experienced within. We
EVANGELICAL EELIGIOX. 7
hold that the witness of the Spirit, however much it may be
abused, is a real, true thing. We deem it a solemn duty to be
no less jealous about the work of the Holy Ghost, in its place
and degree, than we are about the work of Christ. And we
insist that where there is nothing felt within the heart of a man,
there is nothing really possessed.
(e) The fifth and last leading feature in Evangelical Keligion
is the importance which it attaches to the outward and visible work
of the Holy Ghost in the life of man.
Its theory is that the true grace of God is a thing that will
always make itself manifest in the conduct, behaviour, tastes,
ways, choices, and habits of him who has it. It is not a dormant
thing, that can be within a man and not show itself without.
The heavenly seed is " not corruptible, but incorruptible." It
is a seed which is distinctly said to " remain " in every one that
is born of God. (1 Peter i. 23 ; 1 John iii. 9.) Where the
Spirit is, He will always make His presence known.
We hold that it is wrong to tell men that they are " children
of God, and members of Christ, and heirs of the kingdom of
heaven," unless they really overcome the world, the flesh, and
the devil. We maintain that to tell a man he is " born of God,"
or regenerated, while he is living in carelessness or sin, is a
dangerous delusion, and calculated to do infinite mischief to his
soul. We affirm confidently that " fruit " is the only certain
evidence of a man s spiritual condition ; that if we would know
whose he is and whom he serves, we must look first at his life.
Where there is the grace of the Spirit there will be always more
or less fruit of the Spirit. Grace that cannot be seen is no grace
at all, and nothing better than Antinomianism. In short, we
believe that where there is nothing seen, there is nothing pos
sessed.
Such are the leading features of Evangelical Eeligion. Such
are the main principles whicli characterize the teaching of the
Evangelical school in the Church of England. To my eyes they
seem to stand out in the theological horizon like Tabor and
Hermon among the mountains, and to tower upward like
cathedral spires in our English plains. It will readily be per
ceived that I have only sketched them in outline. I have
purposely avoided much that might have been said in the way
of amplification and demonstration. I have omitted many
8 KNOTS UNTIED.
things which might have been handled as parts and portions of
our system, not because they are not important, but because
they are comparatively of secondary importance. But enough
has probably been said to serve my present purpose. I have
pointed out what I conscientiously believe are the five dis
tinctive doctrinal marks by which the members of the Evangel
ical body L may be discerned. Rightly or wrongly, I have laid
them down plainly. I venture to think that my statement will
hold water and stand the fire.
I do not for a moment deny, be it remembered, that many
Churchmen who are outside the Evangelical body, are sound in
the main about the five points I have named, if you take them
one by one. Propound them separately, as points to be believed,
and they would admit them every one. But they do not give
them the prominence, position, rank, degree, priority, dignity,
and precedence Avhich we do. And this I hold to be a most
important difference between us and them. It is HIQ position
which we assign to these points, which is one of the grand
characteristics of Evangelical theology. "We say boldly that
they are first, foremost, chief, and principal things in Christian
ity, and that want of attention to their position mars and spoils
the teaching of many well-meaning Churchmen.
To show all the foundations on which Evangelical Religion is
based, would be clearly impossible in a paper like this. We
appeal boldly to the Holy KScriptures, and challenge any one to
examine our system by the light of the New Testament. We
appeal boldly to the Thirty-nine Articles of our own Church,
and assert unhesitatingly that they are on our side. We appeal
boldly to the writings of our leading Divines, from the Reforma
tion down to the time of Archbishop Laud, and invite any man
to compare our teaching with theirs. We repudiate with scorn
the vulgar charge of novelty, and tell the man who makes it
that he only exposes his own ignorance. We ask him to turn
again to his New Testament, to study afresh the Thirty-nine
Articles, to take down and read once more the English theology
of the pro-Caroline age. We court the fullest, strictest investiga
tion into our case, and shall abide the result without fear. Of
ourselves and our imperfections we may well be ashamed ; but
of what is called " Evangelical Religion " we have no cause to
be ashamed at all. Let men say what they please. Nothing
EVANGELICAL RELIGION. 9
is easier than to call names, affix odious epithets, and frighten
ignorant people, by raising the cry of " Calvinism " or " Puritan
ism " against the Evangelical school. " The curse causeless shall
not come." (Prov. xxvi. 2.) I believe firmly that impartial
inquiry will always show that Evangelical Religion is the
religion of Scripture and of the Church of England.
II. I turn now to the negative side of my subject. Having
shown what Evangelical Religion is, it becomes my duty next
to show what it is not.
I am almost ashamed to take up time by saying anything
on this point. But slanders and false reports about Evangelical
Religion are so sadly numerous, and shameless misrepresentations
of its nature are so widely current, that I can hardly pass over
this branch of my subject. We are not perfect, we know to
our sorrow. We have many faults and defects, we humbly
confess. But to many charges brought against us we plead
" ISTot guilty." We say they are not true.
(1) I begin then by saying that Evangelical Religion does
not despise learning, research, or the wisdom of days gone by.
It is not true to say that we do. In thorough appreciation
of anything that throws light on God s Word, we give place to
none. Let any one look over the lists of those who in days
gone by have been eminent for theological scholarship in this
country, and I am bold to say he will find some of the most
eminent are Evangelical men. Ridley, Jewell, Usher, Light-
foot, Davenant, Hall, Whittaker, Willett, Reynolds, Leighton,
Owen, Baxter, Manton, are names that for profound learning-
stand second to none. To what school do they belong, I should
like to know, if not to the Evangelical 1 What school, I ask
confidently, has done more for the exposition and interpreta
tion of Scripture than the Evangelical school 1 What school
has given to the world more Commentaries? Poole s Synopsis
and Owen on Hebrews are alone sufficient to show that Evan
gelical men do read and can think. Even in the Egyptian
darkness of last century, there were few English divines who
showed more real learning than Hervey, Romaine, and Toplady.
Turn even to our own day, and I say, unhesitatingly, that
we have no cause to be ashamed. To name divines of our
own generation is somewhat invidious. Yet I do not shrink
10 KNOTS UNTIED.
from saying that the three great books of Dean Goode on
Scripture, Baptism, and the Lord s Supper, remain to the
present day unanswered by the opponents of the Evangelical
school Coarse sneers about ignorance and shallowness may
be safely disregarded, while books like these are unrefuted.
But while we do not despise learning, we steadily refuse to
place any uninspired writings on a level with revelation. "Wo
refuse to call any man " father " or " master," however learned
or intellectual he may be. "We will follow no guide but
Scripture. We own no master over conscience in religious
matters, except the Bible. We leave it to others to talk of
"primitive antiquity " and "Catholic truth." To us there is
but one test of truth : " What is written in the Scripture 1
What saith the Lord?"
(2) I go on to say that Evangelical Religion does not under
value the CJmrch, or think lightly of its privileges. It is not
true to say that we do. In sincere and loyal attachment to
the Church of England we give place to none. We value its
form of government, its Confession of Faith, its mode of wor
ship, as much as any within its pale. We have stuck by it
through evil report and good report, while many who once
talked more loudly about their Churchmanship have seceded
and gone over to Rome. We stick by it still, and will resist
all attempts to Romanize it to the very death ! We know its
value, and would hand it down unimpaired to our children s
children.
But we steadily refuse to exalt the Church above Christ, or
to teach our people that membership of the Church is ident
ical with membership of Christ. We refuse to assign it an
authority for which we find no warrant either in Scripture or
the Articles. We protest against the modern practice of first
personifying the Church, then deifying it, and finally idolizing
it. We hold that Church councils, Church synods, and Church
convocations, may err, and that " things ordained by them as
necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority,
unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy
Scripture." We can find no proof in the Bible that the Lord
Jesus Christ ever meant a body of erring mortals, whether
ordained or not ordained, to be treated as infallible. We con
sequently hold that a vast quantity of language in this day
EVANGELICAL HELIGION. 11
about " the Church " and the " voice of the Church " is mere
unmeaning verbiage. It is " the talk of the lips, which tendeth
only to penury." (Prov. xiv. 23.)
(3) I go on to say that Evangelical Religion does not under
value the Christian ministry. It is not true to say that we
do. We regard it as an honourable office instituted by Christ
Himself, and of general necessity for carrying on the work of
the Gospel. We look on ministers as preachers of God s
Word, God s ambassadors, God s messengers, God s servants,
God s shepherds, God s stewards, God s overseers, and labourers
in God s vineyard.
But we steadily refuse to admit that Christian ministers are
in any sense sacrificing priests, mediators between God and
man, lords of men s consciences, or private confessors. We
refuse it, not only because we cannot see it in the Bible, but
also because we have read the lessons of Church history. We
find that Sacerdotalism, or priestcraft, has frequently been the
curse of Christianity, and the ruin of true religion. And we
say boldly that the exaltation of the ministerial office to an
unscriptural place and extravagant dignity in the Church of
England in the present day, is likely to alienate the affections
of the laity, to ruin the Church, and to be the source of every
kind of error and superstition.
(4) I go on to say that Evangelical Religion (Toes not under
value the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord s Surjper. It
is not true to say that we do. We honour them as holy
ordinances appointed by Christ Himself, and as blessed means
of grace, which in all who use them rightly, worthily, and
with faith, " have a wholesome effect or operation."
But we steadily refuse to admit that Christ s Sacraments
convey grace ex opere operato, and that in every case where
they are administered, good must of necessity be done. We
refuse to admit that they are the grand media between Christ
and the soul, above faith, above preaching, and above prayer.
We protest against the idea that in baptism the use of water,
in the name of the Trinity, is invariably and necessarily
accompanied by regeneration. We protest against the practice
of encouraging any one to come to the Lord s Table unless he
repents truly of sin, has a lively faith in Christ, and is in
charity with all men. We protest against the theory that the
12 KNOTS UNTIED.
Lord s Supper is a sacrifice, as a theory alike contrary to the
Bible, Articles, and Prayer-book. And above all, we protest
against the notion of any corporal presence of Christ s flesh
and blood in the Lord s Supper, under the forms of bread
and wine, as an "idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful
Christians."
(5) I go on to say that Evangelical Religion does not under
value the English Prayer-book. It is not true to say that we
do. We honour that excellent book as a matchless form of
public worship, and one most admirably adapted to the wants
of human nature. We use it witli pleasure in our public
ministrations, and should grieve to see the day when its use is
forbidden.
But we do not presume to say there can be no acceptable
worship of God without the Prayer-book. It does not possess
the same authority as the Bible. We steadily refuse to give
to the Prayer-book the honour which is only due to the Holy
Scriptures, or to regard it as forming, together with the Bible,
the rule of faith for the Church of England. We deny that
it contains one single truth of religion, besides, over and above
what is contained in God s Word. And we hold that to say
the Bible and Prayer-book together are " the Church s Creed,"
is foolish and absurd.
(6) I go on to say that Evangelical Religion does not under
value Episcopacy. It is not true to say that we do. We
give to our Bishops as much honour and respect as any
section of the Church of England docs, and in reality a great
deal more. We thoroughly believe that Episcopal government,
rightly administered, is the best form of Church government
that can be had in this evil world.
But we steadily refuse to believe that Bishops are in
fallible, or that their words are to be believed when they are
not in harmony with the Scriptures, or that Episcopacy is
the first test of a Church being a true Church, or that
Presbyterian orders are not valid orders, or that non-Episcopal
Christians are to be handed over to the uncovenanted
mercies of God. We hold as firmly as any that " from the
beginning there have been bishops, priests, and deacons."
But we refuse to join in the bigoted cry, "Xo Bishop, no
Church."
EVANGELICAL RELIGION. 13
I repeat that in due respect to the Episcopal office we yield
to none. But we never will admit that the acts and doings
and deliverances of any Bishops, however numerous, and by
whatever name they are called, whether a Pan- Anglican Synod
or not, are to be received as infallible, and not to be submitted
to free criticism. We cannot forget that erring Bishops ruined
the Church of England in the days of Charles the First, almost
ruined it again in 1662, when they cast out the Puritans, and
nearly ruined it once more in the last century, when they shut
out the Methodists. No ! we have read history, and we have
not forgotten that while we have had a Cranmer and a Parker,
we have also had a Sheldon and a Laud ; and that while we
have had stars in our ecclesiastical firmament like Hooper,
Kidley, and Jewell, we have also had men who were a disgrace
to their office, like the semi-papists, Cheyney and Montague,
and the subtle politician, Atterbury.
(7) I go on to say that Evangelical Religion does not object
to handsome churches, good ecclesiastical architecture, a well-
ordered ceremonial, and a well-conducted service. It is not
true to say that we do. We like handsome, well-arranged
places of worship, when we can get them. We abhor slovenli
ness and disorder in God s service, as much as any. We
would have all things done "decently and in order." (1 Cor.
xiv. 40.)
But we steadily maintain that simplicity should be the grand
characteristic of Christian worship. We hold that human
nature is so easily led astray, and so thoroughly inclined to
idolatry, that ornament in Christian worship should be used
with a very sparing hand. We firmly believe that the tendency
of excessive ornament, and a theatrical ceremonial, is to defeat
the primary end for which worship was established, to draw
away men s minds from Christ, and to make them walk by
sight and not by faith. We hold above all that the inward and
spiritual character of the congregation is of far more importance
than the architecture and adornments of the church. We dare
not forget the great principle of Scripture, that "man looketh
on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart."
(1 Sam. xvi. 7.)
(8) I go on to say that Evangelical religion does not under
value unity. It is not true to say that we do. We love har-
14 KNOTS UNTIED.
mony and peace as much as any Christians in the world. We
long for that day when there shall be no more controversy, strife,
and division ; when Ephraim shall no longer vex Judah, nor
Judah Ephraim.
But we firmly maintain that there can be no real unity
without oneness in the faith. We protest against the idea of
unity based on a common Episcopacy, and not on a common
belief of Christ s Gospel. As for the theories of those who
make advances to Rome, and hold out the hand to the Church
of Bonner and Gardiner, while they turn their backs on the
Church of Knox and Rutherford, Chalmers and M Cheyne,
we repudiate them with indignation as unworthy of English
Churchmen. We abhor the very idea of reunion with Rome,
unless Rome first purges herself from her many false doctrines
and superstitions.
(9) Last, but not least, I say that Evangelical Religion does
not undervalue Christian holiness and self-denial. It is not true
to say that we do. We desire as much as any to promote
habitual spirituality of heart and life in Christians. We give
place to none in exalting humility, charity, meekness, gentle
ness, temperance, purity, self-denial, good works, and separation
from the world. With all our defects, we are second to no
section of Christ s Church in attaching the utmost importance
to private prayer, private Bible-reading, and private communion
with God.
But we steadily deny that true holiness consists in calling
everything " holy " in religion, and thrusting forward the word
"holy" with sickening frequency at every turn. We will not
allow that it is really promoted by an ostentatious observance
of Lent, by keeping Ecclesiastical fasts and saints days, by
frequent communion, by joining Houses of mercy, by doing
penance, by going to confession, by wearing peculiar dresses,
by decorating our persons with enormous crosses, by frequent
gestures, and postures expressive of humility, in public worship,
by walking in procession and the like. We believe, on the
contrary, that such holiness (so-called) too often begins from
the outside, and is a complete delusion. It has a "show of
wisdom," and may satisfy silly young women and brainless
young men, who like to compound for races and balls one part
of their week, by asceticism and will-worship at another. But
EVANGELICAL RELIGION. 15
we utterly deny that it is the holiness recommended by St. Paul
and St. Peter, St. James and St. John.*
I leave my list of negatives here. I have not time to dwell
on them further. The sum of the whole matter is this : we
give all lawful honour to learning, the Church, the ministry,
the Sacrament, Episcopacy, the Prayer-book, Church ornament,
unity, and holiness ; but we firmly decline to give them more
honour than we find given to them in God s Word.
We dare not take up any other position, because of the plain
teaching of the Scriptures. We read there how the ark itself
was utterly useless to Israel when trusted in as a saviour, and
exalted into the place of God. We read there how God
Himself has said, that the sacrifices and feasts which He
Himself had appointed, were "abominations" and a "weari
ness " to Him, when rested on as ends and not as means. We
read there how the very temple itself, with all its divinely
ordained services, was denounced as a "den of thieves,"
by Christ Himself. (1 Sam. iv. 1-11; Isa. 1. 11-15; Luke
xix. 46.)
And what do we learn from all this? We learn that we
must be very careful how we give primary honour to things
invented by man, or even to things which, though ordained by
God, are secondary things in religion. We learn, above all,
that those who accuse us of undervaluing the things I have
mentioned, because we refuse to make them idols, are only
* I am aware that this paragraph is likely to be misinterpreted, and may
give offence. A captious reader may say that I consider keeping Lent and
saints days and fasts is wrong. I beg to remind him that I say nothing of
the kind. I only say that these things do not constitute Christian holiness.
I will go even further. I will say that the history of the last three hundred
years in England does not incline me to think that these things, however
well meant, are conducive to real holiness.
I am quite sure that the substance of this paragraph is imperatively
demanded by the times. Things have come to this pass in England that
thousands of Churchmen are making the whole of religion to consist in
externals. Against such a religion, as long as I live, I desire to protest. It
may suit an Italian bandit, who oscillates between Lent and Carnival, between
fasting and robbing. It ought never to satisfy a Bible-reading Christian.
It is the religion that the natural heart likes, but it is not the religion of
God.
When I speak of an " ostentatious " observance of Lent, I do it with a
reason. There are hundreds of people who " scruple " at weddings and
dinner parties in Lent, but rush to balls, theatres, and races as soon as Lent
is over ! If this is Christian holiness, we may throw our Bibles to the winds.
16 KNOTS UNTIED.
exposing their own ignorance of Scripture. They know not
what they say, nor whereof they affirm. We may listen to
their slanderous charges and misrepresentations with calm in
difference, Let them show us that we do not estimate learning,
the Church, the Ministry, the Sacraments, the Prayer-book,
Episcopacy, unity, and holiness, with the estimate of Scripture,
and we will confess that we have erred. But till they can do
that, we shall firmly maintain that we are right and they are
III. It only remains for me to say a few words on the last
question I propose to consider : " What is it that makes much
religion appear to us not Evangelical ? "
This is no doubt a delicate point, but a very serious and
important one. I repeat here what I have remarked before.
We do not say that men who are not professedly Evangelical
ignore and disbelieve the leading doctrines of the Evangelical
creed. We say nothing of the kind. But we do say con
fidently, that there are many ways in which the faith of Christ
may be marred and spoiled, without being positively denied.
And here we venture to think is the very reason that so much
religion called Christian, is not truly Evangelical. The Gospel
in fact is a most curiously and delicately compounded medicine,
and a medicine that is very easily spoiled.
You may spoil the Gospel by substitution. You have only to
withdraw from the eyes of the sinner the grand object which
the Bible proposes to faith, Jesus Christ ; and to substitute
another object in His place, the Church, the Ministry, the
Confessional, Baptism, or the Lord s Supper, and the mischief
is done. Substitute anything for Christ, and the Gospel is
totally spoiled ! Do this, either directly or indirectly, and
your religion ceases to be Evangelical.
You may spoil the Gospel by addition. You have only to
add to Christ, the grand object of faith, some other objects as
equally worthy of honour, and the mischief is done. Add any
thing to Christ, and the Gospel ceases to be a pure Gospel !
Do this, either directly or indirectly, and your religion ceases to
be Evangelical.
You may spoil the Gospel by interposition. You have only
to push something between Christ and the eye of the soul, to
EVANGELICAL EELIGION, 17
draw away the sinner s attention from the Saviour, and the
mischief is done. Interpose anything between man and Christ,
and man will neglect Christ for the thing interposed ! Do this,
either directly or indirectly, and your religion ceases to be
Evangelical.
You may spoil the Gospel by disproportion. You have only
to attach an exaggerated importance to the secondary things of
Christianity, and a diminished importance to the first things,
and the mischief is done. Once alter the proportion of the
parts of truth, and truth soon becomes downright error ! Do
this, either directly or indirectly, and your religion ceases to be
Evangelical.
Lastly, but not least, you may completely spoil the Gospel
by confused and contradictory directions. Complicated and
obscure statements about faith, baptism, Church privileges,
and the benefits of the Lord s Supper, all jumbled together, and
thrown down without order before hearers, make the Gospel
no Gospel at all ! Confused and disorderly statements of
Christianity are almost as bad as no statement at all ! Religion
of this sort is not Evangelical.
I know not whether I succeed in making my meaning clear.
I am very anxious to do so. Myriads of our fellow-countrymen
are utterly unable to see any difference between one thing
and another in religion, and are hence continually led astray.
Thousands can see no distinct difference between sermons and
sermons, and preachers and preachers, and have only a vague
idea that "sometimes all is not right." I will endeavour,
therefore, to illustrate my subject by two familiar illustrations.
A doctor s prescription of a medicine often contains five or
six diiferent ingredients. There is so much of one drug and so
much of another ; a little of this, and a good deal of that.
K"ow what man of common sense can fail to see that the whole
value of the prescription depends on a faithful and honest use
of it ? Take away one ingredient, and substitute another ; leave
out one ingredient altogether ; add a little to the quantity of
one drug ; take away a little from the quantity of another. Do
this, I say, to the prescription, my good friend, and it is a
thousand chances to one that you spoil it altogether. The thing
that was meant for your health, you have converted into
downright poison.
B
1 8 KNOTS UNTIED.
Apply this little simple parable to the Gospel. Regard it as
a medicine sent down from heaven, for the curing of man s
spiritual disease, by a Physician of infinite skill and power ; a
medicine of singular efficacy, which man with all his wisdom
could never have devised. Tell me now, as one of common
sense, does it not stand to reason that this medicine should be
used without the slightest alteration, and precisely in the
manner and proportion that the great Physician intended?
Tell me whether you have the least right to expect good from
it, if you have tampered with it in the smallest degree 1 You
know what the answer to these questions must be : your
conscience will give the reply. Spoil the proportions of your
doctor s prescription, and you will spoil its usefulness, even
though you may call it medicine. Spoil the proportions of
Christ s Gospel, and you spoil its efficacy. You may call it
religion if you like ; but you must not call it Evangelical. The
several doctrines may be there, but they are useless if you have
not observed the proportions.
The brazen serpent supplies another valuable illustration of
my meaning. The whole efficacy of that miraculous remedy,
we must remember, depended on using it precisely in the way
that God directed. It was the serpent of brass, and nothing
else, that brought health to him that looked at it. The man
who thought it wise to look at the brazen altar, or at the pole
on which the serpent hung, would have died of his wounds. It
was the serpent looked at, and only looked at, that cured the
poor bitten Israelite. The man who fancied it would be better
to touch the serpent, or to offer a sacrifice to it, would have got
no benefit. It was the serpent looked at by each sufferer with
his own eyes, and not with the eyes of another, that healed.
The man who bade another look for him, would have found a
vicarious look useless. Looking, looking, only looking, was the
prescription. The sufferer, and only the sufferer, must look for
himself with his own eyes. The serpent, the brazen serpent,
and nothing but the serpent, was the object for the eye.
Let us apply that marvellous and most deeply typical history
to the Gospel. We have no warrant for expecting the slightest
benefit for our souls from Christ s salvation, unless we use it
precisely in the way that Christ appointed. If we add anything
to it, take anything away from it, try to improve the terms,
EVANGELICAL RELIGION. 19
depart in the slightest degree from the path which the Bible
marks out for us, we have no right whatever to look for any
good being done. God s plan of salvation cannot possibly be
mended or improved. He who tries to amend or improve it,
will find that he spoils it altogether.
In one word I wind up this last part of my subject by saying,
that a religion to be really "Evangelical" and really good, must
be the^Gospel, the whole Gospel, and nothing but the Gospel,
as Christ prescribed it and expounded it to the Apostles ; the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ; the terms,
the whole terms, and nothing but the terms, in all their
fulness, all their freeness, all their simplicity, all their present-
ness^ Here, I am sorry to say, a vast quantity of so-called
religion in the present day appears to me to break down. It
does not come up to the standard I have just given. Things
are added to it, or things are taken away, or things are put in
their wrong places, or things are set forth in their wrong pro
portions. And hence, painful as it is, I cannot avoid the
conclusion that much of the religion of our own times does not
deserve to be called Evangelical. I do not charge all clergymen
who are not " Evangelical " with not being " Christians." I do
not say that the religion they teach is not Christianity. I
trust I am not so uncharitable as to say anything of this kind.
But I do say that, for the reasons already assigned, they appear
to me to teach that which is not Christ s whole truth. In a
word, they do not give full weight, full measure, and the pre
scription of the Gospel accurately made up. The parts are
there, but not the proportions.
I cannot bring my paper to a conclusion without offering some
practical suggestions about the present duties of the Evangelical
body. We have been considering what Evangelical religion is and
is not. A few pages devoted to our immediate duties, in the present
position of the Church, can hardly be thought misapplied.
The times no doubt are very critical, full of danger to our
beloved Church, full of danger to the nation. ]S T ever has there
been such an unblushing avowal of Popish opinions among
Churchmen, and such shameless additions to the faith as defined
in our Articles. The grand question is, whether our Protestant
ism shall die or live ? Now I believe much depends on the
20 KNOTS UNTIED.
attitude and line of conduct taken up by the Evangelical body.
If they know the times and do their duty, there is hope for the
Church. If they are timid, supine, compromising, vacillating,
and indolent, there is no hope at all.
(1) I suggest, for one thing, that we ought to exercise a
special jealousy over our own personal religion. Let us take
heed that it is thoroughly and entirely Evangelical. The times
we live in are desperately unfavourable to a sharply-cut, decided,
distinct, doctrinal Christianity. A fog of vague liberalism over
spreads the ecclesiastical horizon. A settled determination to
think everybody is right, and nobody is wrong, everything is
true, and nothing is false, meets us at every turn. The world
is possessed with a devil of false charity about religion. Men
try to persuade us, like Gallic, that the alleged differences
between creeds and schools of thought are only about "words
and names," and that it is " all the same thing." In times like
these, let us be on our guard, and take heed to our souls.
" Watch ye : stand fast in the faith. Quit you like men : be
strong." (1 Cor. xvi. 13.) Let us steadfastly resolve to stand
fast in the old paths, the good way of our Protestant Reformers.
Narrow, old-fashioned, obsolete, as some may be pleased to call
that way, they will never show us a better. The nearer we
draw to the great realities of death, judgment, and eternity, the
more excellent will that way appear. When I go down the
valley of the shadow of death, and my feet touch the cold
waters, I want something better than vague, high-sounding
words, or the painted playthings and gilded trifles of man-made
ceremonials. Give me 110 stone altars and would-be confessors.
Give me no surpliced priests or pretended sacrifice in my bed
room. Put no man or form between me and Christ. Give me
a real staff for my hand such as David had, and real meat and
drink for my soul such as aged Paul felt within him, and feeling
cried, "I am not ashamed." (2 Tim. i. 12.) I must know
distinctly whom I believe, what I believe, and why I believe,
and in what manner I believe. Nothing, nothing will answer
these questions satisfactorily, but thorough, downright Evan
gelical Keligion. Let us make sure that this religion is our
(2*) I suggest, secondly, that ministers who call themselves
Evangelical, ought to be specially careful that they do not com-
EVANGELICAL RELIGION. 21
promise their jwinciples, and damage their testimony, by vain
attempts to conciliate the world.
This is a great danger in these days. It is a sunken rock, on
which I fear many are striking, and doing themselves immense
harm. The plausible pretext of making our services more
attractive, and cutting the ground from under the feet of
Ritualists, too often induces Evangelical ministers to do things
which they had far better let alone. New church decorations,
new church music, and a semi-histrionic mode of going through
church worship, are things which I suggest that we must watch
most narrowly, and keep at arm s length. They are points on
which we must take heed that we do not let in the Pope and
the devil.
Tampering with these things, we may be sure, does no real
good. It may seem to please the world, and have a " show of
wisdom," but it never converts the world, and makes the world
believe. We had far better leave it alone. Some Evangelical
clergymen, I suspect, have begun flirting and trilling with these
things with the best intentions, and have ended by losing their
own characters, disgusting their true believing hearers, making
themselves miserable, and going out of the world under a cloud.
Oh, no ! we cannot be too jealous in these days about the
slightest departure from the " faith once delivered to the saints,"
and from the worship handed down to us by the Reformers.
We cannot be too careful to add nothing to, and take nothing
away from, the simplicity of the Gospel, and to do nothing in
our worship, which seems to cast the slightest reflection on
Evangelical principles. " A little leaven leaveneth the whole
lump." " Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees
and Sadducees." (Gal. v. 9 ; Matt. xvi. 6.)
Let us mark the testimony of Scripture on this subject. The
Epistle to the Galatians is the inspired handbook for these
times. Mark how in that Epistle St. Paul declares, " Though
we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you
than that which we have preached unto you, let him be
accursed." Mark how he repeats it: "As we said before, so
we say again, If any man preach any other Gospel than that ye
have received, let him be accursed." Mark how he tells us
that "when he came to Antioch he withstood Peter to the face,
because he was to be blamed." Mark how he says to the
22 KNOTS UNTIED.
Galatians, "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and
years." And then conies the solemn and weighty remark which
ought to ring in the ears of many: "I am afraid of you."
(Gal. i. 9; ii. 11; iv. 10, 11.)
Let us carefully observe how little good they do who attempt
to mix up Evangelical preaching and a Ritual ceremonial.
Little, did I say ? they do no good at all ! The world is never
won by trimming, and compromising, by facing both ways, and
trying to please all. The cross of Christ is never made more
acceptable by sawing off its corners, or by polishing, varnishing,
and adorning it. Processions, and banners, and flowers, and
crosses, and excessive quantity of music, and elaborate services,
and beautiful vestments, may please children and weak-minded
people. But they never helped forward heart-conversion and
heart-sanctification, and they never will. Scores of English
clergymen, I strongly suspect, have found out too late that St.
Paul s words are deeply true, when he says, " It is a good thing
that the heart be established with grace ; not with meats, which
have not profited them that have been occupied therein."
(Heb. xiii. 9.)
I grant freely that we have need of much patience in these times.
No doubt it is very provoking to be twitted with the naked
ness, poverty, and meagreness (so called) of Evangelical worship.
It is very annoying to see our younger members slipping away to
churches where there are processions, banners, flowers, incense,
and a thoroughly histrionic and gorgeous ceremonial. It is
vexing to hear them say, that " they feel so much better after
these services." But none of these things must move us. " He
that believeth shall not make haste." (Isaiah xxviii. 16.) The
end will never justify illicit means. Let us never leave the
high ground of principle under any false pressure, from whatever
side it may come. Let us hold on our own way, and be jeal
ously sensitive of any departure from simplicity. Popularity
obtained by pandering to the senses or the sentiment of our
hearers is not worth anything. Worshippers who are not
content with the Bible, the cross of Christ, simple prayers and
simple praise, are worshippers of little value. It is useless to
try to please them, because their spiritual taste is diseased.
Let us remember, not least, the enormous injury which we
may do to souls, if we once allow ourselves to depart in the
EVANGELICAL RELIGION. 23.
least degree from the simplicity of the Gospel either in our
doctrine or in our worship. "Who can estimate the shipwrecks
that might occur in a single night, and the lives that might be
lost, if a light-house keeper dared to alter but a little the colour
of his light? Who can estimate the deaths that might take
place in a town, if the chemist took on himself to depart but a
Little from the doctor s prescriptions 1 Who can estimate the
wholesale misery that might be caused in a war, by maps a
little wrong and charts a little incorrect 1 Who can estimate
these things 1 Then perhaps you may have some idea of the
spiritual harm that ministers may do by departing in the
slightest degree from the Scriptural proportions of the Gospel,
or by trying to catch the world by dressing simple old Evangel
ical Religion in new clothes.
(3) I suggest, finally, that we must not allow Evangelical Religion
to be thrust out of the Church of England without a struggle.
It is a religion which is worth a struggle ; for it can point to
works which no other school in the Church of England has
ever equalled. In this matter we fear no comparison, if honestly
and fairly made. We confess with sorrow that we have done
but little compared to what we ought to have done ; and yet we
say boldly, that both abroad and at home no Churchmen have
done so much good to souls as those who are called Evangelical.
What Sierra Leone can the extreme Ritualists place before us
as the result of their system ? What Tinnevelly bears testimony
to the truth of their school 1 What manufacturing towns have
they rescued from semi-heathenism 1 ? What mining districts
have they Christianized 1 What teeming populations of poor
in our large cities can they point to, as evangelized by their
agencies 1 We boldly challenge a reply. Let them come
forward and name them. In the day when Evangelical Religion
is cast out of the Church of England, the usefulness of the
Church will be ended and gone. Nothing gives the Church of
England such power and influence as genuine, well- worked,
well-administered Evangelical Religion.
But it is a religion that can only be preserved amongst us
just now by a great effort, and a mighty struggle. For our
nation s sake, for our children s sake, for the world s sake, for
the honour and glory of our God, let us gird up the loins of our
minds, and resolve that the struggle shall be made.
24 KNOTS UNTIED.
It is a struggle, we can honestly call the world to witness,
which is not one of our seeking. The controversy is thrust
upon us, whether we like it or not. We are driven to a painful
dilemma. We must either sit by in silence, like sneaks and
cowards, and let the Church of England be unprotestantized and
re-united with Koine ; or else we must basely desert the dear
old Church and let traitors work their will ; or else we must
look the danger manfully in the face, and fight ! Our fight, of
course, is to be carried on with the same Word that Cranmer,
Latimer, and Kidley fought with, and not with carnal weapons.
But as they did, so must we do : we must stand up and fight.
Yes ! even if a secession of our antagonists is the consequence,
we must not shrink from fighting. Let every man go to the
place that suits him best. Let Papists join the Pope, and
Romanists retire to Rome.* But if we want our Church to
continue Protestant and Evangelical, we must not be afraid to
fight. There are times when there is a mine of deep meaning
in our Lord s words, " He that hath no sword, let him sell his
* I trust that no one will misunderstand me here. If any one supposes
that I want to narrow the pale of the Church of England, and to make it the
Church of one particular party, he is totally mistaken. I am quite aware
that my Church is eminently liberal, truly comprehensive, and tolerant of
wide differences of opinion. But I deny that the Church ever meant its
members to be downright Papists.
The Church has always found room in its ranks for men of very different
schools of thought. There has been room for Ridley, and room for Hooper,
room for Jewell, and room for Hooker, room for Whitgift, and room for
Tillotson, room for Usher, and room for Jeremy Taylor, room for Davenant,
and room for Andrews, room for Waterland, and room for Beveridge, room
for Chillingworth, and room for Bull, room for Whitby, and room for Scott,
room for Toplady, and room for Fletcher. Where is the Churchman who
would like any one of these men to have been shut out of the Church of
England ? If there is such an one, I do not agree with him.
But if any man wants me to believe that our Church ever meant to allow
its clergy to teach the Rornish doctrine of the Real Presence, the sacrifice of
the Mass, and the practice of auricular confession, without let or hindrance,
I tell him plainly that I cannot believe it. My common sense revolts against
it. I would as soon believe that black is white, or that two and two make
five.
Between the old High Churchman and the Ritualists I draw a broad line
of distinction. "With all his faults and mistakes, in my judgment, the old
High Churchman is a true Churchman, and is thoroughly and heartily
opposed to Popery. The Ritualists, on the other hand, scorn the very name
of Protestant ; and, if words mean anything, are so like Roman Catholics,
that a plain man can see no difference between their tenets and those of
Home.
EVANGELICAL RELIGION. 25
garment, and buy one." (Luke xxii. 36.) To such times we
have come.
Does any one ask me what is to be done 1 I answer that the
path of duty, to my mind, is clear, plain, and unmistakable.
Union and organization of all Protestant and Evangelical
Churchmen, untiring exposure of the Popish dealings of our
antagonists, by the pulpit, the platform, and the press, law
suits whenever there is a reasonable hope of success, appeals
to Parliament for declarative statutes, and the reform of our
Ecclesiastical courts, bold, decided, prompt action, the moment
any necessity requires, these are the weapons of our warfare.
They are weapons which, from one end of the country to the
other, we ought to wield, boldly, untiringly, unflinchingly, be
the sacrifice and cost what it may. But I say, " No surrender !
No desertion ! No compromise ! No disgraceful peace ! "
Let us then resolve to "contend earnestly for the faith." By
preaching and by praying, by pulpit and by platform, by pen
and by tongue, by printing and by speaking, let us labour to
maintain Evangelical Religion within the Church of England,
and to resist the enemies which we see around us. We are not
weak if we stand together and act together. The middle classes
and the poor are yet sound at heart. They do not love Popery.
God Himself has not forsaken us, and truth is on our side.
But, be the issue of the conflict what it may, let us nail our
colours to the mast ; and, if need be, go down with our colours
flying. Let us only settle it deeply in our minds, that /without
Protestant and Evangelical principles, a Church is as useless
as a well without water. In one word, when the Church of
England becomes Popish once more, it will be a Church not
worth preserving.
II.
ONLY ONE WAY OF SALVATION.
Is there more than one road to heaven ? Is there more than
one way in which the soul of man can be saved 1 This is the
question which I propose to consider in this paper, and I shall
begin the consideration by quoting a text of Scripture : " Neither
is there salvation in any other : for there is none other name
under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
(Acts iv. 12.)
These words are striking in themselves; but they are much more
striking if we observe when and by whom they were spoken.
They were spoken by a poor and friendless Christian, in the
midst of a persecuting Jewish Council. It was a grand con
fession of Christ.
They were spoken by the lips of the Apostle Peter. This is
the man who a few weeks before forsook Jesus and fled : this is
the very man who three times over denied his Lord. There
is another spirit in him now ! He stands up boldly before
priests and Sadducees, and tells them the truth to their face :
"This is the stone that was set at naught of you builders,
which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there
salvation in any other : for there is none other name under
heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
Now, I need hardly tell a well-informed reader that this text
is one of the principal foundations on which the Eighteenth
Article of the Church of England is built.
That article runs as follows : " They also are to be had
accursed that presume to say that every man shall be saved by
the law or sect he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his
life according to that law and the light of nature. Eor Holy
Scripture doth set out unto us only the name of Jesus Christ
whereby men must be saved."
There are few stronger assertions than this throughout the
ONLY ONE WAY. OF SALVATION. 2 7
whole Thirty-nine Articles. It is the only anathema pro
nounced by our Church from one end of her great Confession
of faith to the other. The Council of Trent in her decrees
anathematizes continually. The Church of England uses an
anathema or curse once, and once only ; and that she does it on
good grounds I propose to show, by an examination of the
Apostle Peter s words.
-In considering this solemn subject, there are three things I
wish to do.
I. First, I wish to explain the doctrine here laid down by
the Apostle.
II. Secondly, I wish to supply some reasons why this doc
trine must be true.
III. Thirdly, I wish to show some consequences which
naturally flow from the doctrine.
I. First, let me explain the doctrine laid down ly St. Peter.
Let us make sure that we rightly understand what the
Apostle means. He says of Christ, " Neither is there salvation
in any other." Now, what does this mean? On our clearly
seeing this very much depends.
He means that no one can be saved from sin, its guilt, its
power, and its consequences, excepting by Jesus Christ.
He means that no one can have peace with God the Father,
obtain pardon in this world, and escape wrath to come in the
next, excepting through the atonement and mediation of Jesus
Christ.
In Christ alone God s rich provision of salvation for sinners
is treasured up : by Christ alone God s abundant mercies come
down from heaven to earth. Christ s blood alone can cleanse
us; Christ s righteousness alone can clothe us; Christ s merit
alone can give us a title to heaven. Jews and Gentiles, learned
and unlearned, kings and poor men, all alike must either be
saved by the Lord Jesus, or lost for ever.
And the Apostle adds emphatically, "There is none other
name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be
saved." There is no other person commissioned, sealed, and
appointed by God the Father to be the Saviour of sinners
excepting Christ. The keys of Life and Death are committed
to His hand, and all who would be saved must go to Him.
28 KNOTS UNTIED.
There was but one place of safety in the day when the flood
canie upon the earth : that place was Noah s ark. All other
places and devices, mountains, towers, trees, rafts, boats,
all were alike useless. So also there is but one hiding-place
for the sinner who would escape the storm of God s anger ; he
must venture his soul on Christ.
There was but one man to whom the Egyptians could go in
the time of famine, when they wanted food. They must go to
Joseph : it was a waste of time to go to any one else. So also
there is but One to whom hungering souls must go, if they
would not perish for ever : they must go - to Christ.
There was but one word that could save the lives of the
Ephraimites in the day when the Gileadites contended with
them, and took the fords of Jordan (Judges xi.) : they must
say " Shibboleth," or die. Just so there is but one name that
will avail us when we stand at the gate of heaven : we must
name the name of Jesus as our only hope, or be cast away
everlastingly.
Such is the doctrine of the text. "No salvation but by
Jesus Christ; in Him plenty of salvation, salvation to the
uttermost, salvation for the very chief of sinners ; out of Him
no salvation at all." It is in perfect harmony with our Lord s
own words in St. John s Gospel, "I am the way, the truth,
and the life : no man cometh unto the Father, but by "Me."
(John xiv. 6.) It is the same thing that Paul tells the Corin
thians, " Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,
which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. iii. 11.) And it is the same
that St. John tells us in his first Epistle, " God hath given to
us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He that hath the
Son hath life, and he that hatli not the Son of God hath not
life." (1 John v. 12.) All these texts come to one and the
same point, no salvation but by Jesus Christ.
Let us make sure that we understand this before we pass on.
Men are apt to think, "This is all old news ; these are ancient
things : who knoweth not such truths as these ? Of course we
believe there is no salvation but by Christ." But I ask my
readers to mark well what I say. Make sure that you under
stand this doctrine, or else by and by you will stumble, and be
offended at the statements I have yet to make in this paper.
We are to venture the whole salvation of our souls on Christ,
ONLY ONE WAY Of SALVATION. 29
and on Christ only. Wo are to cast loose completely and
entirely from all other hopes and trusts. We are not to rest
partly on Christ, partly on doing all we can, partly on keeping
our church, partly on receiving the sacrament. In the matter
of our justification Christ is to be all. This is the doctrine of
the text.
Heaven is before us, and Christ the only door into it ; hell
beneath us, and Christ alone able to deliver from it ; the devil
behind us, and Christ the only refuge from his wrath and accu
sations ; the law against us, and Christ alone able to redeem us ;
sin weighing us down, and Christ alone able to put it away.
This is the doctrine of the text.
JS T ow do we see it 1 I hope we do. But I fear many think
so who may find, before laying down this paper, that they do
not.
II. Let me, in the second place, supply some reasons irliy the.
doctrine of the text must be true.
I might cut short this part of the subject by one simple
argument: "God says so." "One plain text," said an old
divine, " is as good as a thousand reasons."
But I will not do this. I wish to meet the objections that
are ready to rise in many hearts against this doctrine, by point
ing out the strong foundations on which it stands.
(1) Let me then say, for one thing, the doctrine of the text
must be true, because man is what man is.
Xow, what is man 1 There is one broad, sweeping answer,
which takes in the whole human race : man is a sinful being.
All children of Adam bom into the world, whatever be their
name or nation, are corrupt, wicked, and defiled in the sight of
God. Their thoughts, words, ways, and actions are all, more
or less, defective and imperfect.
Is there no country 011 the face of the globe where sin does
not reign 1 ? Is there no happy valley, no secluded island,
where innocence is to be found 1 Is there no tribe on earth,
where, far away from civilization, and commerce, and money,
and gunpowder, and luxury, and books, morality and purity
nourish 1 No ! there is none. Look over all the voyages and
travels you can lay your hand on, from Columbus down to
Cook, and from Cook to Livingstone, and you will see the
30 KNOTS UNTIED.
truth of what I am asserting. The most solitary islands of the
Pacific Ocean, islands cut off from all the rest of the world,
islands where people were alike ignorant of Eome and Paris,
London and Jerusalem, these islands, when first discovered,
have been found full of impurity, cruelty, and idolatry. The
footprints of the devil have been traced on every shore. The
veracity of the third chapter of Genesis has everywhere been
established. Whatever else savages have been found ignorant
of, they have never been found ignorant of sin.
But are there no men and women in the world who are free
from this corruption of nature ? Have there not been high-
minded and exalted beings who have every now and then
lived faultless lives ? Have there not been some, if it be only
a few, who have done all that God requires, and thus proved
that sinless perfection is a possibility 1 No ! there have been
none. Look over all the biographies and lives of the holiest
Christians ; mark how the brightest and best of Christ s people
have always had the deepest sense of their own defectiveness
and corruption. They groan, they mourn, they sigh, they
weep over their own shortcomings : it is one of the common
grounds on which they meet. Patriarchs and Apostles, Fathers
and Keformers, Episcopalians and Presbyterians, Luther and
Calvin, Knox and Bradford, Rutherford and Bishop Hall,
Wesley and Whitefield, Martyn and M Cheyne, all are
alike agreed in feeling their own sinfulness. The more light
they have, the more humble and self-abased they seem to be ;
the more holy they are, the more they seem to feel their own
unworthiness.
]S"ow what does all this seem to prove 1 To my eyes it
seems to prove that human nature is so tainted and corrupt
that, left to himself, no man could be saved. Man s case
appears to be a hopeless one without a Saviour, and that a
mighty Saviour too. There must be a Mediator, an Atone
ment, an Advocate, to make such poor sinful beings accept
able with God ; and I find this nowhere, excepting in Jesus
Christ. Heaven for man without an almighty Redeemer, peace
with God for man without a divine Intercessor, eternal life for
man without an eternal Saviour, in one word, salvation with
out Christ, all alike, in the face of the plain facts about human
nature, appear utter impossibilities.
ONLY ONE WAY OF SALVATION. 31
I lay these things before thinking men, and I ask them to
consider them. I know it is one of the hardest things in the
world to realize the sinfulness of sin. To say we are all sinners
is one thing ; to have an idea what sin must be in the sight of
God is quite another. Sin is too much part of ourselves to
allow us to see it as it is : we do not feel our own moral
deformity. We arc like those animals in creation which are
vile and loathsome to our senses, but are not so to themselves,
nor yet to one another : their loathsomeness is their nature, and
they do not perceive it. Just in the same way our corruption
is part and parcel of ourselves, and at our best we have but a
feeble comprehension of its intensity.
But this we may be sure of, if we could see our own lives
with the eyes of the angels who never fell, we should never
doubt this point for a moment. In a word, no one can really
know what man is, and not see that the doctrine of our text
must be true. We are shut up to the Apostle Peter s con
clusion. There can be no salvation except by Christ.
(2) Let me say another thing. The doctrine of our text
must be true, because God is u-liat God is.
Now what is God 1 That is a deep question indeed. We
know something of His attributes : He has not left Himself
without witness in creation; He has mercifully revealed to. us
many things about Himself in His Word. We know that God
is a Spirit, eternal, invisible, almighty, the Maker of all
things, the Preserver of all things, holy, just, all-seeing, all-
knowing, all-remembering, infinite in mercy, in wisdom, in
purity.
But, alas, after all, how low and grovelling are our highest
ideas, when we come to put down on paper what we believe
God to be ! How many words and expressions we use whose
full meaning we cannot fathom ! How many things our
tongues say of Him which our minds are utterly unable to
conceive !
How small a part of Him do we see ! How little of Him
can we possibly know ! How mean and paltry are any words
of ours to convey any idea of Him who made this mighty
world out of nothing, and with Whom one day is as a thousand
years, and a thousand years as one day ! How weak and
inadequate are our poor feeble intellects to form any conception
32 KNOTS UNTIED.
of Him Who is perfect in all His works, perfect in the greatest
as well as perfect in the smallest, perfect in appointing the
days and hours, and minutes and seconds in which Jupiter,
with all his satellites, shall travel round the sun, perfect in
forming the smallest insect that creeps over a few feet of our
little globe ! How little can our busy helplessness comprehend
a Being who is ever ordering all things, in heaven and earth,
by universal providence : ordering the rise and fall of nations
and dynasties, like Nineveh and Carthage ; ordering the exact
length to which men like Alexander and Tamerlane and
Napoleon, shall extend their conquests ; ordering the least
step in the life of the humblest believer among His people :
all at the same time, all unceasingly, all perfectly, all for His
own glory.
The blind man is no judge of the paintings of Rubens or
Titian ; the deaf man is insensible to the beauty of Handel s
music ; the Greenlander can have but a faint, notion of the
climate of the tropics ; the South Sea islander can form but a
remote conception of a locomotive engine, however well you
may describe it. There is no faculty in their minds which can
take in these things ; they have no set of thoughts which can
comprehend them ; they have no mental fingers to grasp them.
And just in the same way, the best and brightest ideas that
man can form of God, compared to the reality which we shall
one day see, are weak and faint indeed.
But one thing, I think, is very clear : and that is this. Tin;
more any man considers calmly what God really is, the more he
must feel the immeasurable distance between God and himself ;
the more he meditates, the more he must see that there is a
great gulf between him and God. His conscience, I think, will
tell him, if he will let it speak, that God is perfect, and he im
perfect ; that God is very high, and he very low ; that God is
glorious majesty, and he a poor worm ; and that if ever he is
to stand before Him in judgment with comfort, he must have
some mighty Helper, or he will not be saved.
And what is all this but the very doctrine of the text with
which I began this paper ? What is all this but coming round
to the conclusion I am urging upon my readers ? With such an
one as God to give account to, we must have a mighty Saviour.
To give us peace with such a glorious being as God, we must
ONLY ONE WAY OF SALVATION. 33
have an almighty Mediator, a Friend and Advocate on our side,
an Advocate who can answer every charge that can be laid
against us, and plead our cause with God on equal terms. We
want this, and nothing less than this. Vague notions of mercy
will never give true peace. And such a Saviour, such a Friend,
such an Advocate is nowhere to be found excepting in the
person of Jesus Christ.
I lay this reason also before thinking men. I know well that
people may have false notions of God as well as everything
else, and shut their eyes against truth. But I say boldly and
confidently, No man can have really high and honourable views
of what God is, and escape the conclusion that the doctrine of
our text must be true. We are shut up to the truth of St.
Peter s declaration. There can be no possible salvation but by
Jesus Christ.
(3) Let me say, in the third place, this doctrine must be true,
because the Bible is wlmi the Bible is. If we do not believe the
doctrine, we must give up the Bible as the only rule of faith.
All through the Bible, from Genesis down to Eevelation,
there is only one simple account of the way in which man must
be saved. It is always the same : only for the sake of our Lord
Jesus Christ, through faith; not for our own works and
deservings.
We see it dimly revealed at first : it looms through the mist
of a few promises ; but there it is.
We have it more plainly afterwards : it is taught by the
pictures and emblems of the law of Moses, the schoolmaster dis
pensation.
We have it still more clearly by and by : the Prophets saw
in vision many particulars about the Redeemer yet to come.
We have it fully at last, in the sunshine of New Testament
history : Christ incarnate, Christ crucified, Christ rising
again, Christ preached to the world.
But one golden chain runs through the whole volume : no
salvation excepting by Jesus Christ. The bruising of the
serpent s head foretold in the day of the fall ; the clothing of
our first parents with skins ; the sacrifices of Noah, Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob ; the passover, and all the particulars of the
Jewish law, the high priest, the altar, the daily offering of the
lamb, the holy of holies entered only by blood, the scape-goat,
34 KNOTS UNTIED.
the cities of refuge ; all are so many witnesses to the truth set
forth in the text. All preach with one voice, salvation only by
Jesus Christ.
In fact, this truth appears to be the grand object of the
Bible, and all the different parts and portions of the book are
meant to pour light upon it. I can gather from it no ideas of
pardon and peace with God excepting in connection with this
truth. If I could read of one soul in it who was saved without
faith in a Saviour, I might perhaps not speak so confidently.
But when I see that faith in Christ, whether a coming Christ
or a crucified Christ, was the prominent feature in the religion
of all who went to heaven ; when I see Abel owning Christ in
his " better sacrifice " at one end of the Bible, and the saints in
glory in John s vision rejoicing in Christ at the other end of the
Bible; when I see a man like Cornelius, who was devout, and
feared God, and gave alms and prayed, not told that he had
done all, and would of course be saved, but ordered to send for
Peter, and hear of Christ; when I see all these things, I say,
I feel bound to believe that the doctrine of the text is the
doctrine of the whole Bible. The Word of God, fairly examined
and interpreted, shuts me up to the truth laid down by St.
Peter. No salvation, no way to heaven, excepting by Jesus
Christ.
Such are the reasons which, seem to me to confirm the truth
which forms the subject of this paper. What man is, what
God is, what the Bible is, all appear to me to lead on to the
same great conclusion : no possible salvation without Christ.
I leave them here, and pass on.
III. And now, in the third and last place, let me show some
consequences ivhich flow naturally out of the doctrine declared by
St. Peter.
There are few parts of the subject which seem to me more
important than this. The truth I have been trying to set
before my readers bears so strongly on the condition of a great
proportion of mankind, that I consider it would be mere affecta
tion on my part not to say something about it. If Christ is the
only way of salvation, what are we to feel about many people in
the world ? This is the point I am now going to take up.
I believe that many persons would go with me so far as I
ONLY ONE WAY OF SALVATION. 35
have gone, and would go no further. They will allow my
premises : they will have nothing to say to my conclusions.
They think it uncharitable to say anything which appears to
condemn others. For my part I cannot understand such
charity. It seems to me the kind of charity which would see a
neighbour drinking slow poison, but never interfere to stop him ;
which would allow emigrants to embark in a leaky, ill-found
vessel, and not interfere to prevent them ; which would see a
blind man walking near a precipice, and think it wrong to cry
out, and tell him there was danger.
The greatest charity is to tell the greatest quantity of truth.
It is no charity to hide the legitimate consequences of such a
saying of St. Peter as we are now considering, or to shut our
eyes against them. And I solemnly call on every one who
really believes there is no salvation in any but Christ, and
none other name given under heaven whereby we must be
saved, I solemnly call on that person to give me his attention,
while I set before him some of the tremendous consequences
which the doctrine we are considering involves.
I am not going to speak of the heathen who have never
heard the Gospel. Their final state is a great depth, which
the mightiest minds have been unable to fathom : I am not
ashamed of leaving it alone. One thing only I will say. If
any of the heathen, who die heathen, are saved, I believe they
will owe their salvation, however little they may know it on
this side of the grave, to the work and atonement of Christ.
Just as infants and idiots among ourselves will find at the last
day they owed all to Christ, though they never knew Him, so I
believe it will be with the heathen, if any of them are saved,
whether many or few. This at any rate I am sure of there is
no such thing as creature merit. My own private opinion is
that the highest Archangel (though, of course, in a very
different way and degree from us) will be found in some way to
owe his standing to Christ ; and that things in heaven, as well
as things on earth, will be found ultimately all indebted to the
name of Jesus. But I leave the case of the heathen to others,
and will speak of matters nearer home.
(a) One mighty consequence then which seems to be learned
from the text which forms the keynote of this paper, is the utter
uselessness of any religion without Christ.
36 KNOTS UNTIED.
There are many to be found in Christendom at this day who
have a religion of this kind. They would not like to be called
Deists, but Deists they are. That there is a God, that there is
what they are pleased to call Providence, that God is merciful,
that there will be a state after death, this is about the sum
and substance of their creed ; and as to the distinguishing tenets
of Christianity, they do not seem to recognize them at all.
Now I denounce such a system as a baseless fabric, its seeming-
foundation man s fancy, its hopes an utter delusion. The god
of such people is an idol of their own invention, and not the
glorious God of the Scriptures, a miserably imperfect being,
even on their own showing, without holiness, without justice,
without any attribute but that of vague, indiscriminate mercy.
Such a religion may possibly do as a toy to live with : it is far
too unreal to die with. It utterly fails to meet the wants of
man s conscience : it offers no remedy ; it affords no rest for the
soles of our feet ; it cannot comfort, for it cannot save. Let us
beware of it, if we love life. Let us beiuare of a religion without
Christ.
(b) Another consequence to be learned from the text is, the
folly of any religion in which Christ has not the first place.
I need not remind my readers how many hold a system of
this kind. The Socinian tells us that Christ was a mere man ;
that His blood had no more efficacy than that of another ; that
His death on the cross was not a real atonement and propitiation
of man s sins ; and that, after all, doing is the way to heaven,
and not believing. I solemnly declare that I believe such a
system is ruinous to men s souls. It seems to me to strike at
the root of the whole plan of salvation which God has revealed
in the Bible, and practically to nullify the greater part of the
Scriptures. It overthrows the priesthood of the Lord Jesus, and
strips Him of His office. It converts the whole system of the
law of Moses, touching sacrifices and ordinances, into a meaning
less form. It seems to say that the sacrifice of Cain was just
as good as the sacrifice of Abel. It turns man adrift on a sea
of uncertainty, by plucking from under him the finished work
of a divine Mediator. Let us beware of it, no less than of
Deism, if we love life. Let us beware of the least attempt to
depreciate and undervalue Christ s person, offices, or work. The
name whereby alone we can be saved, is a name above every
ONLY ONE WAY OF SALVATION. 3*7
name, and the slightest contempt poured upon it is an insult to
the King of kings. The salvation of our souls has been laid by
God the Father on Christ, and no other. If He were not very
God of very God, He never could accomplish it, and there could
be no salvation at all.
(c) Another consequence to be learned from our text, is the
great error committed by those who add anything to Christy as
necessary to salvation.
It is an easy thing to profess belief in the Trinity, and rever
ence for our Lord Jesus Christ, and yet to make some addition
to Christ as the ground of hope, and so to overthrow the doctrine
of the text as really and completely as by denying it altogether.
The Church of Rome does this systematically. She adds
things to Christianity over and above the requirements of the
Gospel, of her own invention. She speaks as if Christ s finished
work was not a sufficient foundation for a sinner s soul, and as
if it were not enough to say, " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,
and thou shalt be saved." She sends men to priests and con
fessors, to penances and absolution, to masses and extreme
unction, to fasting and bodily mortification, to the Virgin Mary
and the saints, as if these things could add to the safety there
is in Christ Jesus. And in doing this she sins against the
doctrine of God s Word with a high hand. Let us beware of
any Romish hankering after additions to the simple way of the
Gospel, from whatever quarter it may come.
But I fear the Church of Rome does not stand alone in this
matter. I fear there are thousands of professing Protestants
who are often erring in the same direction, although, of course,
in a very different degree. They get into a way of adding,
perhaps insensibly, other things to the name of Christ, or
attaching an importance to them which they never ought to
receive. The ultra Churchman in England, who thinks God s
covenanted mercies are tied to Episcopacy, the ultra Presby
terian in Scotland, who cannot reconcile prelacy with an intelligent
knowledge of the Gospel, the ultra Free-kirk man by his side,
who seems to think lay patronage and vital Christianity almost
incompatible, the ultra Dissenter, who traces every evil in
the Church to its connection with the State, and can talk of
nothing but the voluntary system, the ultra Baptist, who
shuts out from the Lord s table every one who has not received
38 KNOTS UNTIED.
his peculiar views of adult baptism, the ultra Plymouth
Brother, who believes all knowledge to reside with his own
body, and condemns every one outside as a poor w r eak babe ;
all these, I say, however unwittingly, exhibit a most uncom
fortable tendency to add to the doctrine of our text. All seem
to me to be practically declaring that salvation is not to be found
simply and solely in Christ. All seem to me to be practically
adding another name to the name of Jesus, whereby men must
be saved, even the name of their own party and sect. All
seem to me to be practically replying to the question, " What
shall I do to be saved 1 " not merely, " Believe on the Lord
Jesus Christ," but also " Come and join us."
Xow I call upon every true Christian to beware of such
ultraism, in whatever form he may be inclined to it. In saying
this I would not be misunderstood. I like every one to be
decided in his views of ecclesiastical matters, and to be fully
persuaded of their correctness. All I ask is, that men will not
put these things in the place of Christ, or place them anywhere
near Him, or speak of them as if they thought them needful to
salvation. However dear to us our own peculiar views may be,
let us beware of thrusting them in between the sinner and the
Saviour. In the things of God s Word, be it remembered,
addition, as well as subtraction, is a great sin.
(d) The last consequence which seems to me to be learned from
our text is, tlie utter absurdity of supposing that we ought to be
satisfied with a man s state of soul, if he is only earnest and
sincere.
This is a very common heresy indeed, and one against which
we all need to be on our guard. There are thousands who say
in the present day, " We have nothing to do with the opinions
of others. They may perhaps be mistaken, though it is possible
they are right and we wrong : but, if they are sincere and
earnest, we hope they will be saved even as we." And all this
sounds liberal and charitable, and people like to fancy their
own views are so ! To such an extreme length has this erron
eous idea run, that many are content to describe a Christian
as "an earnest man," and seem to think this vague definition
is quite sufficient !
Now I believe such notions are entirely contradictory to the
Bible, whatever else they may be. I cannot find in Scripture
ONLY ONE WAY OF SALVATION. 39
that any one ever got to heaven merely by sincerity, or was
accepted with God if he was only earnest in maintaining his own
views. The priests of Baal were earnest and sincere when they
cut themselves with knives and lancets till the blood gushed
out ; but that did not prevent Elijah from commanding them
to be treated as wicked idolaters. Manasseh, King of Judah,
was doubtless earnest and sincere when he burned his children
in the fire to Moloch ; but who does not know that he brought
on himself great guilt by so doing 1 The Apostle Paul, when a
Pharisee, was earnest and sincere while he made havoc of the
Church, but when his eyes were opened he mourned over this
as a special wickedness. Let us beware of allowing for a
moment that sincerity is everything, and that we have no right
to speak ill of a man s spiritual state because of the opinions he
holds, if he is only earnest in holding them. On such prin
ciples, the Druidical sacrifices, the car of Juggernaut, the Indian
suttees, the systematic murders of the Thugs, the fires of Smith-
field, might each and all be defended. It will not stand : it will
not bear the test of Scripture. Once allow such notions to be
true, and we may as well throw our Bibles aside altogether.
Sincerity is not Christ, and therefore sincerity cannot put away
sin.
I dare be sure these consequences sound very unpleasant to
the minds of some who may read them. But I say, calmly and
advisedly, that a religion without Christ, a religion that takes
away from Christ, a religion that adds anything to Christ, a
religion that puts sincerity in the place of Christ, all are
dangerous : all arc to be avoided, because all are alike contrary
to the doctrine of Scripture.
Some readers may not like this. I am sorry for it. They
think me uncharitable, illiberal, narrow-minded, bigoted, and so
forth. Be it so. But they will not tell me my doctrine is not
that of the Word of God and of the Church of England, whose
minister I am. That doctrine is, salvation in Christ to the very
uttermost, but out of Christ no salvation at all.
I feel it a duty to bear my solemn testimony against the spirit
of the day we live in ; to warn men against its infection. It is
not Atheism I fear so much, in the present times, as Pantheism.
It is not the system which says nothing is true, so much as the
system which says everything is true. It is not the system
40 KNOTS UNTIED.
which says there is no Saviour, so much as the system which
says there are many saviours, and many ways to peace ! It is
the system which is so liberal, that it dares not say anything is
false. It is the system which is so charitable, that it will allow
everything to be true. It is the system which seems ready to
honour others as well as our Lord Jesus Christ, to class them
all together, and to think well of all. Confucius and Zoroaster,
Socrates and Mahomet, the Indian Brahmins and the African
devil-worshippers, Arius and Pelagius, Ignatius Loyola and
Socinus, all are to be treated respectfully : none are to be
condemned. It is the system which bids us smile complacently
on all creeds and systems of religion. The Bible and the Koran,
the Hindoo Vedas and the Persian Zendavesta, the old wives
fables of Rabbinical writers and the rubbish of Patristic tradi
tions, the Racovian Catechism and the Thirty-nine Articles, the
revelations of Emanuel Swedenborg and the book of Mormon
of Joseph Smith, all, all are to be listened to : none are to be
denounced as lies. It is the system which is so scrupulous
about the feelings of others, that we are never to say they are
wrong. It is the system which is so liberal that it calls a man
a bigot if he dares to say, " I know my views are right." This
is the system, this is the tone of feeling which I fear in this
day, and this is the system which I desire emphatically to
testify against and denounce.
What is it all but a bowing down before a great idol, speci
ously called liberality 1 What is it all but a sacrificing of truth
upon the altar of a caricature of charity ? What is it all but
the worship of a shadow, a phantom, and an unreality ? What
can be more absurd than to profess ourselves content with
" earnestness," when we do not know what we are earnest about ?
Let us take heed lest we are carried away by the delusion. Has
the Lord God spoken to us in the Bible, or has He not 1 Has
He shown us the way of salvation plainly and distinctly in that
Bible, or has He not ? Has He declared to us the dangerous
state of all out of that way, or has He not ? Let us gird up the
loins of our minds, and look these questions fairly in the face,
and give them an honest answer. Tell us that there is some
other inspired book beside the Bible, and then we shall know
what you mean. Tell us that the whole Bible is not inspired,
and then we shall know where to meet you. But grant for a
ONLY ONE WAY OF SALVATION. 41
moment that the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the
Bible is God s truth, and then I know not in what way we can
escape the doctrine of the text. From the liberality which says
everybody is right, from the charity which forbids us to say
anybody is wrong, from the peace which is bought at the expense
of truth, may the good Lord deliver us !
For my own part, I frankly confess, I find no resting-place
between downright distinct Evangelical Christianity and down
right infidelity, whatever others may find. I see no half-way
house between them ; or else I see houses that are roofless and
cannot shelter my weary soul. I can see consistency in an
infidel, however much I may pity him. I can see consistency
in the full maintenance of Evangelical truth. But as to a
middle course between the two, I cannot see it ; and I say so
plainly. Let it be called illiberal and uncharitable. I can hear
God s voice nowhere except in the Bible, and I can see
no salvation for sinners in the Bible excepting through Jesus
Christ. In Him I see abundance : out of Him I see none.
And as for those who hold religions in which Christ is not
all, whoever they may be, I have a most uncomfortable feel
ing about their safety. I do not for a moment say that
none of them will be saved ; but I say that those who are saved
will be saved by their disagreement with their own principles,
and in spite of their own systems. The man who wrote the
famous line,
"He can t be wrong whose life is in the right,"
was a great poet undoubtedly, but he was a wretched divine.
Let me conclude this paper with a few words by way of appli
cation.
(1) First of all, if there is no salvation excepting in Christ,
let us make sure that we have an interest in that salvation our
selves. Let us not be content with hearing, and approving, and
assenting to the truth, and going no further. Let us seek to have
a personal interest in this salvation. Let us not rest till we know
and feel that we have got actual possession of that peace with
God which Jesus offers, and that Christ is ours, and we are
Christ s. If there were two, or three, or more ways of getting
to heaven, there would be no necessity for pressing this matter.
42 KNOTS UNTIED.
But if there is only one way, who can wonder that I say, "Make
sure that you are in it."
(2) Secondly, if there is no salvation excepting in Christ, let us
try to do good to the souls of all who do not know Him as a
Saviour. There are millions in this miserable condition, millions
in foreign lands, millions in our own country, millions who are not
trusting in Christ. We ought to feel for them if we are true
Christians ; we ought to pray for them ; we ought to work for
them, while there is yet time. Do we really believe that Christ
is the only way to heaven ? Then let us live as if we believed it.
Let us look round the circle of our own relatives and friends,
count them up one by one, and think how many of them are
not yet in Christ. Let us try to do good to them in some way
or other, and act as a man should act who believes his friends
to be in danger. Let us not be content with their being kind
and amiable, gentle and good-tempered, moral and courteous.
Let us rather be miserable about them till they come to Christ,
and trust in Him. I know all this may sound like enthusiasm
and fanaticism. I wish there was more of it in the world.
Anything, I am sure, is better than a quiet indifference about
the souls of others, as if everybody was in the way to heaven.
Nothing, to my mind, so proves our little faith, as our little
feeling about the spiritual condition of those around us.
(3) Thirdly , if there is no salvation excepting in Christ, let us
love all who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity, arid exalt Him as
their Saviour, whoever they may be. Let us not draw back
and look shy on others, because they do not see eye to eye with
ourselves in everything. Whether a man be a Free-kirk man
or an Independent, a Wesleyan or a Baptist, let us love him if
he loves Christ, and gives Christ His rightful place. We are
all ftist travelling toward a place where names and forms and
Church-government will be nothing, and Christ will be all.
Let us get ready for that place betimes, by loving all who are
in the way that leads to it.
This is the true charity, to believe all things and hope all
things, so long as we see Bible doctrines maintained and Christ
exalted. Christ must be the single standard by which all
opinions must be measured. Let us honour all who honour
Him : but let us never forget that the same Apostle Paul who
wrote about charity, says also, " If any man love not the Lord
ONLY ONE WAY OF SALVATION. 43
Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema." If our charity and
liberality are wider than that of the Bible, they are worth
nothing at all. Indiscriminate love is no love at all, and indis
criminate approbation of all religious opinions, is only a new
name for infidelity. Let us hold out the right hand to all who
love the Lord Jesus, but let us beware how we go beyond this.
(4) Lastly, if there is no salvation excepting by Christ, we must
not be surprised if ministers of the Gospel preach much about
Him. They cannot tell us too much about the name which
is above every name. We cannot hear of Him too often.
We may hear too much about controversy in sermons, we may
hear too much of works and duties, of forms, of ceremonies, of
sacraments and ordinances, but there is "one subject which we
never hear too much of : we can never hear too much of Christ.
When ministers are wearied of preaching Him, they are false
ministers : when people are wearied of hearing of Him, their
souls are in an unhealthy state. When ministers have preached
Him all their lives, the half of His excellence will remain
untold. When hearers see Him face to face in the day of His
appearing, they will find there was more in Him than their
hearts ever conceived.
Let me conclude this paper with the words of an old writer,
to which I desire humbly to subscribe. "I know no true
religion but Christianity ; no true Christianity but the doctrine
of Christ ; the doctrine of His divine person, of His divine
office, of His divine righteousness, and of His divine Spirit,
which all that are His receive. I know no true ministers of
Christ but such as make it their business, in their calling,
to commend Jesus Christ, in His saving fulness of grace and
glory, to the faith and love of men ; no true Christian but one
united to Christ by faith and love, unto the glorifying of the
name of Jesus Christ, in the beauty of Gospel holiness.
Ministers and Christians of this spirit have been for many
years my brethren and companions, and I hope shall ever be,
whithersoever the hand of God shall lead me."
(ROBERT TRAILL.)
III.
PRIVATE JUDGMENT.
" Prove all things ; holdfast that which is good." 1 THESS. v. 21.
THERE were three great doctrines or principles which won the
battle of the Protestant Reformation. These three were : (1)
the sufficiency and supremacy of Holy Scripture, (2) the right
of private judgment, and (3) justification by faith only, without
the deeds of the law.
These three principles were the keys of the whole controversy
between the Reformers and the Church of Rome. If we keep
firm hold of them when we argue with a Roman Catholic, our
position is unassailable : no weapon that the Church of Rome
can forge against us will prosper. If we give up any one of
them, our cause is lost. Like Samson, with his hair shorn, our
strength is gone. Like the Spartans, betrayed at Thermopylae,
we are out-flanked and surrounded. We cannot maintain our
ground. Resistance is useless. Sooner or later we shall have
to lay down our arms, and surrender at discretion.
Let us carefully remember this. The Roman Catholic con
troversy is upon us once more. We must put on the old armour,
if we would not have our faith overthrown. The sufficiency of
Holy Scripture, the right of private judgment, justification
by faith only, these are the three great principles to which we
must always cling. Let us grasp them firmly, and never let
them go.
One of the three great principles to which I have referred
appears to me to stand forth in the verse of Scripture which
heads this paper. I mean the right of private judgment. I
wish to say something about that principle.
The Holy Ghost, by the mouth of St. Paul, says to us,
" Prove all things ; hold fast that which is good." In these
words we have two great truths.
44
PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 45
I. The right, duty, and necessity of private judgment:
"Prove all things."
II. The duty and necessity of keeping firm hold upon truth :
" Hold fast that which is good."
In this paper I propose to dwell a little on both these points.
I. Let me speak first, of the right, duty, and necessity of
private judgment.
"When I say the right of private judgment, I mean that every
individual Christian has a right to judge for himself by the
"Word of God, whether that which is put before him as religious
truth is God s truth, or is not.
When I say the duty of private judgment, I mean that God
requires every Christian man to use the right of which I have
just spoken ; to compare man s words and man s writings with
God s revelation, and to make sure that he is not deluded and
taken in by false teaching.
And when I say the necessity of private judgment, I mean
this, that it is absolutely needful for every Christian who
loves his soul and would not be deceived, to exercise the right,
and discharge the duty to which I have referred ; seeing that
experience shows that the neglect of private judgment has
always been the cause of immense evils in the Church of Christ.
Now the Apostle Paul urges all these three points upon our
notice when he uses those remarkable words, " Prove all things."
I ask particular attention to that expression. In every point of
view it is most weighty and instructive.
Here, we must remember, the Apostle Paul is writing to the
Thessalonians, to a Church which he himself had founded.
Here is an inspired Apostle writing to young inexperienced
Christians, writing to the whole professing Church in a certain
city, ^ containing laity as well as clergy, writing, too, with
especial reference to matters of doctrine and preaching, as we
know by the verse preceding the text : " Despise not pro
phesy ings." And yet mark what he says, "Prove all
things."
He does not say, " Whatsoever Apostles, whatsoever
evangelists, pastors, and teachers, whatsoever your Bishops,
whatsoever your ministers tell you is truth, that you are to
46 KNOTS UNTIED.
believe." Xo ! he says, " Prove all things." He does not say,
" Whatsoever the universal Church pronounces true, that you
are to hold." No ! he says, " Prove all things."
The principle laid down is this : " Prove all things by the
Word of God ; all ministers, all teaching, all preaching, all
doctrines, all sermons, all writings, all opinions, all practices,
prove all by the Word of God. Measure all by the measure of
the Bible. Compare all with the standard of the Bible.
Weigh all in the balances of the Bible. Examine all by the
light of the Bible. Test all in the crucible of the Bible. That
which can abide the fire of the Bible, receive, hold, believe, and
obey. That which cannot abide the fire of the Bible, reject,
refuse, repudiate, and cast away."
This is private judgment. This is the right we are to
exercise if we love our souls. We are not to believe things in
religion merely because they are said by Popes or Cardinals,
by Bishops or Priests, by Presbyters or Deacons, by Churches,
Councils, or Synods, by Fathers, Puritans, or Reformers. We
are not to argue, " Such and such things must be true, because
these men say so." We are not to do so. We are to prove all
things by the Word of God.
Now I know such doctrine sounds startling in some men s
ears. But I write it down advisedly, and believe it cannot be
disproved. I should be sorry to encourage any man in ignorant
presumption or ignorant contempt. I praise not the man who
seldom reads his Bible, and yet sets himself up to pick holes in
his minister s sermons. I praise not the man who knows nothing
but a few texts in the New Testament, and yet undertakes to
settle questions in divinity which have puzzled God s wisest
children. But still I hold with Bishop Bilson (A.D. 1575), that
" all hearers have both liberty to discern and a charge to beware
of seducers ; and woe to them that do it not." And I say with
Bishop Davenant (A.D. 1627), "We are not to believe all who
undertake to teach in the Church, but must take care and weigh
with serious examination, whether their doctrine be sound or
not." *
* The people of God are called to try the truth, to judge between good
and ill, between light and darkness. God hath made them the promise of
His Spirit, and hath left unto them His Word. They of Berea, when they
heard the preaching of Paul, earched the Scriptures daily, whether those
PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 4*7
Some men I know, refuse to believe this doctrine of private
judgment ; but I assert confidently that it is continually taught
in the Word of God.
This is the principle laid down by the prophet Isaiah. (Isa.
viii. 19.) His words were written, we should remember, at a
time when God was more immediately King over His Church,
and had more direct communication with it than He has now.
They were written at a time when there were men upon earth
who had express revelations from God. Yet what does Isaiah
say? "When they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that
have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that
mutter : should not a people seek unto their God 1 for the living
to the dead ? To the law and to the testimony : if they speak
not according to this word, it is because there is no light in
them." If this be not private judgment, what is *?
This, again, is the principle laid down by our Lord Jesus
Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. The Head of the Church
says there : "Beware of false prophets which come to you in
sheep s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye
shall know them by their fruit." (Matt. vii. 15.) How is it
possible that men shall know these false prophets, except they
exercise their private judgment as to what their fruits are 1
This is the practice we find commended in the Bereans, in
the Acts of the Apostles. They did not take the Apostle Paul s
word for granted, when he come to preach to them. We are
told, that they " searched the Scriptures daily, whether those
things were so," and " therefore," it is said, " many of them
believed." (Acts xvii. 11,12.) What was this again but private
judgment ?
This is the spirit of the advice given in 1 Cor. x. 15, " I
speak as unto wise men ; judge ye what I say : " and in Col.
ii. 18, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy
and vain deceit ; " and in 1 John iv. 1, " Beloved, believe not
every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they are of God ; "
and in 2 John 10, "If there come any unto you, and bring
things were so as he taught them, and many of them believed. So do you :
give heed to instruction, and yet receive not all things without proof and
trial that they are not contrary to the wholesome doctrine of the Word of
God." Bishop Jewell, author of the "Apology of the Church of England.
1583.
48 KNOTS UNTIED.
not this doctrine, receive him not into your house." If these
passages do not recommend the use of private judgment, I do
not know what words mean. To my mind they seem to say to
every individual Christian, " Prove all things."
Whatever men may say against private judgment, we may be
sure it cannot be neglected without immense danger to the soul.
We may not like it ; but we never know what we may come to
if we refuse to use it. No man can say into what depths of
false doctrine we may be drawn if we will not do what God
requires of us, and " prove all things."
Suppose that, in fear of private judgment, we resolve to
believe whatever the Church believes. Where is our security
against error ( l The Church is not infallible. There was a time
when almost the whole of Christendom embraced the Arian
heresy, and did not acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ to be
equal with the Father in all things. There was a time, before
the Eeformation, when the darkness over the face of Europe
was a darkness that might be felt. The General Councils of the
Church are not infallible. When the whole Church is gathered
together in a General Council, what says our Twenty-first
Article ? " They may err, and sometimes have erred, even in
things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by
them as necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor author
ity, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy
Scripture." The particular branches of the Church are not
infallible. Any one of them may err. Many of them have
fallen foully, or have been swept away. Where is the Church
of Ephesus at this day 1 Where is the Church of Sardis at the
present time 1 ? Where is Augustine s Church of Hippo in
Africa ? Where is Cyprian s Church of Carthage 1 They are
all gone ! Not a vestige of any of them is left ! Shall we then
be content to err merely because the Church errs ^ Will our
company be any excuse for our error ? Will our erring in com
pany with the Church remove our responsibility for our own
souls ? Surely it is a thousand times better for a man to stand
alone and be saved, than to err in company with the Church, and
be losU It is better to "prove all things" and go to heaven,
than to say, " I dare not think for myself," and go to hell.
But suppose that, to cut matters short, we resolve to believe
whatever our minister believes. Once more I ask, Where is
PEIVATE JUDGMENT. 49
our security against error? Ministers are not infallible, any
more than Churches. All of them have not the Spirit of God.
The very best of them are only men. Call them Bishops,
Priests, Deacons, or whatever names you please, they are all
earthen vessels. I speak not merely of Popes, who have pro
mulgated awful superstitions, and led abominable lives. I
would rather point to the very best of Protestants, and say,
" Beware of looking upon them as infallible, beware of think
ing of any man (whoever that man may be) that he cannot err."
Luther held consubstantiation ; that was a mighty error.
Calvin, the Geneva Reformer, advised the burning of Servetus ;
that was a mighty error. Cranmer and Ridley urged the
putting of Hooper into prison because of some trifling dispute
about vestments ; that was a mighty error. Whitgift perse
cuted the Puritans ; that was a mighty error. Wesley and
Toplady in the last century quarrelled fiercely about Calvinism ;
that was a mighty error. All these things are warnings, if
we will only take them. All say, "Cease ye from man." All
show us that if a man s religion hangs on ministers, whoever
they may be, and not on the Word of God, it hangs on a broken
reed. Let us never make ministers Popes. Let us follow
them so far as they follow Christ, but not a hair s breadth
further. Let us believe whatever they can show us out of the
Bible, but not a single word more. If we neglect the duty of
private judgment, we may find, to our cost, the truth of what
Whitby says : " The best of overseers do sometimes make over
sights." We may live to experience the truth of what the Lord
said about the Pharisees : " If the blind lead the blind, both
shall fall into the ditch." (Matt. xv. 14.) We may be very
sure no man is safe against error, unless he acts on St. Paul s
injunction, unless he " proves all things " by the Word of
God.
I have said that it is impossible to overrate the evils that may
arise from neglecting to exercise private judgment. I will go
further, and say that it is impossible to overrate the blessings
which private judgment has conferred both on the world and
on the Church.
I ask my readers, then, to remember that the greatest dis
coveries in science and in philosophy, beyond all controversy,
have arisen from the use of private judgment. To this we owe
D
50 KNOTS UNTIED.
the discovery of Galileo, that the earth went round the sun,
and not the sun round the earth. To this we owe Columbus
discovery of the continent of America. To this we owe Harvey s
discovery of the circulation of the blood. To this we owe
Jcnncr s discovery of vaccination. To this we owe the printing
press, the steam engine, the powerloom, the electric telegraph,
railways, and gas. For all these discoveries we are indebted to
men who dared to "think for themselves." They were not
content with the beaten path of those who had gone before.
They were not satisfied with taking for granted that what their
fathers believed must be true. They made experiments for
themselves. They brought old-established theories to the proof,
and found that they were worthless. They proclaimed new
systems, and invited men to examine them, and test their truth.
They bore storms of obloquy and ridicule unmoved. They
heard the clamour of prejudiced lovers of old traditions without
flinching. And they prospered and succeeded in what they did.
We see it now. And we who live in the nineteenth century
are reaping the fruit of their use of private judgment.
And as it has been in science, so also it has been in the
history of the Christian religion. The martyrs who stood alone
in their day, and shed that blood which has been the seed of
Christ s Gospel throughout the world, the Reformers, who,
one after another, rose up in their might to enter the lists with
the Church of Koine, all did what they did, suffered what they
suffered, proclaimed what they proclaimed, simply because they
exercised their private judgment about what was Christ s truth.
Private judgment made the Vallenses, the Albigenses, and
the Lollards, count not their lives dear to them, rather than
believe the doctrines of the Church of Rome. Private judgment
made "Wickliffe search the Bible in our own land, denounce the
Romish friars, and all their impostures, translate the Scriptures
into the vulgar tongue, and become " the morning star " of the
Reformation. Private judgment made Luther examine Tetzel s
abominable system of indulgences by the light of the Word.
Private judgment led him on, step by step, from one thing to
another, guided by the same light, till at length the gulf
between him and Rome was a gulf that could not be passed,
and the Pope s power in Germany was completely broken.
Private judgment made our own English Reformers examine
PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 51
for themselves, and inquire for themselves, as to the true nature
of that corrupt system under which they had been born and
brought up. Private judgment made them cast off the abomina
tions of Popery, and circulate the Bible among the laity.
Private judgment made them draw from the Bible our Articles,
compile our Prayer-book, and constitute the Church of England as
it is. They broke the fetters of tradition, and dared to think for
themselves. They refused to take for granted Rome s preten
sions and assertions. They examined them all by the Bible, and
because they would not abide the examination, they broke with
Rome altogether. All the blessings of Protestantism in England,
all that we are enjoying at this very day, we owe to the right
exercise of private judgment. Surely if we do not honour
private judgment, we are thankless and ungrateful indeed !
Let us not be moved by the common argument, that the right
of private judgment is liable to be abused, that private judg
ment has done great harm, and should be avoided as a dangerous
thing. Never was there a more miserable argument ! Never
was there one which, when thrashed, proves so full of chaff !
Private judgment lias been abused! I would like the objector
to tell me what good gift of God has not been abused ? What
high principle can be named that has not been employed for
the very worst of purposes ? Strength may become tyranny,
when it is employed by the stronger to coerce the weaker ; yet
strength is a blessing when properly employed. Liberty may
become licentiousness, when every man does that which is right
in his own eyes, without regarding the rights and feelings of
others ; yet liberty, rightly used, is a mighty blessing. Because
many things may be used improperly, are we therefore to give
them up. altogether? Because opium is used improperly by
some, is it not to be used as a medicine on any occasion at all ?
Because money may be used improperly, is all money to be cast
into the sea ? You cannot have good in this world without evil.
You cannot have private judgment without some abusing it,
and turning it to bad account.
But private judgment, people say, lias done more harm titan
good ! What harm has private judgment done, I would like to
know, in matters of religion, compared to the harm that has
been done by the neglect of it 1 Some are fond of telling us
that among Protestants who allow private judgment, there are
52 KNOTS UNTIED.
divisions, and that in the Church of Eomc, where private
judgment is forbidden, there are no divisions. I might easily
show such objectors that Romish unity is far more seeming than
real. Bishop Hall, in his book called The Peace of Rome,
numbers up no less than three hundred differences of opinion
existing in the Romish Church. I might easily show that the
divisions of Protestants are exceedingly exaggerated, and that
most of them are upon points of minor importance. I might
show that, with all the "varieties of Protestantism," as men
call them, there is still a vast amount of fundamental unity and
substantial agreement among Protestants. ]N"o man can read
the Harmony of Protestant Confessions without seeing that.
But grant for a moment that private judgment has led to
divisions, and brought about varieties. I say that these
divisions and varieties are but a drop of water when compared
with the torrent of abominations that have arisen from the
Church of Rome s practice of disallowing private judgment
altogether. Place the evils in two scales, the evils that have
arisen from private judgment, and those that have arisen from
no man being allowed to think for himself. Weigh the evils
one against another, and I have no doubt as to which will be
the greatest. Give me Protestant divisions, certainly, rather
than Popish unity, with the fruit that it brings forth. Give
me Protestant variations, whatever a man like Bossuet may say
about them, rather than Romish ignorance, Romish superstition,
Romish darkness, and Romish idolatry. Give me the Pro
testant diversities of England and Scotland, with all their dis
advantages, rather than the dead level, both intellectual and
spiritual, of the Italian peninsula. Let the two systems be
tried by their fruits, the system that says, "Prove all things,"
and the system that says, " Dare to have no opinion of your
own ; " let them be tried by their fruits in the hearts, in the
intellects, in the lives, in all the ways of men, and I have no
doubt as to the result.
In any case let us not be moved by the specious argument,
that it is humility to disallow private judgment, and to have no
opinion of our own, that it is the part of a true Christian not
to think for himself !
I tell men boldly that such humility is a false humility, a
humility that does not deserve that blessed name. Call it
PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 53
rather laziness, idleness, and sloth. It makes a man strip liim-
self of all his responsibility, and throw the whole burden of his
soul into the hands of the minister and the Church. It gives a
man a mere vicarious religion, a religion by which he places his
conscience and all his spiritual concerns under the care of others.
He need not trouble himself ! He need no longer think for
himself ! He has embarked in a safe ship, and placed his soul
under a safe pilot, and will get to heaven ! Oh, let us beware
of supposing that this deserves the name of humility ! It is
refusing to exercise the gift that God has given us. It is
refusing to employ the sword of the Spirit which God has
forged for the use of our hand. Blessed be God, our forefathers
did not act upon such principles ! Had they done so, we should
never have had the Reformation. Had they done so, we might
have been bowing down to the image of the Virgin Mary at
this moment, or praying to the spirits of departed saints, or
having a service performed in Latin. From such humility may
the good Lord ever deliver us !
As long as we live, let us resolve that we will read for our
selves, think for ourselves, judge of the Bible for ourselves, in
the great matters of our souls. Let us dare to have an opinion
of our own. Let us never be ashamed of saying, " I think that
this is right, because I find it in the Bible ; " and " I think that
this is wrong, because I do not find it in the Bible." " Let us
prove all things," and prove them by the Word of God.
As long as we live, let us beware of the blindfold system,
which many commend in the present day, the system of
following a leader, and having no opinion of our own, the
system which practically says, "Only keep your Church, only
receive the Sacraments, only believe what the ordained ministers
who are set over you tell you, and then all shall be well." I
warn men that this will not do. If we are content with this
kind of religion, we are perilling our immortal souls. Let the
Bible, and not any Church upon earth, or any minister upon
earth, be our rule of faith. "Prove all things" by the Word
of God.
Above all, as long as we live, let us habitually look forward
to the great day of judgment. Let us think of the solemn
account which every one of us will have to give in that day
before the judgment-seat of Christ. We shall not be judged
54 KNOTS UNTIED.
by Churches. We shall not be judged by whole congregations.
We shall be judged individually, each by himself. What shall
it profit us in that day to say, " Lord, Lord, I believed every
thing the Church told me. I received and believed everything
ordained ministers set before me. I thought that whatever the
Church and the ministers said must be right " ? What shall it
profit us to say this, if we have held some deadly error 1 Surely,
the voice of Him that sits upon the throne will reply, " You
had the Scriptures. You had a book, plain and easy to him
that will read it and search it in a child-like spirit. Why did
you not use the Word of God when it was given to you ? You
had a reasonable soul given you to understand that Bible. Why
did you not Prove all things, and thus keep clear of error ? "
If we refuse to exercise our private judgment, let us think of
that awful day, and beware.
II. And now let me speak of the duty and necessity of
keeping firm hold upon God s truth.
The words of the Apostle on this subject are pithy and
forcible. " Hold fast," he says, "that which is good." It is
as if he said to us, "When you have found the truth for your
self, and when you are satisfied that it is Christ s truth, that
truth which the Scriptures set forth, then get a firm hold upon
it, grasp it, keep it in your heart, never let it go."
St. Paul speaks as one who knew what the hearts of all
Christians are. He knew that our grasp of the Gospel, at our
best, is very cold, that our love soon waxes feeble, that our
faith soon wavers, that our zeal soon flags, that familiarity
with Christ s truth often brings with it a species of contempt,
that, like Israel, we are apt to be discouraged by the length
of our journey, and, like Peter, ready to sleep one moment
and fight the next, but, like Peter, not ready to " watch and
pray." All this St. Paul remembered, and, like a faithful
watchman, he cries, by the Holy Ghost, " Hold fast that which
is good."
He speaks as if he foresaw by the Spirit that the good
tidings of the Gospel would soon be corrupted, spoiled, and
plucked away from the Church at Thessalonica. He speaks as
one who foresaw that Satan and all his agents would labour
hard to cast down Christ s truth. He writes as though he
PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 55
would forewarn men of this danger, and he cries, "Hold fast
that which is good."
The advice is always needed, needed as long as the world
stands. There is a tendency to decay in the very best of
human institutions. The best visible Church of Christ is not
free from a liability to degenerate. It is made up of fallible
men. There is always in it a tendency to leave its first love.
We see the leaven of evil creeping into many a Church, even
in the Apostle s time. There were evils in the Corinthian
Church, evils in the Ephesian Church, evils in the Galatian
Church. All these things are meant to be beacons in these
latter times. All show the great necessity laid upon the
Church to remember the Apostle s words : " Hold fast that
which is good."
Many Churches of Christ since then have fallen away for
the want of remembering this principle. Their ministers and
members forgot that Satan, is always labouring to bring in false
doctrine. They forgot that he can transform himself into an
angel of light, that he can make darkness appear light, and
light darkness, truth appear falsehood, and falsehood truth.
If he cannot destroy Christianity, he ever tries to spoil it.
If he cannot prevent the form of godliness, he endeavours
to rob Churches of the power. No Church is ever safe that
forgets these things, and does not bear in mind the Apostle s
injunction : " Hold fast that which is good."
If ever there was a time in the world when Churches were
put upon their trial, whether they would hold fast the truth
or not, that time is the present time, and those Churches are
the Protestant Churches of our own land. Popery, that old
enemy of our nation, is coming in upon us in this day like a
flood. We are assaulted by open enemies without, and
betrayed continually by false friends within. The number of
Roman Catholic churches, and chapels, and schools, and con
ventual and monastic establishments, is continually increasing
around us. Month after month brings tidings of some new
defection from the ranks of the Church of England to the
ranks of the Church of Rome. Already the clergy of the
Church of Rome are using great swelling words about things
to come, and boasting that, sooner or later, England shall once
more be brought back to the orbit from whence she fell, and
56 KNOTS UNTIED.
take her place in the Catholic system. Already the Pope has
parcelled out our country into bishoprics, and speaks like one
who fancies that by and by he shall divide the spoil.
Already he seems to foresee a time when England shall be as
the patrimony of St. Peter s, when London shall be as Koine,
when St. Paul s shall be as St. Peter s, and Lambeth Palace
shall be as the Vatican itself. Surely now or never, we ought
all of us to awake, and " Hold fast that which is good."
Perhaps we supposed, some of us, in our blindness, that the
power of the Church of Rome was ended. We dreamed, in
our folly, that the Reformation had ended the Popish contro
versy, and that if Romanism did survive, Romanism was
altogether changed. If we did think so, we have lived to
learn that we made a most grievous mistake. Rome never
changes. It is her boast that she is always the same. The
snake is not killed. He was scotched at the time of the
Reformation, but was not destroyed. The Romish Antichrist
is not dead. He was cast down for a little season, like the
fabled giant buried under /Etna, but his deadly wound is
healed, the grave is opening once more, and Antichrist is com
ing forth. The unclean spirit of Popery is not laid in his own
place. Rather he seems to say, " My house in England is now
swept and garnished for me ; let me return to the place from
whence I came forth."
And the question is now, whether we are going to abide
quietly, sit still, and fold our hands, and do nothing to resist
the assault. Are we really men of understanding of the times 1
Do we know the day of our visitation 1 Surely this is a crisis
in the history of our Churches and of our land. It is a time
which will soon prove whether we know the value of our privi
leges, or whether, like Amalek, "the first of the nations," our
"latter end shall be that we perish for ever." It is a time
which will soon prove whether we intend to allow our candle
stick to be removed, or to repent, and do our first works, lest
any man should take our crown. If we love the open Bible,
if we love the preaching of the Gospel, if we love the
privilege of reading that Bible, no man letting or hindering
us, and the opportunity of hearing that Gospel, no man
forbidding us, if we love civil liberty, if we love religious
liberty, if these things are precious to our souls, we
PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 57
must make up our minds to " hold fast," lost by and by we
lose all.
If we mean to "hold fast," every parish, every congrega
tion, every Christian man, and every Christian woman, must
do their part in contending for the truth. Each one of us
should work, and pray, and labour as if the preservation of
the pure Gospel depended upon himself or herself, and upon
no one else at all. The Bishops must not leave the matter to
the priests, nor the priests leave the matter to the Bishops.
The clergy must not leave the matter to the laity, nor the
laity to the clergy. The Parliament must not leave the matter
to the country, nor the country to the Parliament. The rich
must not leave the matter to the poor, nor the poor to the
rich. We must all work. Every living soul has a sphere of
influence. Let him see to it that he fills it. Every living soul
can throw some weight into the scale of the Gospel. Let him
see to it that he casts it in. Let every one know his own
individual responsibility in this matter ; and all, by God s help,
will be well.
If we would "hold fast" that which is good, we must never
tolerate or countenance any doctrine which is not the pure
doctrine of Christ s Gospel. There is a hatred which is down
right charity, that is, the hatred of erroneous doctrine.
There is an intolerance which is downright praiseworthy,
that is, the intolerance of false teaching in the pulpit. Who
would ever think of tolerating a little poison given to him
day by day ? If men come among us who do not preach " all
the counsel of God," who do not preach of Christ, and sin, and
holiness, of ruin, and redemption, and regeneration, and do not
preach of these things in a Scriptural way, we ought to cease
to hear them. We ought to act upon the injunction given by
the Holy Ghost in the Old Testament: "Cease, my son, to
hear the instruction which causes to err from the words of
knowledge." (Prov. xix. 27.) We ought to carry out the spirit
shown by the Apostle Paul, in Gal. i. 8 : " Though we, or an
angel from heaven, preach any other doctrine unto you than
that which we have preached, let him be accursed." If we
can bear to hear Christ s truth mangled or adulterated, and can
see no harm in listening to that which is another Gospel,
and can sit at ease while sham Christianity is poured into our
58 KNOTS UNTIED.
ears, and can go home comfortably afterwards, and not burn
with holy indignation, if this be the case, there is little
chance of our ever doing much to resist Rome. If we are
content to hear Jesus Christ not put in His rightful place, we
are not men and women who are likely to do Christ much
service, or fight a good fight on His side. He that is not
zealous against error, is not likely to be zealous for truth.
If we would hold fast the truth, we must be ready to unite
with all who hold the truth, and love the Lord Jesus Christ
in sincerity. We must be ready to lay aside all minor ques
tions as things of subordinate importance. Establishment or
no Establishment, Liturgy or no Liturgy, surplice or no sur
plice, Bishops or Presbyters, all these points of difference,
however important they may be in their place and in their
proportion, all ought to be regarded as subordinate questions.
I ask no man to give up his private opinions about them. I
wish no man to do violence to his conscience. All I say is,
that these questions are wood, hay, and stubble, when the very
foundations of the faith are in danger. The Philistines are
upon us. Can we make common cause against them, or can we
not ? This is the one point for our consideration. Surely it
is not right to say that we expect to spend eternity with
men in heaven, and yet cannot work for a few years with
them in this world. It is nonsense to talk of alliance and
union, if there is to be no co - operation. The presence
of a common foe ought to sink minor differences. We
must hold together, if we mean to "hold fast that which is
good."
Some men may say, " This is very troublesome." Some
may say, " Why not sit still and be quiet 1 " Some may say,
"Oh, that horrid controversy! What need is there for all
this trouble? Why should we care so much about these
points of difference 1 " I ask, what good thing was ever got,
or ever kept, without trouble 1 Gold does not lie in English
corn - fields, but at the bottom of Calif oruian rivers, and
Australian quartz reefs. Pearls do not grow on English hedges,
but deep down in Indian seas. Difficulties are never over
come without struggles. Mountains are seldom climbed with
out fatigue. Oceans are not crossed without tossings on the
waves. Peace is seldom obtained without war. And Christ s
PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 59
truth is seldom made a nation s property, and kept a nation s
property, without pains, without struggles, and without trouble.
Let the man who talks of " trouble " tell us where we should
be at this day, if our forefathers had not taken some trouble 1
Where would be the Gospel in England, if martyrs had not
given their bodies to be burned ? "Who shall estimate our
debt to Cranmer, Latimer, Hooper, Ridley, and Taylor, and
their brethren? They "held fast that which is good." They
would not give up one jot of Christ s truth. They counted
not their lives dear for the Gospel s sake. They laboured and
travailed, and we have entered into their labours. Shame
upon us, if we will not take a little trouble to keep with us
what they so nobly won ! Trouble or no trouble, pains or no
pains, controversy or no controversy, one thing is very sure,
that nothing but Christ s Gospel will ever do good to our own
souls. Nothing else will maintain our Churches. Xothing
else will ever bring down God s blessing upon our land. If,
therefore, we love our own souls, or if we love our country s
prosperity, or if we love to keep our Churches standing, we
must remember the Apostle s words, and " hold fast" firmly the
Gospel, and refuse to let it go.
I have set forth in plain language two things. One is the
right, the duty, and necessity of private judgment. The other is
the duty and necessity of keeping firm hold upon truth. It only
remains to apply these things to the individual consciences of
my readers, by a few concluding words.
(1) For one thing, if it be our duty to "prove all things,"
let me beseech and exhort all English Churchmen to arm them
selves with a thorough knowledge of the written Word of God.
Let us read our Bibles regularly, and become familiar with their
contents. Let us prove all religious teaching, when it is brought
before us, by the Bible. A little knowledge of the Bible will
not suffice. A man must know his Bible well, if he is to prove
religion by it ; and he must read it regularly, if he would know
it well. There is no royal road to a knowledge of the Bible.
There must be patient, daily, systematic reading of the Book,
or the Book will not be known. As one said quaintly, but
most truly, " Justification may be by faith, but a knowledge of
the Bible comes only by works." The devil can quote Scripture.
60 KNOTS UNTIED.
He could go to our Lord and quote a text when he wished to
tempt Him. A man must be able to say, when he hears Scrip
ture falsely quoted, perverted, and misapplied, "It is written
again," lest he be deceived. Let a man neglect his Bible, and
I see nothing to prevent his becoming a Roman Catholic,
an Arian, a Socinian, a Jew, or a Turk, if a plausible advocate
of any of these false systems shall happen to meet him.
(2) For another thing, if it be right to "prove all things,"
let us take special care to try every Roman Catholic doctrine,
by whomsoever put forward, by the written Word of God.
Let us believe nothing, however speciously advanced, believe
nothing, with whatever weight of authority brought forward,
believe nothing, though supported by all the Fathers, believe
nothing, except it can be proved to us out of the Scripture.
The Bible alone is infallible. That alone is light. That alone is
God s measure of truth and falsehood. " Let God be true, and
every man a liar." The Xew Zealander s answer to the Romish
priests when they first went among them, was an answer never
to be forgotten. They heard these priests urge upon them the
worship of the Virgin Mary. They heard them recommend
prayer to the dead saints, the use of images, the mass and the
confessional. They heard them speak of the authority of the
Church of Rome, the supremacy of the Pope, the antiquity of
the Romish Communion. They knew the Bible, and heard all
this calmly, and gave one simple but memorable answer : " It
cannot be true, because it is not in the Book" All the learning
in the world could never have supplied a better answer than
that. Latimer, or Knox, or Owen, could never have made a
more crushing reply. Let this be our rule when we are attacked
by Romanists, or semi-Romanists ; let us hold fast the sword of
the Spirit; and say, in reply to all their arguments, " It cannot
be true, because it is not in the Book"
(3) Last of all, if it be right to "hold fast that which is
good," let us make sure that we have each laid hold personally
upon Christ s truth for ourselves. It will not save us to know
all controversies, and to be able to detect everything which is
false. Head knowledge will never bring us to heaven. It
will not save us to be able to argue and reason with Roman
Catholics, or to detect the errors of Popes Bulls, or Pastoral
Letters. Let us see that we each lay hold upon Jesus Christ for
PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 61
ourselves, by our own personal faith. Let us see to it that we
each flee for refuge, and lay hold upon the hope set before us
in His glorious Gospel. Let us do this, and all shall be well
with us, whatever else may go ill. Let us do this, and then
all things are ours. The Church may fail. The State may go
to ruin. The foundations of all establishments may be shaken.
The enemies of truth may for a season prevail. But as for us,
all shall be well. We shall have in this world peace, and in
the world which is to come, life everlasting ; for we shall have
Christ, and having Him, we have all. This is real " good," lasting
good, good in sickness, good in health, good in life, good in
death, good in time, and good in eternity. All other things
are but uncertain. They all wear out. They fade. They
droop. They wither. They decay. The longer we have them
the more worthless we find them, and the more satisfied we
become, that everything here below is " vanity and vexation of
spirit." But as for hope in Christ, that is always good. The
longer we use it the better it seems. The more we wear it in
our hearts the brighter it will look. It is good when we first
have it. It is better far when we grow older. It is better
still in the day of trial, and the hour of death. And it will
prove best of all in the day of judgment.
IV.
THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES.
I MUST begin this paper with an apology. My subject may
seem at first sight dry, dull, and uninteresting. But I ask my
readers to believe that it is not so in reality. There are few
points about which it is so important for English Churchmen
to have clear and correct views, as about the nature, position,
and authority of the Thirty-nine Articles.
Marriage settlements and wills are not very lively reading.
Like all carefully-drawn legal documents, they are extremely
unattractive to general readers. The language seems cramped
and old-fashioned ; the amount of verbiage and circumlocution
in them appears positively astounding : yet none but a child or
fool would ever dare to say that wills and marriage settlements are
of no use. The happiness of whole families often turns upon the
meaning of their contents. It is even so with the Thirty-nine
Articles. Dry, and dull, and uninteresting as they may appear
to some, they are in one sense the backbone of the Church of
England. Surely some knowledge of them ought to be sought
after by every sensible and intelligent member of our Com
munion.
Who is the " true Churchman " ? That is a question which
is shaking the Established Church of England to the very centre,
and will shake it a good deal more, I suspect, before the end
of the world comes. It is becoming a very large and serious
question, and one which imperatively demands an answer.
It is not enough to say that everybody who goes to church is
a " true Churchman." That reply, I think, will content nobody.
There are scores of people occupying our pews and benches every
Sunday, who know nothing whatever about religion. They
could not tell you, if life depended on it, what they believe or
don t believe, hold or don t hold, think or don t think, about
any doctrine of Christianity. They are totally in the dark
62
THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 63
about the whole subject. Politics they know, and business
they know, and science perhaps they know, and possibly they
know something about the amusements of this world. But as
to the composition of a "true Churchman s" creed, they can
tell you nothing whatever. They "go to church" on Sundays;
and that is all. Surely this will never do ! Ignorance, com
plete ignorance, can never be the qualification of a true Church-
But perhaps it is enough to say that everybody who goes to
church, and is zealous and earnest in his religion, is a "true
Churchman " ? That is a very wide question, and opens up an
entirely new line of thought. But I fear it will not land us in
any satisfactory conclusion. " Earnestness " is the attribute of
men of the most opposite and contradictory creeds. " Earnest
ness is the character of religionists who are as wide apart as
black and white, light and darkness, bitter and sweet, hot and
cold. You see it outside the Church of England. The
Mohametans who overran the rotten Churches of Africa and
Western Asia, crying, " the Koran or the sword," the Hindoo
Fakir who stands on one leg for twenty years, or throws himself
under the car of Juggernaut, the Jesuit, who saps and mines,
and compasses sea and land to make one proselyte, the
Mormonite, who crosses half the globe to die in the Salt Lake
City, and calls Joe Smith a prophet, all these undeniably
were and are earnest men. You sec it inside the Church of
England at this very day. The Eitualist, the Rationalist, the
Evangelical, all are in earnest. Mr. Mackonochie and Dr.
M Neile, Dean Stanley and Archdeacon Denison, Mr.
Bennett, of Frome, and Mr. Daniel Wilson, in London, all
are, or were during their lives, unquestionably earnest men.
Yet every one knows that their differences are grave, wide, deep,
and irreconcilable. Surely this will never do. Earnestness
alone is no proof that a man is a true Churchman. The devil
is in earnest. Infidels are in earnest. Deists arc in earnest.
Socinians are in earnest. Papists are in earnest. Pharisees
were in earnest. Sadducees were in earnest. Earnestness
alone proves nothing more than this, that a man has a
good deal of steam and energy and " go " about him, and will
not go to sleep. But it certainly does not prove that a man
is a "true Churchman." What is the man earnest about?
64 KNOTS UNTIED.
This is the question that ought to be asked, and deserves to be
answered.
Once for all, I must protest against the modern notion, that
it does not matter the least what religious opinions a man holds,
so long as he is in " earnest " about them, that one creed is
just as good as another, and that all " earnest " men will some
how or other at last find themselves in heaven. I cannot hold
such an opinion, so long as I believe that the Bible is a revela
tion from God. I would extend to every one the widest liberty
and toleration. I abhor the idea of persecuting any one for
his opinions. I would " think and let think." But so long as
I have breath in my body, I shall always contend that there is
such a thing as revealed truth, that men may find out what
truth is if they will honestly seek for it, and that mere
earnestness and zeal, without Scriptural knowledge, will never
give any one comfort in life, peace in death, or boldness in the
day of judgment.
But how are we to find out who is the " true Churchman " ?
some one will ask me. Men complain with good reason that
they feel puzzled, perplexed, embarrassed, bewildered, posed,
and mystified by the question. Rationalists, Ritualists, and
Evangelicals, all call themselves " Churchmen." Who is right ?
The name "Churchman" is bandied about from side to side,
like a shuttlecock, and men lay claim to it who on many
points are diametrically opposed to one another. Xow how
are we to settle the question? What are we to believe?
What are we to think ? How shall we distinguish the good coin
from the bad ? In one word, is there any test, any legal, author
ized test of a true Churchman 1
My answer to all these inquiries is short, plain, and most
decided. I assert confidently that the Church of England has
provided a test of true Churchmanship, and one that is recog
nized by the law of the land. This test is to be found in " the
Thirty-nine Articles of Religion." I say, furthermore, that
the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion form a test which any
plain man can easily understand, if he will only give his mind
to a study of them. An honest examination of these Articles
will show any one at this day who is the best, the truest, the most
genuine style of Churchman. To exhibit the authority, nature,
and characteristics of the Thirty-nine Articles, is the simple
THE THIRTY-XINE ARTICLES. 65
object for which I send forth the paper which is now in the
reader s hands.
I. Now, first of all, what are the Thirty-nine Articles ? This
is a question which many will be ready to ask, and one to
which it is absolutely necessary to return an answer. It is a
melancholy fact, explain it as we may, that for the last 200
years the Articles have fallen into great and undeserved neglect.
Thousands and myriads of Churchmen, I am fully persuaded,
have never read them, never even looked at them, and of course
know nothing whatever of their contents. I make no apology
therefore for beginning with that which every Churchman
ought to know. I will briefly state what the Thirty-nine
Articles are.
The Thirty-nine Articles are a brief and condensed statement,
under thirty -nine heads or propositions, of what the Church of
England regards as the chief doctrines which her chief members
ought to hold and believe. They were, most of them, gathered
by our Reformers out of Holy Scripture. They were carefully
packed up and summarized in the most accurate and precise
language, of which every word was delicately weighed, and had
a special meaning. Some of the Articles are positive, and
declare directly what the Church of England regards as Bible
truth and worthy of belief. Some of them are negative, and
declare what the Church of England considers erroneous and
unworthy of credence. Some few of them are simple state
ments of the Church s judgment on points which were somewhat
controverted, even among Protestants, 300 hundred years ago,
and on which Churchmen might need an expression of opinion.
Such is the document commonly called the Thirty-nine Articles ;
and all who wish to read it will find it at the end of every
properly printed Prayer-book. At all events, any Prayer-book
which does not contain the Articles is a most imperfect,
mutilated, and barely honest copy of the Liturgy.
"When and by whom were these Articles first drawn up ?
They were first composed by our Reformers in the days of that
admirable young King, Edward the Sixth. Who had the chief
hand in the work, history does not reveal ; but there is every
reason to believe that Cranmer and Ridley our two most learned
martyrs, had more to do with it than any. When first sent
66 KNOTS UNTIED.
forth, they were forty-two in number. Afterwards, when
Queen Elizabeth came to the throne, they were reduced by
Archbishop Parker and his helpers, of whom Bishop Jewell was
probably the chief, to their present number, with a few unim
portant alterations. They were finally confirmed and ratified
by Crown, Convocation, and Parliament, in the year 1571,
and from 1571 down to this day not a single word in them has
been altered.
The object for which the Articles were drawn up is clearly
stated in the title of them, which any one will find in a proper
Prayer-book. They are called "Articles agreed upon by the
Archbishops and Bishops of both provinces, and the whole
clergy, in the Convocation holden at London in the year 1562,
for avoiding of diversities of opinion, and for the establishment
of consent touching true religion." About the real, plain, honest
meaning of this title, I think there ought to be no doubt. It
proves that the Thirty- nine Articles are intended to be " the
Church of England s Confession of faith." Every well-organized
Church throughout Christendom has its Confession of faith :
that is, it has a carefully composed statement of the main
things in religion which it considers its members ought to
believe. Every reading man knows this. The Augsburg Con
fession, the Creed of Pope Pius IV., the Decrees of the Council
of Trent, the Westminster Confession, are documents with
which every student of ecclesiastical history is familiar. Com-
mon sense shows the necessity and convenience of such Confes
sions. In a fallen world like this the terms of membership in
any ecclesiastical corporation must be written down in black
and white, or else the whole body is liable to fall into disorder
and confusion. Every member of a Church ought to be able to
render a reason of his membership, and to say what are the
great principles of his Church. To do this his Church supplies
him with a short creed, manual, or Confession, to which at any
time he may refer inquirers. This was the object of the
Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. They were
intended to be "the Churchman s Confession of his faith."
The substance of the Thirty-nine Articles is a point on which
I shall say but little at present, because I propose to dwell on
it by and by. Let it suffice to say that they contain most
admirable, terse, clear statements of Scriptural truth, according
THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 67
to the judgment of our Reformers, on almost every point in the
The titles speak for themselves :
Christian religion.
A Table of the Articles.
1. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity.
2. Of Christ the Son of God.
3. Of His going down into Hell.
4. Of His resurrection.
5. Of the Holy Ghost.
0. Of the Sufficiency of the Scrip
ture.
7. Of the Old Testament.
8. Of the Three Creeds.
0. Of Original or Birth-sin.
10. Of Free-will.
11. Of Justification.
12. Of Good Works.
13. Of Works before Justification.
14. Of Works of Supererogation.
15. Of Christ alone without Sin.
10. Of Sin after Baptism.
17. Of Predestination and Election.
18. Of obtaining Salvation by Christ.
19. Of the Church.
20. Of the Authority of the Church.
21. Of the Authority of General
Councils.
22. Of Purgatory.
23. Of Ministering in the Congre
gation.
24. Of Speaking in the Congrega
tion.
25. Of the Sacraments.
20. Of the Unworthiness of Minis
ters.
27. Of Baptism.
28. Of the Lord s Supper.
29. Of the Wicked which eat not the
Body of Christ.
30. Of both kinds.
31. Of Christ s one Oblation.
32. Of the Marriage of Priests.
33. Of Excommunicate Persons.
34. Of the Traditions of the Church.
35. Of Homilies.
30. Of Consecrating of Ministers.
37. Of Civil Magistrates.
38. Of Christian Men s Goods.
39. Of a Christian Man s Oath.
Some of these points are handled in a more firm, strong, and
decided manner than others, and the curiously different tone of
the Articles, according to their subject-matter, is a matter on
which I shall have more to say by and by. But taking them for
all in all, as a Church s statement of things to be believed, I think
that no Church on earth has a better " Confession of faith "
than the Church of England. I have no wish to find fault with
other Churches. God forbid ! We have faults and defects
enough to keep us humble within the Anglican Communion.
But after carefully examining other Confessions of faith, I find
none which seem comparable to our own. Some Confessions
are too long. Some go into particulars too much. Some define
what had better be left undefined, and shut up sharply what
had better be left a little open. For a combination of fulness,
boldness, clearness, brevity, moderation, and wisdom, I find no
Confession which comes near the Thirty-nine Articles of the
Church of England.*
" : The famous historian Bingham, in his curious book on the French Pro*
testant Church, quotes a remarkable testimony to the Articles from the
68 KNOTS UNTIED.
So much for what we mean when we talk of the Thirty-nine
Articles. For dwelling so much on the point, I shall make
little apology. The intrinsic importance of it, and the singular
ignorance of most Churchmen about it, are my best excuse.
The times we live in make it imperatively necessary to look up
and ventilate these old questions. The perilous position of the
Church of England requires all her sons to spread light and
information. He that would know what a true Churchman is,
must be content to begin by finding out what is meant by " the
Thirty-nine Articles."
II. I must now take up a question which is of great and
serious importance. To prevent mistakes I shall state it as
clearly and logically as I can. " What is the precise ranJt,
authority, and position of the TJiirty-wine Articles ? Are they,
or are they not, the chief, foremost, primary, and principal test
of true Churchmanship ? "
My reasons for going into this point are as follows. Some
clergymen and laymen in the present day are fond of saying
that the Prayer-book, and not the Articles, is the real measure
and gauge of a Churchman. " The Prayer-book ! the Prayer-
book!" is the incessant cry of these people. "We want no
other standard of doctrine but the Prayer-book." Is it a con
troverted point about the Church ? "What says the Prayer-
book? Is it a doctrine that is disputed? What says the
Prayer-book ? Is it the effect of baptism, or the nature of the
Lord s Supper, that is under discussion 1 "What says the Prayer-
book ? To the Articles these gentlemen seem to have a peculiar
dislike, an hydrophobia aversion. They seldom refer to them,
unless perhaps to sneer at them as the " forty stripes save one."
They never quote them, never bring them forward if they can
possibly help it. "What intelligent observer of religious questions
among Churchmen does not know perfectly well the class of
men whom I have in view ? They are to be found all over
England. "We meet them in newspapers and books. We hear
them in pulpits and on platforms. They are ever thrusting on
French divine Le Moyne, a man of great note in his day : " No Confession
can be contrived more wisely than the English is, and the xirticles of Faith
were never collected with a more just and reasonable discretion."
Works, Oxf. Edit., vol. x., p. 95.
THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 69
the public their favourite "Diana of the Ephesians," their
darling notion that the Prayer-book, and not the Articles, is the
test of a Churchman.*
ISTow, with all respect to these worthy people, I venture to
say that their favourite notion is as real an idol as the Ephesian
" Diana " was of old. I shall try to show the reader that in
exalting the Prayer-book above the Articles, they have taken up
a position that cannot possibly be maintained. I shall try to
show, by evidence that cannot be gainsayed, that the true state
of the case is exactly the reverse of what they are so fond of
proclaiming. I am not going to say anything against the
Prayer-book. It is a matchless book of devotion. But I am
going to say, and to prove, that the Articles, and not the Prayer-
book, are the first, foremost, and principal test of a true
Churchman.
I shall dismiss briefly four points that I might dwell upon at
length, if it were worth while.
(a) I pass over the obvious suspiciousness of any Churchman
ignoring the Articles, giving them the cold shoulder, and talk
ing only about the Prayer-book, when he is speaking of the
tests of a Churchman s religion. That many do so it is quite
needless to say. Yet the fifth Canon, of 1604, contains the
following words : " Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that any
of the Thirty-nine Articles agreed upon by the Archbishops and
Bishops of both provinces, in the Convocation holden at London
in the year of our Lord God 1562, for avoiding diversities of
opinion, and establishing of consent touching true religion, are in
any part superstitious, or erroneous, or such as he may not with
a good conscience subscribe unto, let him be excommunicated
ipsofado, and not restored but only by the Archbishops, after
his repentance and public revocation of such his wicked errors."
Plain language that ! Certain Churchmen who are fond of
* In a volume recently published, entitled " Studies in Modern Problems,"
edited by Mr. Orby Shipley, a prominent place is assigned to a paper bearing
the ominous title, "Abolition of the Articles." In the forty-eight pages of
this paper much is said about the origin of the Articles, and the Continental
Reformers are not spoken of in favourable terms. But I cannot discover in
the paper the slightest proof that the Articles are not the true test of a
Churchman s soundness in the faith. Nor can I discern any reason for the
writer s wish to have subscription to the Articles abolished, except his dislike
to Protestant doctrine.
70 KNOTS UNTIED.
pelting Evangelical Churchmen with Canons would do well to
remember that Canon.
(b) I pass over the implied insinuation that there is any con
tradiction between the Articles and the Prayer-book. Many talk
and write as if there was. It is a notion unworthy of any one of
common sense. The man who supposes that divines of such grace
and learning as the Elizabethan Reformers would ever with the
same hands draw up Articles and a Prayer-book containing two
different doctrines, must be in a strange state of mind ? Reason
itself points out that the Prayer-book and Articles were meant
to teach the same doctrines, and that no interpretation which
makes them jar and contradict one another can be correct.
Lord Chatham s famous dictum, that the Church of England
has a Popish Liturgy, an Arminian clergy, and a Calvinistic set
of Articles, was doubtless very smart, but it was not true.
(c) I pass over the unreasonableness of setting up a book of
devotion, like the Liturgy, as a better test of Churchmanship
than a Confession of faith like the Articles. Prayers, in the
very nature of things, are compositions which are not so pre
cisely framed and worded as cold, dry, dogmatic statements of
doctrine. They are what the rhetorical speech of the advocate
is, compared to the cautiously-balanced decision of the judge.
"In the Prayer-book," says Dean Goode, "we have a collection
of national formularies of devotion, written at a time when a
large proportion of the people were inclined to Romanism, and
at the same time compelled to attend the services of the
national Churches, and consequently carefully drawn up, so as
to give as little offence as possible to Romish prejudices. Is
such a book calculated to serve the purposes of a standard of
faith?" "In the Articles," he adds, on the other hand, "we
have a precise Confession of faith on all the great points of
Christian doctrine, drawn up in dogmatic propositions, as a test
of doctrinal soundness for the clergy." The Liturgy is an
excellent book. But to say that in the nature of things it can
serve the purpose of a standard of faith so well as the Articles,
is absurd.
(d) I pass over the glaring foolishness of the common remark,
that those who are fond of maintaining the primary authority
of the Articles cast discredit upon the Creeds. The authors of
this notable charge must surely have forgotten that one whole
THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 71
Article the eighth is devoted to the three Creeds ! So far
from the admirers of the Articles dishonouring and disparaging
the Creeds, they are specially bound to honour, reverence, and
defend them. Such vague argumentation goes far to show that
many who speak slightly of the Articles do not even know
what the Articles contain ! They " speak evil of things which
they know not." (Jude 10.)
But I pass over all these points. I desire to go straight to
the mark, and to give direct proofs of the position that I take
up. What I deliberately assert is, that the Thirty-nine Articles
were always intended to be, and are at this day, the first, fore
most, chief, and principal test of a Churchman, and that in
this point of view there is nothing else that stands on a level
with them. In proof of this assertion I shall now bring for
ward a few witnesses.
(1) My first witness shall be a very simple one. I mean the
title of the Articles, which is prefixed to them in every com
plete and unmutilated Prayer-book. They are called, " Articles
agreed upon for the avoiding of Diversities of Opinion, and for
the stabli siring of Consent touching true Religion." This title
was first given to them by Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of
Canterbury, in the reign of Edward VI., 1552 ; and afterwards
given a second time by Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canter
bury, in Queen Elizabeth s reign, in 1562. I want no plainer
language than the words of this title. The man who tries to
get away from it and evade it is like a viper biting a file.*
* Archbishop Parker s Correspondence, published in the Parker Society s
series, supplies remarkable evidence of the importance attached to the
Thirty-nine Articles by the Elizabethan Reformers. This evidence will be
found in a letter addressed to the Queen, by the Archbishop and thirteen
other Bishops, in which they pray her to facilitate the passing of a Bill
through Parliament for the confirmation of the Articles. The reason why
the Queen interposed any delay does not appear to have been any dislike to
the Articles, but her characteristic Tudor jealousy of anything being done in
Church or State which did not originate from herself. In short, she affected
to consider the initiation of a Bill affecting religion by the Commons, was an
infringement of her ecclesiastical supremacy !
The reasons against delay which the Archbishop and Bishops pressed on
the Queen s attention deserve special notice. They say : " First, the matter
itself tendeth to the glory of God, the advancement of true religion, and the
salvation of Christian souls, and therefore ought principally, chiefly, and
before all other things to be sought.
" Secondly, in the book which is now desired to be confirmed are contained
72 KNOTS UNTIED.
(2) My second witness shall be the statute law of the realm.
I refer to two Acts of Parliament. One is called the 13th of
Elizabeth, cap. 12, and entitled "An Act for Ministers of the
Church to be of sound religion" The other Act is called the
28th and 29th Victoria, cap. 122, and is entitled "An Act to
Amend the Law as to the declarations and subscriptions to be
made, and Oaths to be taken by the Clergy," and was passed in
the year 1865.
The Act of Elizabeth, in the second section declares, that "if
any person ecclesiastical, or which shall have any ecclesiastical
living, shall advisedly maintain or affirm any doctrine directly
contrary or repugnant to any of the said Thirty-nine Articles ; and
being convicted before the Bishop of the Diocese, or the Ordi
nary, or before the Queen s Commissioner in causes ecclesiast
ical, shall persist therein, or not revoke his error, or after such
revocation affirm such untrue doctrine, such maintaining, or
affirming, or persisting shall be just cause to deprive such per
son of his ecclesiastical functions; and it shall be lawful for
the Bishop of the diocese, or Ordinary, or such Commissioner,
to deprive such person."
Comment on the evidence of this witness is needless.
There is no way of honestly evading the edge and point of this
yet unrepealed Act of Parliament. In a decision of all the
the principal Articles of Christian religion most agreeable to God s Word,
publicly, since the beginning of your Majesty s reign, professed, and by your
Highness authority set forth and maintained.
"Thirdly, divers and sundry errors, and namely, such as have been in the
realm wickedly and obstinately by the adversaries of the Gospel defended,
are by the same Articles condemned.
" Fourthly, the approbation of these Articles by your Majesty shall be a
very good mean to establish and confirm all your Majesty s subjects in one
consent and unity of true doctrine, to the great quiet and safety of your
Majesty and this free realm ; whereas now, for want of plain certainty of
Articles of doctrine by law to be declared, great distraction and dissension of
minds is at this present among your subjects." Parker Correspondence,
Parker Society, p. 293.
Notwithstanding this letter, the prayer of the Bishops appears not to have
been granted until the year 1571. It is only one among many illustrations
of the immense difficulties which the Elizabethan Reformers had to contend
with, in consequence of the arbitrary and self-willed character of their
Sovereign. I venture the opinion that few English Monarchs have been so
much over-praised and misunderstood as Elizabeth. I suspect the English
Reformation would have been a far more perfect and complete work if the
Queen had allowed the Reformers to do all that they wanted to do.
THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 73
judges, in the twenty-third year of Elizabeth, it was declared that
the Act of 13th Elizabeth was made for avoiding a diversity of
opinion, and that the " prevention of such diversity was the scope
of the statute." (Coke s Imtitut. 1865.) The provisions of this
Act of Elizabeth are in full force at this very day, and form the
basis of any proceedings against a clergyman in matters of religion.
The Act of the 28th and 29th of Victoria is even more
remarkable than the 13th of Elizabeth. The seventh section
requires every person instituted to any living, on the first Lord s
Day in wliich he officiates in his church, "publicly and openly
in the presence of his congregation, to read the whole Thirty-
nine Articles of Religion, and immediately after reading to
make the declaration of assent to them."
Up to the year 1865, we must remember, a clergyman was
required to read over the whole Morning and Evening Service
as well as the Articles, and then declare his assent and consent
to the use of the Book of Common Prayer. This was dispensed
with by the Act of Victoria. But therequirementto read theThirty-
nine Articles icas carefully retained ! The result is, that every
beneficed clergyman in the Church of England has not only de
clared his assent to the Thirty-nine Articles, but has done it in the
most public way, after reading them over before his congregation.
(3) My third witness shall be the Royal Declaration prefixed
to the Articles in 1628, by King Charles I. It is a document
which will be found at length in every complete and unmuti-
lated Prayer-book. It contains the following passage: "We
hold it most agreeable to this our Kingly office, and our own
religious zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed
to our charge, in unity of true religion, and in the bond of
peace ; and not to suffer unnecessary disputations, altercations,
or questions to be raised, which may nourish faction both in
the Church and Commonwealth. We have therefore, upon
mature deliberation, and with the advice of so many of our
Bishops as might conveniently be called together, thought fit to
make this declaration following :
" That the Articles of the Church of England (which have
been allowed and authorized heretofore, and which our clergy
generally have subscribed unto) do contain the true doctrine
of the Church of England agreeable to God s Word : wliich we
do therefore ratify and confirm, requiring all our loving subjects
74 KNOTS UNTIED.
to continue in the uniform profession thereof, and prohibiting the
least difference from the said Articles." Admirable words these !
Well would it have been if the unhappy Monarch who put forth
this declaration, had afterwards adhered more decidedly to the
doctrine of the Articles, and not ruined himself and the Church
by patronizing and supporting such men as Archbishop Laud.
(4) My fourth witness shall be a remarkable letter or
circular issued by the Crown in 1721, entitled "Directions
to our Archbishops and Bishops for the preservation of unity
in the Church and the purity of the Christian faith, par
ticularly in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity." The charge
given to the Bishops in these directions is as follows : " You
shall, without delay, signify to the clergy of your several
dioceses this our Eoyal command, which we require you to see
duly published and decreed : viz., that no preacher whatsoever
in his sermons or lectures do presume to deliver any other
doctrines concerning the great and fundamental truths of our
most holy religion, and particularly concerning the blessed
Trinity, than what are contained in the Holy Scriptures, and
are agreeable to the three Creeds and the Thirty-nine Articles
of religion." The circular proceeds to direct the Bishops to
put in force the famous statute of Elizabeth already quoted.
But not one word do we find about the Prayer-book, from
beginning to end. Of course these " directions " have no
binding force now, but as evidence of what men thought the
test of Church religion in 1721, they are remarkable.
(5) My fifth witness shall be Thomas Eogers, chaplain to
Archbishop Bancroft, who published in 1607, the first Exposi
tion of the Articles which ever appeared. This book, we must
remember, was written within forty years of the time when the
Articles were finally ratified. It was a work of great authority
at the time, and was dedicated to the Archbishop. In the
preface to this work Rogers says :
"The purpose of our Church is best known by the doctrine
which she does profess : the doctrine by the Thirty - nine
Articles established by Act of Parliament ; the Articles by
the words whereby they are expressed : and other doctrine
than in the said Articles is contained, our Church neither
hath nor holdeth, and other sense they cannot yield than their
words do import,"
THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. *75
Strong language that from an Archbishop s chaplain ! I
heartily wish we had a few more chaplains like him.
(6) My sixth and last evidence, for "brevity s sake, I will
give you all at once, in the words of five well-known Bishops
of the Church, who have long passed away. They were men
very unlike one another, and belonged to very different schools
of thought. But their testimonies to the value and rightful
position of the Articles are so curiously harmonious, that it is
interesting to have them brought together.
(a) Let us hear then what great and good Bishop Hall says,
in his work on " The Old Religion :" " The Church of Eng
land, in whose motherhood we have all come to pride ourselves,
hath in much wisdom and piety delivered her judgment con
cerning all necessary points of religion, in so complete a body
of divinity as all hearts may rest in. These we read, these we
write under, as professing not their truth only, but their suffi
ciency also. The voice of God our Father, in His Scriptures,
and, out of them, the voice of the Church our mother, in her
Articles, is that which must both guide and settle our resolutions.
Whatsoever is beside these, is either private, or unnecessary, or
uncertain." Hall s Works. Oxford Edition. Vol. ix., p. 308.
(1)) Let us hear next what Bishop Stillingfleet says in his
Unreasonableness of Separation: "This we all say, that the
doctrine of the Church of England is contained in the Thirty-
nine Articles ; and whatever the opinions of private persons
may be, this is the standard by which the sense of our Church
is to be taken." London, 4to edition, p. 95. 1631.
(c) Let us hear next what Bishop Burnet says: " The Thirty-
nine Articles are the sum of our doctrines, and the confession of
our faith. Burnet on Articles, pref . , p. 1 . Oxford E dition. 1831.
(cl) Let us hear next what Bishop Beveridge says, in the
preface to his great work on the Articles : " The Bishops and
clergy of both provinces of this nation, in a Council held at
London, 1562, agreed upon certain Articles of Eeligion, to the
number of thirty-nine, which to this day remain the constant
and settled doctrine of our Church ; which, by an Act of Parlia
ment of the 13th of Queen Elizabeth, 1571, all that are entrusted
with any ecclesiastical preferments, are bound to subscribe to."
Beveridye on Articles, vol. i., p. 9. Oxford Edition. 1840.
(e} Let us hear, lastly, what Bishop Tomline says : " The
76. KNOTS UNTIED.
Thirty-nine Articles are the criterion of the faith of the members
of the Church of England." Elements of TheoL, vol. ii., p. 34.
1799.
Such are the testimonies which I offer to the attention of
my readers, in proof of my assertion that the Articles, much
more than the Prayer-book, are the true test of Churchmanship.
The title prefixed to the Articles by Cranmer and Parker ;
the famous statutes of the 13th Elizabeth and 28th and 29th
Victoria; the Royal Declaration of Charles I., in 1628 ; the
Royal Circular to the Bishops in 1721 ; the express opinion of
Rogers, Archbishop Bancroft s private chaplain; the deliber
ately expressed judgment of five such men as Hall, Stillingneet,
Burnet, Beveridge, and Tomline, all these witnesses, taken
together, supply a mass of evidence which to my eyes seem
perfectly unanswerable. In the face of such evidence I dare
not, as an honest man, refuse the conclusion, that the truest
Churchman is the man who most truly agrees with the Thirty-
nine Articles.
It would be easy to multiply witnesses, and to overload the
subject with evidence. But in these matters enough is as good
as a feast. Enough, probably, has been said to satisfy any
candid and impartial mind that the ground I have taken up
about the Articles has not been taken up in vain. He that
desires to go more deeply into the subject would do well to con
sult Dean Goode s writings about it, in a controversy which he
held with the late Bishop of Exeter. In that remarkable con
troversy, I am bold to say, the Dean proved himself more than
a match for the Bishop. (Goode s Defence of Thirty-nine
Articles, and Vindication of Defence. Hatchard. 1848.)
One remark I must make, in self-defence, before leaving this
branch of my subject. I particularly request that no reader
will misunderstand the grounds I have been taking up. Let no
one suppose that I think lightly of the Prayer-book, because I
do not regard it as the Church of England s standard and test of
truth. Nothing could be more erroneous than such an idea.
In loyal love to the Prayer-book, and deep admiration of its
contents, I give place to no man. Taken for all in all, as an
uninspired work, it is an incomparable book of devotion for the
use of a Christian congregation. This is a position I would
defend anywhere and everywhere. But the Church of England s
THE THIRTY-XIXE ARTICLES. 77
]>ook of Common Prayer was never intended to be the Church s
standard of doctrine in the same way that the Articles were.
This was not meant to be its office ; this was not the purpose
for which it was compiled. It is a manual of public devotion :
it is not a Confession of faith. Let us love it, honour it, prize
it, reverence it, admire it, use it. But let us not exalt it to the
place which the Thirty-nine Articles alone can fill, and which
common sense, statute law, and the express opinions of eminent
divines unanimously agree in assigning to them. The Articles,
far more than the Prayer-book, are the Church s standard of
sound doctrine, and the real test of true Churchmanship.*
III. One more point now remains to be considered, which is
of so much importance that I dare not pass it by unnoticed.
What the Articles are we have seen. What their position and
authority is in the Church of England we have also seen.
Ought wo not now to see what are the great leading cha
racteristics of the Articles ? I think we ought, unless we mean to
leave our subject unfinished. There are certain grand features
in them, without descending into particulars, which stand out
prominently, like mountains in a landscape. What those
features are we ought to know. I shall therefore proceed to
point them out to the reader, and try to impress them on his
attention. If those who are induced to read them with
attention, in consequence of this paper, are not struck with the
singular distinctness and prominence of these leading features in
the Articles, I shall be greatly mistaken. To my eyes they
stand out in bold, clear, and sharply-cut relief. I ask the reader
* If any reader supposes that there is anything peculiar or extravagant in
the position I take up about the authority of the Articles, as compared to the
Prayer-book, I ask him to remember that Lord Hatherley, in his recent
judgment in the famous " Voysey " case, takes up precisely the same ground.
These are his words, as reported in the Guardian: " We have not, in this our
decision, referred to any of the formularies of the Chui ch, other than the
Articles of Religion. We have been mindful of the authorities which have
held that pious expressions of devotion are not to be taken as binding declara
tions of doctrine "
In commenting on this judgment, the Solicitor s Journal , which certainly
is not the organ of any theological party, uses the following remarkable
language : " The Judicial Committee have adhered to the principles of
previous decisions in their recent judgment. The Articles of Religion, and
these alone, are to be considered as the code of doctrine of the Church of
England.
78 KNOTS UNTIED.
to give me his attention for a very few minutes, and I will show
him what I mean.
(1) Let us mark, then, for one thing, as we read the Articles,
the strong and decided language which they use in speaking of
things which are essential to salvation.
Concerning the nature of God and the Holy Trinity, con
cerning the sufficiency and authority of Scripture, concerning
the sinfulness and helplessness of natural man, concerning
justification by faith alone, concerning the place and value of
good works, concerning salvation only by the name of Christ ;
concerning all these grand foundations of the Christian religion,
it is hard to conceive language more decided, clear, distinct,
ringing, and trumpet-toned than that of the Thirty-nine Articles.
There is no doubtfulness, or hesitancy, or faltering, or timidity,
or uncertainty, or compromise about their statements. There is
no attempt to gratify undecided theologians by saying, "It is
probably so," or, "Perhaps it may be so," or, "There are
some grounds for thinking so," and all that sort of language
which is so pleasing to what are called "broad" Christians.
Xothing of the kind ! On all the points I have named the
Articles speak out boldly, roundly, frankly, and honestly, in a
most unmistakable tone. " This is the Church of England s
judgment," they seem to say ; and " these are the views which
every Churchman ought to hold."
I ask special attention to this point. We live in days when
many loudly declare that it is not right to be positive about
anything in religion. The clergyman who dares to say of any
theological question, " This is true, and that is false, this is
right, and that is wrong," is pretty sure to be denounced as a
narrow-minded, illiberal, uncharitable man. Nothing delights
many Churchmen so much as to proclaim that they " belong to
no party," that they are " moderate men," that they " hold
no extreme views." Well ! I only ask these Churchmen to
settle matters with the Thirty-nine Articles. I want no clergy
man to go a bit beyond the authoritative statements of his own
Church ; but I do want every clergyman not to fall below them.
And I shall always maintain, publicly or privately, that to call
any one an " extreme " man, or a " party " man, because his
doctrinal views are in harmony with the bold, decided state
ments of the Articles, is neither just, nor fair, nor reasonable,
THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. *79
nor consistent with common sense. Give me the clergyman who,
after reading the Articles to his congregation, and solemnly
promising to abide by them, acts up to his promise, and speaks
out boldly, decidedly, and unhesitatingly, like a man, about all
the leading doctrines of Christianity. As for the clergyman
who, after declaring his assent to the Articles, flinches from
their doctrinal distinctness, and preaches hesitatingly, as if he
hardly knew what he believed, I am sorry for him. He may be
a charitable, a liberal, and a learned man, but he is not in the
right place in the pulpit of the Church of England.
(2) Let us mark, in. the next place, as we read the Articles,
their studied moderation about things non-essential to salvation,
and things about which good Christian men may differ.
About sin after baptism, about predestination and election,
about the definition of the Church, about the ministry,
about the ceremonies and rights of every particular or national
Church, about all these points it is most striking to observe
the calm, gentle, tender, conciliatory tone which runs throughout
the Articles ; a tone the more remarkable when contrasted with
the firm and decided language on essential points, to which I
have just been referring.
It is clear as daylight to my mind, that the authors of the 1
Articles intended to admit the possibility of difference on the
points which I have just been enumerating. They saw the
possibility of men differing about predestination and election,
as Fletcher and Toplady did. How cautious are their state
ments, and how carefully guarded and fenced ! They believed
that there might be Churches differently organized to our own,
that there might be many good Christian ministers who were
not Episcopalians, and many useful rites and ceremonies of
worship unlike those of the Church of England. They take
care to say nothing which could possibly give offence. They
scrupulously avoid condemning and denouncing other Churches
and other Christians. In short, their maxim seems to have
been, "in necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in omnibus
cantos."
I greatly admire this moderation in non-essentials. I heartily
wish that the spirit of it had been more acted upon in days
gone by, by the rulers of the Church of England. To the blind
intolerance and fanaticism of days gone by, to the insane and
80 KNOTS UNTIED.
senseless wish to cram Episcopacy and Liturgy down the throats
of every man by force, and excommunicate him if he would not
swallow them, to this we owe an immense proportion of our
English Dissent. And the root of all this has been departure
from the spirit of the Thirty-nine Articles.
I frankly own that I belong to a school in the Church of
England, which is incorrectly and unfairly called "low." And
why are we called so ? Simply because we will not condemn
every Church which is not governed by Bishops ; simply because
we will not denounce every one as greatly in error who worships
without a surplice and a Prayer-book ! But I venture to tell
our accusers that their charges fall very lightly on us. When
they can prove that our standard is not the standard of the
Thirty-nine Articles, when they can show that we take lower
ground than our own Church takes in her authorized Confession
of faith, then we will allow there is something in what they
say against us. But till they can do that, and they have not
done it yet, I tell them thai we shall remain unmoved. We
may be called "low" Churchmen, but we are "true."
(3) Let us mark, in the next place, as we read the Articles,
their wise, discreet, and well-balanced statements about the Sacra
ments. They declare plainly the divine authority of Baptism
and the Lord s Supper. They use high and reverent language
about them both, as means of grace, "by the which God doth
work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but strengthen
and confirm our faith in Him."
But after saying all this, it is most instructive to observe
how carefully the Articles repudiate the Romish doctrine of
grace being imparted by the Sacraments "ex opere operato."
"The Sacraments," says the Twenty-fifth Article, "were not
ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but
that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily
receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation."
Now if there is any one thing that is laid to the charge of
us Evangelical clergy, it is this, that we deny sacramental
grace. " Excellent, worthy, hard-working men," we are some
times called; "but unhappily they do not hold right Church
views about the Sacraments." Men who talk in this manner
are talking rashly, and saying what they cannot prove. Evan
gelical clergymen yield to none in willingness to give rightful
THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 81
honour to Baptism and the Lord s Supper. All we say is, that
grace is not tied to the Sacraments, and that a man may receive
them, and be none the better for it. And what is all this but
the doctrine of the Thirty-nine Articles ?
(4) Let us mark, in the fourth place, as we read the Articles,
the thorouc/lily Protestant spirit which runs throughout them,
and the boldness of their language about Romish error.
What says the Nineteenth Article? "The Church of Rome
hath erred, not only in living and manner of ceremonies, but
also in matters of faith."
What says the Twenty - second Article? "The Romish
doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adora
tion, as well of images as of reliques, and also of invocation of
saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no
warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of
God."
Wliat says the Twenty - fourth Article? It forbids the
Romish custom of having public prayers and ministering the
Sacraments in Latin.
^ What says the Twenty-fifth Article ? It declares that the
five Romish sacraments of confirmation, penance, orders, matri
mony, and extreme unction, are not to be accounted sacraments
of the Gospel.
What says ^ the Twenty- eighth Article? It declares that
" transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread
and wine in the Lord s Supper, cannot be proved by Holy Writ,
is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the
nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many super
stitions." It also declares that "the Sacrament of the Lord s
Supper was not by Christ s ordinance reserved, carried about,
lifted up, or worshipped."
What says the Thirtieth Article ? " The cup of the Lord is
not to be denied to the lay-people."
What saith the Thirty -first Article? "The sacrifices of
masses, in which it was commonly said the priest did offer
Christ for the quick and dead, to have remission of pain and
guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceit."
What says the Thirty-second Article? "Bishops, priests,
and^ deacons are not commanded by God s law to vow the estate
of single life, or to abstain from marriage."
82 KNOTS UNTIED.
What says the Thirty-seventh Article] "The Bishop of
Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England."
Now what shall we say to all this 1 Nine times over the
Thirty-nine Articles condemn, in plain and unmistakable language,
the leading doctrines of the Church of Rome, and declare in
favour of what must be called Protestant views. And yet men
dare to tell us that we Evangelical clergymen have no right to
denounce Popery, that it is very wrong and very uncharitable
to be so hot in favour of Protestantism, that Romanism is
a pretty good sort of thing, and that by making such a piece
of work about Popery, and Protestantism, and Ritualism, and
semi-Popery, we are only troubling the country and doing more
harm than good. Well ! I am content to point to the Thirty-
nine Articles. There is my apology ! There is my defence !
I will take up no other ground at present. I will not say, as I
might do, that Popery is an unscriptural system, which every
free nation ought to dread, and every Bible-reading Christian
of any nation ought to oppose. I simply point to the Thirty-
nine Articles. I ask any one to explain how any English
clergyman can be acting consistently, if he does not oppose,
denounce, expose, and resist Popery in every shape, either
within the Church or without. Other Christians may do as
they please, and countenance Popery if they like. But so long
as the Articles stand unrepealed and unaltered, it is the bounden
duty of every clergyman of the Church of England to oppose
Popery.
(5) Let us mark, in the last place, as we read the Articles,
the unvarying reverence with which they always speak of Holy
Scripture. The inspiration of the Bible, no doubt, is never
distinctly asserted. It is evidently taken for granted as a first
principle, which need not be proved. But if constant refer
ences to Scripture, and constant appeals to the authority of
Scripture, as God s Word, are allowed to prove anything, in no
document does the Bible receive more honour than in the
Articles.
The Sixth Article declares that "Holy Scripture contains all
things necessary to salvation, and that whatsoever is not read
therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any
man, that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be
thought requisite and necessary to salvation."
THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 83
The Eighth Article says that "the three Creeds ought
thoroughly to be believed and received, for they may be proved
by most certain warranty of Holy Scripture."
The Twentieth Article says, " It is not lawful for the Church
to ordain anything that is contrary to God s Word written,
neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be
repugnant to another."
^ The Twenty-first Article says that "things ordained by
General Councils as necessary to salvation, have neither strength
nor authority, unless it be declared that they be taken from
Holy Scripture."
The Twenty-second Article condemns certain Romish functions,
"because they are grounded on no warranty of Scripture, but
are rather repugnant to the Word of God."
The Twenty - eighth Article condemns Transubstantiation,
" because it cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant
to the plain words of Scripture."
The Thirty-fourth Article says that " traditions and ceremonies
of the Church may be changed, so long as nothing is ordained
against God s Word."
Now I see in all this abundant proof that the Bible is the
rule of faith in the Church of England, and that no doctrine is
u Church doctrine" which cannot be reconciled with God s
Word. I see a complete answer to those who tell us that we
make an idol of the Bible, and that we ought to go to the voice
of the Church and to the Prayer-book for direction. I see that
any sense placed on any part of the Prayer-book which is not
reconcilable with Scripture, must be a mistake, and ought not to be
received. I see, above all, that all who pour contempt on the Bible,
as an uninspired, imperfect, defective Book, which ought not to be
believed, if it contradicts " modern thought," are taking up ground
which is at variance with the Church s own Confession of faith.
They may be clever, liberal, scientific, and confident; but they are
contradicting the Articles, and they are not sound Churchmen.
Such are the leading features, in my judgment, of the Thirty-
nine Articles. I commend them to the attention of my readers,
and ask that they may be carefully weighed. No doubt men
may say that the Articles admit of more than one interpretation,
and that my interpretation is not the correct one. My reply to
84 KNOTS UNTIED.
all tliis is short and simple. I ask in what sense the Reformers
who drew up the Articles meant them to be interpreted 1 Let
men answer that. It is an acknowledged axiom in interpreting
all public documents, such as treaties, covenants, wills, articles of
faith, and religious formularies, that in any case of doubt or
dispute the true sense is the sense of those who drew them up
and imposed them. Waterland and Sanderson have abundantly
shown that. Upon this principle I take my stand. I only
want the Thirty-nine Articles to be interpreted in the sense in
which the Reformers first imposed them, and I believe it
impossible to avoid the conclusion you arrive at. That con
clusion is, that the Thirty-nine Articles are in general tone,
temper, spirit, intention, and meaning, eminently Protestant
and eminently Evangelical.
And now I draw my subject to a conclusion. I have shown the
reader, to the best of my ability, what the Articles are, what
is the position and authority which they hold in the Church
of England, and what are the leading features of their contents.
It only remains for me to point out a few practical conclusions,
which I venture to think are peculiarly suited to the times.
(1) In the first place, I ask every Churchman who reads this
paper to read the Thirty-nine Articles regularly at least once every
year, and to make himself thoroughly familiar with their contents.
It is not a reading age, I fear. Newspapers, and periodicals,
and shilling novels absorb the greater part of the time given to
reading. I am sorry for it. If I could only reach the ear of all
thinking lay Churchmen, I should like to say, "Do read your
Articles." As for clergymen, if I had my own way I would
require them to read the Articles publicly in church once every year.
Ignorance, I am compelled to say, is one of the grand dangers
of members of the Church of England. The bulk of her people
neither know, nor understand, nor seem to care about the inside
of any of the great religious questions of the day. Presbyterians
know their system. Baptists, Independents, and Methodists
know theirs. Papists are all trained controversialists. Church
men alone, as a body, are generally very ignorant of their own
Church, and all its privileges, doctrines, and history. Not one
in twenty could tell you why he is a Churchman.
Let us cast aside this reproach. Let all Churchmen awake
and rub their eyes, and begin to read up their own Church and
THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 85
its doctrines. And if any man wants to know where to begin,
I advise him to begin with the Thirty-nine Articles.*
(2) In the second place, I ask all who read this paper to teach the
Thirty-nine Articles to all young people who are yet of an age to
be taught. It is a burning shame that the Articles are not made
an essential part of the system of every school connected with
the Church of England, whether for high or low, for rich or poor.
I do not say this without reason. It is a simple fact, that
the beginning of any clear doctrinal views I have ever attained
myself, was reading up the Articles at Eton, for the Newcastle
Scholarship, and attending a lecture, at Christ Church, Oxford,
on the Articles, by a college tutor. I shall always thank God
for what I learned then. Before that time I really knew nothing
systematically of Christianity. I knew not what came first or
what last. I had a religion without order in my head. What
I found good myself I commend to others. If you love young
people s souls, and would ground them, and stablish them, and
arm them against error betimes, take care that you teach them
not only the Catechism, but also the Articles.
(3) In the third place, I advise all who read this paper to
test all Churclimanship by the test of the Articles. Be not carried
away by those who talk of "nice Church views," "Catholic
ceremonies," "holy, earnest, parish priests," and the like. Try
all that is preached and taught by one simple measure, does it or
does it not agree with the Articles 1 You have an undoubted right
to do this, and no English clergyman has any right to object
to your doing it. Say to him, if he does object, " You publicly
read and subscribed to the Articles when you accepted your cure
of souls. Do you or do you not abide by your subscription ? "
This is the simple ground we take up in the various societies
which, amidst much abuse, obloquy, and opposition, are labour
ing to maintain the Protestant character of the Church of
England. They are not intolerant, whatever some may please
to say. They do not want to narrow the limits of our Church.
But we do say that any one who holds preferment in the Church
of England ought to be bound by the laws of the Church of
* The best book for any one to study who wants to go thoroughly into the
subject of the Articles, is a volume by the late Dr. Boultbee. Head of St.
John s Hall, Highbury, entitled The Theology of the Church of England.
(Longmans.)
86 KNOTS UNTIED.
England, so long as those laws are unrepealed. Repeal the Act of
Parliament called the 13th of Elizabeth, and cast out the Thirty-
nine Articles, and we will cease to oppose Ritualism, and will
concede that a Churchman may be anything, or everything, in
opinion. But so long as things are as they are, we say we have
a right to demand that respect should be paid to the Articles.
(4) Finally, let me advise every Churchman who values his
soul never to be ashamed of the great leading doctrines which are
so nobly set forth in the Articles.
Never mind if people call you extreme, party-spirited, going
too far, Puritanical, ultra-Methodist, and the like. Ask them if
they have ever read the first nineteen Articles of their own
Church. Tell them, so long as you are a Churchman, you will
never be ashamed of holding Church doctrine, and that you
know what Church doctrine is, if they do not.
Remember, above all, that nothing but clear, distinct views
of doctrine, such views as you will find in the Articles, will
ever give you peace while you live, and comfort when you die.
" Earnestness " is a fine, vague, high-sounding term, and is
very beautiful to look at and talk about, when we are well, and
happy, and prosperous. But when the stern realities of life
break in upon us, and we are in trouble, when the valley of
death looms in sight, and the cold river must be crossed, in
seasons like those, we want something better than mere
" earnestness " to support our souls. Oh, no ! it is cold
comfort then, as our feet touch the chill waters, to be told,
" Xever mind ! Be in earnest ! Take comfort ! Only be in
earnest ! " It will never, never do ! We want then to know
if God is our God, if Christ is our Christ, if we have the Spirit
within us, if our sins are pardoned, if our souls are justified, if
our hearts are changed, if our faith is genuine and real.
"Earnestness" will not be enough then. It will prove a mere
fine-weather religion. Nothing, in short, will do in that solemn
hour but clear, distinct doctrine, embraced by our inward man,
and made our own. " Earnestness " then proves nothing but a
dream. Doctrines such as those set forth in the Articles are
the only doctrines which are life, and health, and strength, and
peace. Let us never be ashamed of laying hold of them, main
taining them, and making them our own. Those doctrines are
the religion of the Bible and of the Church of England !
V.
BAPTISM.
THERE is perhaps no subject in Christianity about which such
difference of opinion exists as the sacrament of baptism. The
very name recalls to one s mind an endless list of strifes,
disputes, heart-burnings, controversies, and divisions.
It is a subject, moreover, on which even eminent Christians
have long been greatly divided. Praying, Bible-reading, holy
men, who can agree on all other points, find themselves hope
lessly divided about baptism. The fall of man has affected the
understanding as well as the will. Fallen indeed must human
nature be, when millions who agree about sin, and Christ, and
grace, are as the poles asunder about baptism.
I propose in the following pages to offer a few remarks on
this disputed subject. I am not vain enough to suppose that I
can throw any light on a controversy which so many great and
good men have handled in vain. But I know that every addi
tional witness is useful in a disputed case. I wish to strengthen
the hands of those I agree with, and to show them that we have
no reason to be ashamed of our opinions. I wish to suggest a
few things for the consideration of those I do not agree with,
and to show them that the Scriptural argument in this matter
is not, as some suppose, all on one side.
There are four points which I propose to examine in
considering the subject :
I. What baptism is, its nature.
II. In what manner baptism should be administered, its
mode.
III. Whq ought to be baptized, its subjects.
IV. What place baptism ought to occupy in religion, its
true position.
If I can supply a satisfactory answer to these four questions,
87
88 KSOTS UNTIED.
I feel that I shall have contributed something to the clearing
of many minds.
I. Let us consider first the nature of baptism, what is it ?
(1) Baptism is an ordinance appointed by our Lord Jesus
Christ, for the continual admission of fresh members into His
visible Church. In the army every new soldier is formally
added to the muster-roll of his regiment. In a school every new
scholar is formally entered on the books of the school. And
every Christian [begins his Church-membership by being baptized.*
(2) Baptism is an ordinance of great simplicity. The out
ward part or sign is water, administered in the name of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, or in the name of Christ.
The inward part, or thing signified, is that washing in the blood
of Christ, and inward cleansing of the heart by the Holy Ghost,
without which no one can be saved. The Twenty-seventh
Article of the Church of England says rightly, " Baptism is
not only a sign of profession and mark of difference, whereby
Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened,
but it is also a sign of regeneration or new birth."
(3) Baptism is an ordinance on which we may confidently
expect the highest blessings, when it is rightly used. It is
unreasonable to suppose that the Lord Jesus, the Great Head of
the Church, would solemnly appoint an ordinance which was to
b 3 as useless to the soul as a mere human enrolment or an act
of civil registration. The sacrament we are considering is not
a mere man-made appointment, but an institution appointed by
the King of kings. "When faith and prayer accompany baptism,
and a diligent use of Scriptural means follows it, we are justified
in looking for much spiritual blessing. Without faith and
prayer baptism becomes a mere form.
* This is a point which ought to be carefully noticed. Here lies the one
simple reason why the children of Baptists, or any other unbaptized persons,
cannot have the Burial Service of the Prayer-book read over them, when
they are buried. It is a service expressly intended for members of the
professing Church. An unbaptized person is not such a member. There is,
therefore, no Service that we can read. To suppose that we pronounce any
opinion on a man s state of soul and consider him lost, because we read no
Service over him, is simply absurd ! We pronounce no opinion at all. He
may be in paradise with the penitent thief for anything we know. His soul
after death is not affected either by reading a Service or by not reading one.
The plain reason is ive have nothing to read !
BAPTISM. 89
(4) Baptism is an ordinance which is expressly named in the
New Testament about eighty times. Almost the last words of
our Lord Jesus Christ were a command to baptize : " Go ye, and
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt, xxviii. 19.) We
find Peter saying on the day of Pentecost,; " Kepent, and be
baptized every one of you ; " and asking in the house of Cor
nelius, " Can any man forbid water, that these should not be
baptized ? " (Acts ii. 38 ; x. 47.) We find St. Paul was not only
baptized himself, but baptized disciples wherever he went. To
say, as some do, in the face of these texts, that baptism is an
institution of no importance, is to pour contempt on the Bible.
To say, as others do, that baptism is only a thing of the heart,*
and not an outward ordinance at all, is to say that which seems
flatly contradictory to the Bible.
(5) Baptism is an ordinance which, according to Scripture, a
man may receive, and yet get no good from it. Can any one
doubt that Judas Iscariot, Simon Magus, Ananias and Sapphira,
Demas, Hymenaeus, Philetus, and Nicolas, were all baptized
people? Yet what benefit did they receive from baptism?
Clearly, for anything that we can see, none at all ! Their hearts
were "not right in the sight of God." (Acts viii. 21.) They
remained "dead in trespasses and sins," and were "dead while
they lived." (Ephes. ii. 1 ; 1 Tim. v. 6.)
(6) Baptism is an ordinance which in Apostolic times went
together with the first beginnings of a man s religion. In the
very day that many of the early Christians repented and believed,
in that very day they were baptized. Baptism was the expres-
* I am quite aware that the whole body of Christians called Friends, or
Quakers, reject water-baptism, and allow of no baptism except the inward
baptism of the heart. To their own Master they must stand or fall. I am
not their Judge. The grace, faith, and holiness of many Quakers are beyond
all question. They are simple matters of fact. Christians like Mrs. Fry and
J. J. Gurney most evidently had received the Holy Ghost, and would reflect
honour on any Church. "Would God that many baptized Christians were like
them ! But the best people are fallible at their best. How people, so sensible
and well read as many Quakers have been and are, can possibly refuse to see
water-baptism in Scripture, as an ordinance obligatory on all professing
Christians, is a problem which I cannot pretend to solve. It passes my
understanding. I can only suppose that God allows the Quakers to be a
perpetual testimony against Romish views of water-baptism, and a standing
witness to the Churches that God can, in some cases, give grace without the
use of any sacraments at all !
90 KNOTS UNTIED.
sion of their new-born faith, and the starting-point in their
Christianity. ISTo wonder that in such cases it was regarded as
the vehicle of all spiritual blessings. The Scriptural expressions,
"buried with Christ in baptism" "putting on Christ in
baptism" "baptism doth also save us" would be full of deep
meaning to such persons. (Rom. vi. 4 ; Col. ii. 12 ; Gal. iii. 27 ;
1 Pet. iii. 21.) They would exactly tally with their experience.
But to apply such expressions indiscriminately to the baptism
of infants in our own day is, in my judgment, unreasonable and
unfair. It is an application of Scripture which, I believe, was
never intended.
(7) Baptism is an ordinance which a man may never receive,
and yet be a true Christian and be saved. The case of the
penitent thief is sufficient to prove this. Here was a man who
repented, believed, was converted, and gave evidence of true
grace, if any one ever did. We read of no one else to whom
such marvellous words were addressed as the famous sentence,
"To-day shalt thou be with Me in paradise." (Luke xxiii. 42.)
And yet there is not the slightest proof that this man was ever
baptized at all ! Without baptism and the Lord s Supper he
received the highest spiritual blessings while he lived, and was
with Christ in paradise when he died ! To assert, in the face
of such a case, that baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation
is something monstrous. To say that baptism is the only means
of regeneration, and that all who die unbaptized are lost for
ever, is to say that which cannot be proved by Scripture, and is
revolting to common sense.
I leave this part of my subject here. I commend the seven
propositions which I have laid down to the serious attention of
all who wish to obtain clear views about baptism. In con
sidering the two sacraments of the Christian religion, I hold it
to be of primary importance to put away from us the vagueness
and mysteriousness with which too many surround them. Above
all, let us be careful that we believe neither more nor less about
them than we can prove by plain texts of Scripture.
There is a baptism which is absolutely necessary to salvation,
beyond all question. There is a baptism without which no one,
whether old or young, has ever gone to heaven. But what
baptism is this 1 It is not the baptism of water, but the inward
baptism which the Holy Ghost gives to the heart. It is not a
BAPTISM. 91
baptism which any man can offer, whether ordained or unordained.
It is the baptism which it is the special privilege of the Lord
Jesus Christ to give to all His mystical members. It is not a
baptism which man s eye can see, but an invisible operation on
the inward nature. "Baptism," says St. Peter, "saves us."
But what baptism does he tell us he means 1 Not the washing
of water, " not the putting away the filth of the flesh." (1 Peter
iii. 21.) "By one spirit are we all baptized into one body."
(1 Cor. xii. 13.) It is the peculiar prerogative of the Lord Jesus
to give this inward and spiritual baptism. "He it is," said
John the Baptist, "which baptizetli with the Holy Ghost."
(John i. 33.)
Let us take heed that we know something of this saving
baptism, the inward baptism of the Holy Ghost. Without this
it signifies little what we think about the baptism of water. No
man, whether High Churchman or Low Churchman, Baptist or
Episcopalian, no man was ever yet saved without the baptism
of the Holy Ghost. It is a weighty and true saying of the
Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, in the reign of
Edward VI., "By the baptism of water AVC are received into
the outward Church of God : by the baptism of the Spirit into
the inward." (JBucer, on John i. 33.)
II. Let us now consider the mode of Baptism. In ichat way
ought it to be administered ?
This is a point on which a wide difference of opinion prevails.
Some Christians maintain strongly that complete immersion in
water is absolutely necessary and essential to make a valid
baptism. They hold that no person is really baptized unless he
is entirely "dipped," arid covered over with water. Others, on
the contrary, maintain with equal decision that immersion is
not necessary at all, and that sprinkling, or pouring a small
quantity of water on the person baptized, fulfils all the require
ments of Christ.
My own opinion is distinct and decided, that Scripture
leaves the point an open question. I can find nothing in the
Bible to warrant the assertion that either dipping, or pouring,
or sprinkling, is essential to baptism. I believe it would be
impossible to prove that either way of baptizing is exclusively
right, or that either is downright wrong. So long as water is
92 KNOTS UNTIED.
used in the name of the Trinity, the precise mode of admin
istering the ordinance is left an open question.
This is the view adopted by the Church of England. The
Baptismal Service expressly sanctions "dipping" in the most
plain terms.* To say, as many Baptists do, that the Church
of England is opposed to baptism by immersion, is a melan
choly proof of the ignorance in which many Dissenters live.
Thousands, I am afraid, find fault with the Prayer-book without
having ever examined its contents ! If any one wishes to be
baptized by " dipping " in the Church of England, let him
understand that the parish clergyman is just as ready to dip
him as the Baptist minister, and that he may be baptized by
"immersion" in church as well as in chapel.
There is a large body of Christians, however, who are not
satisfied with this moderate view of the question. They will
have it that baptism by dipping or immersion is the only Scrip
tural baptism. They say that all the persons whose baptism
we read of in the Bible were "dipped." They hold, in short,
that where there is no immersion there is no baptism.
I fear it is almost waste of time to attempt to say anything
on this much-disputed question. So much has been written on
both sides without effect, during the last two hundred years,
that I cannot hope to throw any new light on the subject.
The utmost that I shall try to do is to suggest a few con
siderations to any whose minds are in doubt. I only ask
them to remember that I do not say that baptism by
" dipping " is positively wrong. All I say is, that it is
not absolutely necessary, and is not absolutely commanded in
Scripture.
I ask, then, any doubting mind to consider whether it is in
the least probable that all the cases of baptism described in
Scripture were cases of complete immersion ? The three
thousand baptized in one day at the feast of Pentecost (Acts
ii. 41), the jailor at Philippi suddenly baptized at midnight
in prison (Acts xvi. 33) is it at all likely or probable that
they were all "dipped"? To my own mind, trying to take an
* The rubric of the Prayer-book Service for the Public Baptism of Infante
says, "If the godfather and godmother shall certify to the priest that
the child may well endure it, he shall dip it in the water discreetly and
warily."
BAPTISM. 9 3
impartial view, it seems in the highest degree improbable. Let
those believe it who can.
I ask any one to consider, furthermore, whether it is at all
probable that a mode of baptism would have been enjoined as
necessary, which in some climates is impracticable? At the
North and South Poles, for example, the temperature, for many
months, is many degrees below freezing-point. In tropical
countries, on the other hand, water is often so extremely scarce
that it is almost impossible to find enough for common drinking
purposes. Now will any maintain that in such climates there
can be no baptism without " immersion " ? Will any one tell
us that in such climates it is really necessary that every candi
date for baptism should be completely " dipped " 1 Let those
believe it who can.
I ask any one to consider, further, whether it is at all pro
bable that a mode of baptism would have been enjoined which,
in some conditions of health, is simply impossible. There are
thousands of persons whose lungs and general constitution are
in so delicate a state that total immersion in water, and especially
in cold water, would be certain death to them. Now will
any maintain that such persons ought to be debarred from
baptism unless they are " dipped " 1 Let those believe it
who can.
I ask any one to consider, further, whether it is probable
that a mode of baptizing would be enjoined, which in many
countries would practically exclude women from baptism. The
sensitiveness and strictness of Eastern nations about the treat
ment of their wives and daughters are notorious facts. There
are many parts of the world in which women are so completely
separated and secluded from the other sex, that there is the
greatest difficulty in even speaking to them about religion. To
talk of such an ordinance as baptizing them by " immersion "
would, in hundreds of cases, be perfectly absurd. The feelings
of fathers, husbands, and brothers, however personally disposed
to Christian teaching, would be revolted by the mention of it.
And will any one maintain that such women are. to be left un-
baptized altogether because they cannot be " dipped " ? Let
those believe it who can.
I believe I might well leave the subject of the mode of
baptism at this point. But there are two favourite arguments
04 KNOTS UNTIED.
which the advocates of immersion are constantly bringing
forward, about which I think it right to say something.
(a) One of these favourite arguments is based on the meaning
of the Greek word in the New Testament, which we translate
" to baptize." It is constantly asserted that this word can
mean nothing else but dipping, or complete " immersion." The
reply to this argument is short and simple. The assertion is
utterly destitute of foundation. Those who are best acquainted
with New Testament Greek are decidedly of opinion that to
baptize means " to wash or cleanse with water," but whether
by immersion or not must be entirely decided by the context.
We read in St. Luke (xi. 38) that when our Lord dined with a
certain Pharisee, " the Pharisee marvelled that He had not first
washed before dinner." It may surprise some readers, perhaps,
to hear that these words would have been rendered more liter
ally, " that He had not first been baptized before dinner." Yet
it is evident to common sense that the Pharisee could not have
expected our Lord to immerse or dip Himself over head in
water before dining ! It simply means that he expected Him
to perform some ablution, or to pour water over His hands,
before the meal. But if this is so, what becomes of the argu
ment that to baptize always means complete " immersion " ? It
is cut from under the feet of the advocate of " dipping," and to
reason further about it is mere waste of time,
(b) Another favourite argument in favour of baptism by
immersion is drawn from the expression "buried with Christ in
baptism," which St. Paul uses on two occasions. (Rom. vi. 4 ;
Col. ii. 12.) It is asserted that going down into the water of
baptism, and being completely " dipped " under it, is an exact
figure of Christ s burial and coming up out of the grave, and
represents our union with Christ and participation in all the
benefits of His death and resurrection. But unfortunately for
this argument there is no proof whatever that Christ s burial
was a going down into a hole dug in the ground. On the con
trary, it is far more probable that His grave was a cave cut out
of the side of a rock, like that of Lazarus, and on a level with
the surrounding ground. Such, at least, was the common mode
of burying round Jerusalem. At this rate there is no resemblance;
whatever between going down into a bath, or baptistry, and the
burial of our Lord. The actions are not like one another.
BAPTISM. 9 5
That by profession of a lively faith in Christ at baptism a
believer declares his union with Christ, both in His death and
resurrection, is undoubtedly true. But to say that in " going
down into the water" he is burying his body just as His
Master s body was buried in the grave, is to say what cannot be
proved.
In saying all this I should be very sorry to be mistaken.
God forbid that I should wound the feelings of any brother
who has conscientious scruples on this subject, and prefers
baptism by dipping to baptism by sprinkling. I condemn him
not. To his own Master he stands or falls. He that conscien
tiously prefers dipping may be dipped in the Church of England,
and have all his children dipped if he pleases. What I contend
for is liberty. I find no certain law laid down as to the mode
in which baptism is to be administered, so long as water is used
in the name of the Trinity. Let every man be persuaded in
his own mind. He that sprinkles or simply pours water in
baptism has no right to excommunicate him that dips ; and he
that dips has no right to excommunicate him that sprinkles or
pours water. Neither of them can possibly prove that the other
is entirely wrong.
I leave this part of my subject here. Whatever some may
think, I am content to regard the precise mode of baptizing as
a thing indifferent, as a thing on which every one may use his
liberty. I firmly believe that this liberty was intended of
God. It is in keeping with many other things in the Christian
dispensation. I find nothing precise laid down in the New
Testament about ceremonies, or vestments, or liturgies, or
church music, or the shape of churches, or the hours of service,
or the quantity of bread and wine to be used at the Lord s
Supper, or the position and attitude of communicants. On all
these points I see a liberal discretion allowed to the Church of
Christ. So long as things are " done to edifying," the principle
of the New Testament is to allow a wide liberty.
I hold firmly, myself, that the validity and benefit of baptism
do not depend on the quantity of water employed, but on the
state of heart in which the sacrament is used. Those who
insist on every grown-up person being plunged over head in a
baptistry, and those who insist on splashing an immense handful
of water in the face of every tender infant they receive into the
96 KNOTS UNTIED.
Church at the font, are both alike, in my judgment, greatly
mistaken. Both are attaching far more importance to the
quantity of water used than I can find warranted in Scripture.
It has been well said by a great divine, "A little drop of
water may serve to seal the fulness of divine grace in baptizing
as well as a small piece of bread and the least tasting of wine
in the Holy Supper." (Witsius, Econ. Fed 1. 4, ch. xvi. 30.)
To that opinion I entirely subscribe.
III. Let us next consider the subjects of baptism. To whom
ought baptism to be administered ?
It is impossible to handle this branch of the question without
coming into direct collision with the opinions of others. But
I hope it is possible to handle it in a kindly and temperate
spirit. At any rate it is no use to avoid discussion for fear of
offending Baptists. Disputed points in theology are never
likely to be settled unless men on both sides will say out
plainly what they think, and give their reasons for their
opinions. To avoid the subject, because it is a controversial
one, is neither honest nor wise. A clergyman has no right to
complain that his parishioners become Baptists, if he never
instructs them about infant baptism.
I begin by laying it down as a point almost undisputed, that
all grown-up converts at missionary stations among the heathen
ought to be baptized. As soon as they embrace the Gospel and
make a credible profession of repentance and faith in Christ,
they ought at once to receive baptism. This is the doctrine
and practice of Episcopal, Presbyterian, Wesleyan, and Inde
pendent missionaries, just as much as it is the doctrine of
Baptists. Let there be no mistake on this point. To talk, as
some Baptists do, of " believer s baptism," as if it was a kind
of baptism peculiar to their own body, is simply nonsense !
Believer s baptism is known and practised in every successful
Protestant mission throughout the world.
But I now go a step further. I lay it down as a Christian
truth that the children of all professing Christians have a right
to baptism, if their parents require it, as well as their parents.
Of course the children of professed unbelievers and heathen
have no title to baptism, so long as they are under the charge
of their parents. But the children of professing Christians are
BAPTISM. 9 7
in an entirely different position. If their fathers and mothers
offer them to be baptized, the Church ought to receive them in
baptism, and has no right to refuse them.
It is precisely at this point that the grave division of opinion
exists between the body of Christians called Baptists and the
greater part of Christians throughout the world. The Baptist
asserts that no one ought to be baptized who does not make a
personal profession of repentance and faith, and that as children
cannot do this they ought not to be baptized. I think that this
assertion is not borne out by Scripture, and I shall proceed to
give the reasons why I think so. I believe it can be shown
that ^ the children of professing Christians have a right to
baptism, and that it is a complete mistake not to baptize them.
Let me remind the reader at the outset, that the question
under consideration is not the Baptismal Service of the Church
of England. Whether that service is right or wrong, whether
it is useful to have godfathers and godmothers, are not the
points in dispute. It is mere waste of time to say anything
about them.* The question before us is simply whether infant
baptism is right in principle. That it is right is held by
Presbyterians, Independents, and Methodists, who use no
Prayer-book, just as stoutly as it is by Churchmen. To the
consideration of this one question I shall strictly confine myself.
There is not the slightest necessary connection between the
Liturgy and infant baptism. I heartily wish that some people
would remember this. To insist on dragging in the Liturgy,
and mixing it up with the abstract question of infant baptism,
is not a sign of good logic, fairness, or common sense.
Let me clear the way, furthermore, by observing that I will
not be drawn away from the real point at issue by the ludicrous
descriptions which Baptists often give of the abuse of infant
baptism. No doubt it is easy for popular writers and preachers
among the Baptists, to draw a vivid picture of an ignorant,
prayerless couple of peasants, bringing an unconscious infant to
be sprinkled at the font by a careless sporting parson ! It is
easy to finish off the picture by saying, " What good can infant
* Readers who wish to examine the true meaning of the Baptismal Service
are requested to read the paper in this volume, called "Prayer-book State
ments about Regeneration.
98 KNOTS UNTIED.
baptism do 1 " Such pictures are very amusing, perhaps, _but
they are no argument against the principle of infant baptism.
The abuse of a thing is no proof that it ought to be disused and
is wrong. Moreover, those who live in glass-houses had better
not throw stones. Strange pictures might be drawn of what
happens sometimes in chapels at adult baptisms ! But I for
bear. I want the reader to look not at pictures but at
Scriptural principles.
Let me now supply a few simple reasons why I hold, in
common with all Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, and
Independents throughout the world, that infant baptism is a
right thing, and that in denying baptism to children the
Baptists are mistaken. The reasons are as follows.
(a) Children were admitted into the Old Testament Church
by a formal ordinance, from the time of Abraham downwards.
That ordinance was circumcision. It was an ordinance which
God Himself appointed, and the neglect of which was denounced
as a great sin. It was an ordinance about which the highest
language is used in the New Testament. St. Paul calls it "a
seal of the righteousness of faith." (Rom. ii. 4.) Now, if
children were considered to be capable of admission into the
Church by an ordinance in the Old Testament, it is difficult to
see why they cannot be admitted in the New. The general
tendency of the Gospel is to increase men s spiritual privileges
and not to diminish them. Nothing, I believe, would astonish
a Jewish convert so much as to tell him his children could not
be baptized! "If they are fit to receive circumcision," he
would reply, " why are they not fit to receive baptism 1 " And
my own firm conviction has long been that no Baptist could
give him an answer. In fact I never heard of a converted Jew
becoming a Baptist, and I never saw an argument against
infant baptism that might not have been equally directed
against infant circumcision. No man, I suppose, in his sober
senses, would presume to say that infant circumcision was
wrong.
(b) The baptism of children is nowhere forbidden in the New
Testament. There is not a single text, from Matthew to Eevela-
tion, which either directly or indirectly hints that infants should
not be baptized. Some, perhaps, may see little in this silence.
To my mind it is a silence full of meaning and instruction.
BAPTISM. 99
The first Christians, be it remembered, were many of them by
birth Jews. They, had been accustomed in the Jewish Church,
before their conversion, to have their children admitted into
church-membership by a solemn ordinance, as a matter of course.
Without a distinct prohibition from our Lord Jesus Christ, they
would naturally go on with the same system of proceeding, and
bring their children to be baptized. But ice find no such pro
hibition ! That absence of a prohibition, to my mind, speaks
volumes. It satisfies me that no change was intended by Christ
about children. If He had intended a change He would have
said something to teach it. But He says not a word ! That
very silence is, to my mind, a most powerful and convincing
argument. As God commanded Old Testament children to be
circumcised, so God intends New Testament children to be
baptized.
(c) The baptism of households is specially mentioned in the
New Testament. We read in the Acts that Lydia was bap
tized u and her household," and that the jailer of Philippi "was
baptized: he and all his." (Acts xvi. 15, 33.) We read in
the Epistle to the Corinthians that St. Paul baptized "the
household of Stephanas." (1 Cor. i. 16.) Now what meaning
would any one attach to these expressions, if he had no theory
to maintain, and could view them dispassionately ? Would he not
explain the " household " to include young as well as old, chil
dren as well as grown-up people 1 Who doubts when he reads the
words of Joseph in Genesis, " take food for the famine of
your households " (Gen. xlii. 33) ;- or, " take your father and
your households and come unto me" (Gen. xlv. 18), that chil
dren are included? Who can possibly deny that when God
said to Noah, " Come thou and all thy house into the ark," He
meant Noah s sons? (Gen. vii. 1.) For my own part I cannot
see how these questions can be answered without establishing
the principle of infant baptism. Admitting most fully that it
is not directly said that St. Paul baptized little children, it
seems to my mind the highest probability that the "house
holds" he baptized comprised children as well as grown-up
people.
(d) The behamoiir of our Lord Jesus Christ to little children,
as recorded in the Gospels, is very peculiar and full of meaning.
The well-known passage in St. Mark is an instance of what I
100 KNOTS UNTIED.
mean. "They brought young children* to Him, that He
should touch them : and His disciples rebuked those that
brought them. But when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased,
and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto
Me, and forbid them not : for of such is the kingdom of God.
Yerily I say unto you, "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom
of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And He
took them up in His arms, put His hands upon them, and
blessed them. " (Mark x. 1 3-1 6. )
Now I do not pretend for a moment to say that this passage
is a direct proof of infant baptism. It is nothing of the kind.
But I do say that it supplies a curious answer to some of the
arguments in common use among those who object to infant
baptism. That infants are capable of receiving some benefit
from our Lord, that the conduct of those who would have kept
them from Him was wrong in our Lord s eyes, that He was
ready and willing to bless them, even when they were too young
to understand what He said or did, all these things stand out
as clearly as if written with a sunbeam ! A direct argument in
favour of infant baptism the passage certainly is not. But a
stronger indirect testimony it seems to me impossible to conceive.
I might easily add to these arguments. I might strengthen
the position I have taken up by several considerations which
seem to me to deserve very serious attention.
I might show, from the writings of old Dr. Lightfoot, that
the baptism of little children was a practice with which the
Jews were perfectly familiar. When proselytes were received
into the Jewish Church by baptism, before our Lord Jesus
Christ came, their infants were received, and baptized with
them, as a matter of course.
I might show that infant baptism was uniformly practised
by all the early Christians. Every Christian writer of any
repute during the first 1500 years after Christ, with the single
exception of perhaps Tertullian, speaks of infant baptism as a
custom which the Church has always maintained.
I might show that the vast majority of eminent Christians
* In the parallel passage in St. Luke s Gospel the word "infants" is used,
and the Greek word so rendered can only be used of infants too young to
speak or be called intelligent
BAPTISM.
from the period of the Protestant Reformation down to the
present day, have maintained the rights of infants to be bap
tized. Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, and all the Continental
Reformers, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and all the English
Reformers, the great body of all the English Puritans,
the whole of the Episcopal, Presbyterian, Independent, and
Methodist Churches of the present day, are all of one mind
on this point. They all hold infant baptism !
But I will not weary the reader by going over this ground. I
will proceed to notice two arguments which are commonly used
against infant baptism, and are thought by some to be unanswer
able. Whether they really are so I will leave the reader to judge.
(1) The first favourite argument against infant baptism is
the entire absence of any direct text or precept in its favour in
the New Testament. " Show me a plain text," says many a
Baptist, " commanding me to baptize little children. Without
a plain text the thing ought not to be done."
I reply, for one thing, that the absence of any text about
infant baptism is, to my mind, one of the strongest evidences
in its favour. That infants were formally admitted into the
Church by an outward ordinance, for 1800 years before Christ
came, is a fact that cannot be denied. Now, if he had meant
to change the practice, and exclude infants from baptism, I
should expect to find some plain text about it. But I find none,
and therefore I conclude that there was to be no alteration and
no change. The very absence of any direct command, on which
the Baptists lay such stress, is, in reality, one of the strongest
arguments against them ! No change and therefore no text !
But I reply, for another thing, that the absence of some
plain text or command is not a sufficient argument against
infant baptism. There are not a few things which can be
proved and inferred from Scripture, though they are not
plainly and directly taught. Let the Baptist show us a single
plain text which directly warrants the admission of women to
the Lord s Supper. Let him show us one which directly teaches
the keeping of the Sabbath 011 the first day of the week instead
of the seventh. Let him show us one which directly forbids
gambling. Any well-instructed Baptist knows that it cannot be
done. But surely, if this is the case, there is an end of this famous
argument against infant baptism ! It falls to the ground.
102 KNOTS UNTIED.
(2) The second favourite argument against infant baptism is
the inability of infants to repent and believe. " What can be
more monstrous," says many a Baptist, " than to administer an
ordinance to an unconscious babe 1 It cannot possibly know
anything of repentance and faith, and therefore it ought not to
be baptized. The Scripture says, He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved; and, Repent, and be baptized. "
(Markxvi. 16; Acts ii. 38.)
In reply to this argument, I ask to be shown a single text
which says that nobody ought to be baptized until he repents
and believes. I shall ask in vain. The texts just quoted prove
conclusively that grown-up people who repent and believe when
missionaries preach the Gospel to them, ought at once to be
baptized. But they do not prove that their children ought not
to be baptized together with them, even though they are too
young to believe. I find St. Paul baptized "the household of
Stephanas " (1 Cor. i. 16) ; but I do not find a word about their
believing at the time of their baptism. The truth is that the
often-quoted texts, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved," and "Repent ye, and be baptized," will never carry
the weight that Baptists lay upon them. To assert that they
forbid any one to be baptized unless he repents and believes, is
to put a meaning on the words which they were never meant t< >
bear. They leave the whole question of infants entirely out of
sight. The text "nobody shall be baptized except he repents
and believes," would no doubt have been a very conclusive one.
But such a text cannot be found !
After all, will any one tell us that an intelligent profession of
repentance and faith is absolutely necessary to salvation?
Would even the most rigid Baptist say that because infants
cannot believe, all infants must be damned 1 Yet our Lord said
plainly, "He that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark
xvi. 16.) Will any man pretend to say that infants cannot
receive grace and the Holy Ghost 1 John the Baptist, we know,
was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother s womb. (Luke
i. 15.) Will any one dare to tell us that infants cannot be elect,
cannot be in the covenant, cannot be members of Christ,
cannot be children of God, cannot have new hearts, cannot
be bom again, cannot go to heaven when they die 1 These
are solemn and serious questions. I cannot believe that any
BAPTISM. 103
well-informed Baptist would give them any but one answer.
Yet surely those who may be members of the glorious Church
above, may be admitted to the Church below ! Those who are
washed with the blood of Christ, may surely be washed with
the water of baptism ! Those who can be capable of being
baptized with the Holy Ghost, may surely be baptized with
water ! Let these things be calmly weighed. I have seen many
arguments against infant baptism, which, traced to their logical
conclusion, are arguments against infant salvation, and condemn
all infants to eternal ruin !
I leave this part of my subject here. I am almost ashamed
of having said so much about it. But the times in which we
live are my plea and justification. I do not write so much to
convince Baptists, as to establish and confirm Churchmen.
I have often been surprised to see how ignorant some Church
men are of the grounds on which infant baptism may be
defended. If I have done anything to show Churchmen the
strength of their own position, I feel that I shall not have
written in vain.
IV. Let us now consider, in the last place, what position
baptism ought to hold in our religion.
This is a point of great importance. In matters of opinion
man is ever liable to go into extremes. In nothing does this
tendency appear so strongly as in the matter of religion. In
no part of religion is man in so much danger of erring, either on
the right hand or the left, as about the sacraments. In order
to arrive at a settled judgment about baptism, we must beware
both of the error of defect, and of the error of excess.
We must beware, for one thing, of despising baptism. This
is the error of defect. Many in the present day seem to regard
it with perfect indifference. They pass it by, and give it no
place or position in their religion. Because, in many cases, it
seems to confer no benefit, they appear to jump to the con
clusion that it can confer none. They care nothing if baptism
is never named in the sermon. They dislike to have it publicly
administered in the congregation. In short, they seem to regard
the whole subject of baptism as a troublesome question, which
they are determined to let alone. They are neither satisfied
with it, nor without it.
104 KNOTS UNTIED.
Xow, I only ask such persons to consider gravely, whether
their attitude of mind is justified by Scripture. Let them
remember our Lord s distinct and precise command to " baptize,"
when He left His disciples alone in the world. Let them
remember the invariable practice of the Apostles, wherever
they went preaching the Gospel. Let them mark the language
used about baptism in several places in the Epistles. Now, is
it likely, is it probable, is it agreeable to reason and common
sense, that baptism can be safely regarded as a dropped subject,
and quietly laid on the shelf 1 Surely, I think these questions
can only receive one answer.
It is simply unreasonable to suppose that the Great Head of
the Church would burden His people in all ages with an empty,
powerless, unprofitable institution. It is ridiculous to suppose His
Apostles would speak as they do about baptism, if, in no case, and
under no circumstances, could it be of any use or help to man s
soul. Let these things be calmly weighed. Let us take heed, lest
in fleeing from blind superstition, we are found equally blind in
another way, and pour contempt on an appointment of Christ.
We must beware, for another thing, of makiny an idol of
baptism. This is the error of excess. Many in the present
day exalt baptism to a position which nothing in Scripture can
possibly justify. If they hold infant baptism, they will tell
you that the grace of the Holy Ghost invariably accompanies
the administration of the ordinance, that in every case, a seed
of Divine life is implanted in the heart, to which all subsequent
religious movement must be traced, and that all baptized
children are, as a matter of course, born again, and made
partakers of the Holy Ghost ! If they do not hold infant
baptism, they will tell you that to go down into the water with
a profession of faith and repentance is the very turning-point in
a man s religion, that until we have gone down into the water
we are nothing, and that when we have gone clown into the
water, we have taken the first step toward heaven ! It is
notorious that many High Churchmen and Baptists hold these
opinions, though not all. And I say that, although they may
not mean it, they are practically making an idol of baptism.
I ask all persons who hold these exceedingly high and lofty
views of baptism, to consider seriously what warrant they have
in the Bible for their opinions. To quote texts in which the
BAPTISM. 105
greatest privileges and blessings are connected with baptism, is
not enough. What we want are plain texts which show that
these blessings and privileges are always and invariably con
ferred. The question to be settled is not whether a child may
be born again and receive grace in baptism, but whether all
children are bom again, and receive grace when they are
baptized. The question is not whether an adult may "put on
Christ " when he goes down into the water, but whether all do
as a matter of course. Surely these things demand grave and
calm consideration ! It is positively wearisome to read the
sweeping and illogical assertions which are often made upon
this subject. To tell us, for example, that our Lord s famous
words to Nicodemus (John iii. 5), teach anything more than the
(jcneral necessity of being " born of water and the spirit," is an
insult to common sense. Whether all persons baptized are
" born of water and the Spirit " is another question altogether,
and one which the text never touches at all. To assert that it
is taught in the text, is just as illogical as the common assertion
of the Baptist, when he tells you that because Jesus said, " He
that belie veth and is baptized shall be saved," therefore
nobody ought to be baptized until he believes !
The right position of baptism can only be decided by a careful
observation of the language of Scripture about it. Let a man
read the Kew Testament honestly and impartially for himself.
Let him come to the reading of it with an unprejudiced, fair,
and unbiassed mind. Let him not bring with him pre-conceived
ideas, and a blind reverence for the opinion of any unin
spired writing, of any man, or of any set of men. Let him
simply ask the question, " What does Scripture teach about
baptism, and its place in Christian theology ? " and I have
little doubt as to the conclusion he will come to. He will
neither trample baptism under his feet, nor exalt it over his head.
(a) He will find that baptism is frequently mentioned, and
yet not so frequently as to lead us to think that it is the very
first, chief, and foremost thing in Christianity. In fourteen
out of twenty-one Epistles, baptism is not even named. In five
out of the remaining seven, it is only mentioned once. In one
of the remaining two, it is only mentioned twice. In the two
pastoral Epistles to Timothy it is not mentioned at all. There
is, in short, only one Epistle, viz., the first to the Corinthians,
106 KNOTS UNTIED.
in which baptism is even named on more than two occasions.
And, singularly enough, this is the very Epistle in which St.
Paul says, " I thank God that I baptized none of you," and
" Christ sent me not be baptize, but to preach the Gospel."
(1 Cor. i. 14, 17.)
(b) He will find that baptism is spoken of with deep rever
ence, and in close connection with the highest privileges and
blessings. Baptized people are said to be " buried with Christ,"
to have " put on Christ," to have " risen again," and even
(by straining a doubtful text) to have the "washing of regenera
tion." But he will also find that Judas Iscariot, Ananias and
Sappliira, Simon Magus, and others, were baptized, and yet
gave no evidence of having been born again. He will also see that
in the first Epistle of John, people "born of God" are said to have
certain marks and characteristics which myriads of baptized
persons never possess at any period of their lives. (1 John ii. 29 \
iii. 9; v. 1, 4, 18.) And not least, he will find St. Peter declar
ing that the baptism which saves is " not the putting away the
filth of the flesh," the mere washing of the body, but the
" answer of a good conscience." (1 Peter iii. 21.)
(c) Finally, he will discover that while baptism is frequently
spoken of in the New Testament, there are other subjects which
are spoken of much more frequently. Faith, hope, charity,
God s grace, Christ s offices, the work of the Holy Ghost,
redemption, justification, the nature of Christian holiness, all
these arc points about which he will find far more than about
baptism. Above all, he will find, if he marks the language of
Scripture about the Old Testament sacrament of circumcision,
that the value of God s ordinances depends entirely on the spirit
in which they are received, and the heart of the receiver. " In
Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor un-
circumcision ; but faith which workcth by love, but a new
creature." (Gal. v. 6; vi. 15.) "He is not a Jew which is
one outwardly ; neither is that circumcision which is out
ward in the flesh : but he is a Jew which is one inwardly ; and
circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter;
whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Rom. ii. 28, 29.)
Tt only remains for me now to say a few words by way of
practical conclusion to the whole paper. The nature, manner,
subjects, and position of baptism have been severally considered.
BAPTISM. 107
Let me now show the reader the special lessons to which I think
attention ought to be directed.
(1) For one thing, I wish to urge on all who study the much-
disputed subject of baptism, the importance of aiming at simple
views of this sacrament. The dim, hazy, swelling words, which
are often used by writers about baptism, have been fruitful
sources of strange and unscriptural views of the ordinance.
Poets, and hymn-composers, and Romish theologians, have
flooded the world with so much high-flown and rhapsodical
language on the point, that the minds of many have been
thoroughly swamped and confounded. Thousands have imbibed
notions about baptism from poetry, without knowing it, for
which they can show no warrant in God s Word. Milton s
Paradise Lost is the sole parent of many a current view of
Satan s agency ; and uninspired poetry is the sole parent of
many a man s views of baptism in the present day.
Once for all, let me entreat every reader of this paper to hold
no doctrine about baptism which is not plainly taught in God s
Word. Let him beware of maintaining any theory, however
plausible, which cannot be supported by Scripture. In religion,
it matters nothing who says a thing, or how beautifully he says
it. The only question we ought to ask is this, " Is it written
in the Bible ? what saith the Lord 1 "
(2) For another thing, I wish to urge on many of my fellow
Churchmen the dangerous tendency of extravagantly high views
of the efficacy of baptism. I have no wish to conceal my
meaning. I refer to those Churchmen who maintain that grace in
variably accompanies baptism, and that all baptized infants are in
baptism born again. I ask such persons, in all courtesy and brotherly
kindness, to consider seriously the dangerous tendency of their
views, and the consequences which logically result from them.
They seem to me, and to many others, to degrade a holy
ordinance appointed by Christ into a mere charm, which is to
act mechanically, like a medicine acting on the body, without
any movement of a man s heart or soul. Surely this is dangerous !
They encourage the notion that it matters nothing in. what
manner of spirit people bring their children to be baptized. It
signifies nothing whether they come with faith, and prayer, and
solemn feelings, or whether they come careless, prayerless,
godless, and ignorant as heathens ! The effect, we are told,
108 KNOTS UNTIED.
is always the same in all cases ! In all cases, we are told, the
infant is born again the moment it is baptized, although it has
no right to baptism at all, except as the child of Christian
parents. Surely this is dangerous !
They help forward the perilous and soul-ruining delusion
that a man may have grace in his heart, while it cannot be seen
in his life. Multitudes of our worshippers have not a spark of
religious life or grace about them. And yet we are told that
they must all be addressed as regenerate, or possessors of grace,
because they have been baptized ! Surely this is dangerous !
Now I firmly believe that hundreds of excellent Churchmen
have never fully considered the points which I have just brought
forward. I ask them to do so. For the honour of the Holy
Ghost, for the honour of Christ s holy sacraments, I invite them
to consider seriously the tendency of their views. Sure am I
that there is only one safe ground to take up in stating the
effects of baptism, and that is the old ground stated by our
Lord : " Every tree is known by his own fruit." (Luke vi. 44.)
When baptism is used profanely and carelessly, we have 110
right to expect a blessing to follow it, any more than we expect
it for a careless recipient of the Lord s Supper. When no
grace can be seen in a man s life, we have no right to say that
he is regenerate and received grace in baptism.
(3) For another thing, I wish to urge on all Baptists who
may happen to read this paper, the duty of moderation in
stating their views of baptism, and of those who disagree with
them. I say this with sorrow. I respect many members of
the Baptist community, and I believe they are men and women
whom I shall meet in heaven. But when I mark the extravag
antly violent language which some Baptists use against infant
baptism, I cannot help feeling that they may be justly requested
to judge more moderately of those with whom they disagree.
Does the Baptist mean to say that his peculiar views of
baptism are needful to salvation, and that nobody will be saved
who holds that infants ought to be baptized 1 I cannot think
that any intelligent Baptist in his senses would assert this. At
this rate he would shut out of heaven the whole Church of
England, all the Methodists, all the Presbyterians, and all the
Independents ! At this rate, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Luther,
Calvin, Knox, Baxter, Owen, Wesley, Whitfield, and Chalmers,
BAPTISM. 109
are all lost ! They all firmly maintained infant baptism, and
therefore they are all in hell! I cannot believe that any
Baptist would say anything so monstrous and absurd.
Does the Baptist mean to say that his peculiar views of
baptism are necessary to a high degree of grace and holiness ?
Will he undertake to assert that Baptists have always been
the most eminent Christians in the world, and are so at this
day ? If he does make this assertion, he may be fairly asked
to give some proof of it. But he cannot do so. He may show
us, no doubt, many Baptists who are excellent Christians. But
he will find it hard to prove that they are one bit better than
some of the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Independents, and
Methodists, who all hold that infants ought to be baptized.
Now, surely, if the peculiar opinions of the Baptists are
neither necessary to salvation nor to eminent holiness, we
may fairly ask Baptists to be moderate in their language
about those who disagree with them. Let them, by all
means, maintain their own peculiar views, if they think they have
discovered a " more excellent way." Let them use their liberty
and be fully persuaded in their own minds. The narrow way
to heaven is wide enough for believers of every name and denomi
nation. But for the sake of peace and charity, let me entreat
Baptists to exercise moderation in their judgment of others.
(4) In the last place, I wish to urge on all Christians the
immense importance of giving to each part of Christianity its
proper proportion and value, but nothing more. Let us beware
of wresting things from their right places, and putting that
which is second first, and that which is first second. Let us
give all due honour to baptism and the Lord s Supper, as
sacraments ordained by Christ Himself. But let us never for
get that, like every outward ordinance, their benefit depends
entirely on the manner in which they are received. Above all,
let us never forget that while a man may be baptized, like
Judas, and yet never be saved, so also a man may never be
baptized, like the penitent thief, and yet may be saved. The
things needful to salvation are an interest in Christ s atoning
blood, and the presence of the Holy Ghost in the heart and
life. He that is wrong on these two points will get no benefit
from his baptism, whether he is baptized as an infant or grown
up. He will find at the last day that he is wrong for evermore.
VI.
REGENERATION.
THE subject of Regeneration is a most important one at any
time. Those words of our Lord Jesus Christ to Nicodemus
are very solemn : " Except a man be bom again, lie cannot see
the kingdom of God." (John iii. 3.) The world has gone
through many changes since those words were spoken. Eighteen
hundred years have passed away. Empires and kingdoms have
risen and fallen. Great men and wise men have lived, laboured,
written, and died. But there stands the rule of the Lord Jesus
unaltered and unchanged. And there it will stand, till heaven
and earth will pass away : " Except a man be born again, he
cannot see the kingdom of God."
But the subject is one which is peculiarly important to mem
bers of the Church of England in the present day. Things have
happened of late years which have drawn special attention to
it. Men s minds are full of it, and men s eyes are fixed on it.
Regeneration has been discussed in newspapers. Regeneration
has been talked of in private society. Regeneration has been
argued about in courts of law. Surely it is a time when every true
Churchman should examine himself upon the subject, and make
sure that his views are sound. It is a time when we should
not halt between two opinions. We should try to know what
we hold. We should be ready to give a reason for our belief.
When truth is assailed, those who love truth should grasp it
more firmly than ever.
I propose in this paper to attempt three things :
I. First, to explain what Regeneration, or being born again,
means.
II. Secondly, to show the necessity of Regeneration.
III. Thirdly, to point out the marks and evidences of Re
generation.
no
REGENERATION. Ill
If I can make these three points clear, I believe I shall have
done my readers a great service.
I. Let me then, first of all, explain icliat Regeneration or+
being born again means.
Kegeneration means, that change of heart and nature which*
a man goes through when he becomes a true Christian.
I think ^k?^ Kan-be no question that there is an immense
difference among those who profess and call themselves Chris
tians. Beyond all dispute there are always two classes in the
outward Church : the class of those who are Christians in name
and form only, and the class of those who are Christians in
deed and in truth. All were not Israel who were called Israel,
and all are not Christians who are called Christians. " In the
visible Church," says an Article of the Church of England,
" the evil be ever mingled with the good."
Some, as the Thirty-nine Articles say, are " wicked and void of
a lively faith ; " others, as another Article says, " are made like
the image of God s only-begotten Son Jesus Christ, and walk
religiously in good works. Some worship God as a mere form,
and some in spirit and in truth. Some give their hearts to
God, and some give them to the world. Some believe the Bible,
and live as if they believed it : others do not. Some feel their
sins and mourn over them : others do not. Some love Christ,
trust in Him, and serve Him : others do not. In short, as
Scripture says, some walk in the narrow T way, some in the
broad; some are the good fish of the Gospel net, some are
the bad ; some are the wheat in Christ s field, and some are the
tares.*
I think no man with his eyes open can fail to see all this,
both in the Bible, and in the world around him. Whatever he
may think about the subject I am writing of, he cannot possibly
deny that this difference exists.
Now what is the explanation of the difference 1 ? I answer
unhesitatingly, .Regeneration , or being born again. I answer
that true"Christians arc what they are, becaugrthey are regene-
* "There be two manner of men. Some there be that be not justified,
nor regenerated, nor yet in the state of salvation ; that is to say, not God s
servants. They lack the renovation or regeneration ; they be not come yet
to Christ." Bishop Latimer s Sermons. 1552.
112 KNOTS UNTIED.
(rate, and formal Christians are what they ^ are, because they are
not regenerate! The heart of the Christian in deed has been
changed. The heart of the Christian in name only, has not
been changed. The change of heart makes the whole dif
ference.*
This change of heart is spoken of continually in the Bible,
under various emblems and figures.
Ezekiel calls it " a taking away the stony heart, and giving
an heart of flesh;" "a giving a new heart, and putting
within us a new spirit." (Ezek. xi. 19 ; xxxvi. 26.)
The Apostle John sometimes calls it being " born of God,"-
sometimes being "born again," sometimes being "born of
the Spirit." (John i. 13; iii. 3, 6.)
The Apostle Peter, in the Acts, calls it "repenting and
being converted." (Acts iii. 19.)
The Epistle to the Romans speaks of it as a " being alive
from the dead." (Eom. vi. 13.)
The Second Epistle to the Corinthians calls it " being a new
creature : old things have passed away, and all things become
new." (2 Cor. v. 17.)
The Epistle to the Ephesians speaks of it as a resurrection
together with Christ : " You hath He quickened, who were dead
in trespasses and sins" (Eph. ii. 1); as "a putting off the old
man, which is corrupt, being renewed in the spirit of our
mind, and putting on the new man, which after God is created
in righteousness and true holiness." (Eph. iv. 22, 24.)
The Epistle to the Colossians calls it " a putting off the old
man with his deeds ; and putting on the new man, which is
renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created
him." (Col. iii. 9, 10.)
The Epistle to Titus calls it " the washing of regeneration,
and renewing of the Holy Ghost." (Titus iii. 5.)
The first Epistle of Peter speaks of it as "a being called
out of darkness into God s marvellous light." (1 Peter ii. 9.)
* The reader must not suppose there is anything new or modern in this
statement. It would be an endless work to quote passages from standard
divines of the Church of England, in which the words "regenerate" and
" unref enerate " are used to describe the difference which I have been
speaking of. The pious and godly members of the Church are called " the
regenerate," the worldly and ungodly are called "the unregenerate." I
think no one, well read in English divinity, can question this for a moment.
REGENERATION. 113
And the second Epistle, as "being made partakers of the
Divine nature." (2 Peter i. 4.)
The First Epistle of John calls it "a passing from death to
life." (1 John iii. 14.)
All these expressions come to the same thing in the end.
They are all the same truth, only viewed from different sides.
And all have one and the same meaning. They describe a
great radical change of heart and nature, a thorough altera
tion and transformation of the whole inner man, a participa
tion in the resurrection life of Christ ; or, to borrow the words
of the Church of England Catechism, " A death unto sin, and
a new birth unto righteousness." *
This change of heart in a true Christian is thorough and
complete, so complete, that no word could be chosen more
fitting to express it than the word " Regeneration," or
" new birth." Doubtless it is no outward, bodily alteration,
but undoubtedly it is an entire alteration of the inner man.
/ It adds no new faculties to a man s mind, but it certainly gives
| an entirely new bent and bias to all his old ones. His will is
Sso new, his tastes so new, his opinions so new, his views of
I sin, the world, the Bible, and Christ so new, that he is to all
i intents and purposes a new man. The change seems to bring
la new being into existence. It may well be called being " born
I again."
This change is not always <jic< n, to /. /// >vrx nl //// s****
time in their lives. Some are born again when they ;uv infants,
/and seem, like Jeremiah and John the Baptist, filled with the
Holy Ghost even from their mothers womb. Some few are
born again in old age. The great majority of true Christians
probably are born again after they grow up. A vast multitude
of persons, it is to be feared, go down to the grave without )
| having been born again at all.
This change of heart docs not always begin in the same waif
in those who go through it after they have grown up. With
some, like the Apostle Paul and the jailer at Philippi, it is a
sudden and a violent change, attended with much distress of
* "All these expressions set forth the same work of grace upon the heart,
though they may be understood under different notions," Bishop Hopkins,
1070.
H
114
KNOTS UNTIED.
W^ H
mind. With others, like Lydia of Thyatira, it is more gentle
and gradual : their winter becomes spring almost without
their knowing how. With some the change is brought about
by the Spirit working through afflictions, or providential visita
tions. With others, and probably the greater number of true
Christians, the Word of God preached or written, is the means
of effecting it.*
This change is one which can only be known and discerned
by its effects. Its beginnings are a hidden and secret thing.
We cannot see them. Our Lord Jesus Christ tells us this
most plainly : " The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou
nearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh
or whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit."
(John iii. 8.) Would we know if wo are regenerate? We
I must try the question, by examining what we know of the
effects of Regeneration. Those effects are always the same.
The ways by which true Christians are led, in passing through
their great change, are certainly various. But the state of
heart and soul into which they are brought at last, is always
the same. Ask them what they think of sin, Christ, holiness,
the world, the Bible, and prayer, and you will find them all of
one mind.
Tl^js change is onejohich no man can give to himself* nor iieti
to anther. It would be as reasonable to expect the dead to
raise themselves, or to require an artist to give a marble statue
jjfej The sons of God are born "not of blood, nor of the will
of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John i. 13.)
Sometimes the change is ascribed to God the Father: "The
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ hath begotten us
* " The preaching of the Word is the great means which God hath
appointed for Regeneration: Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the
Word of God. (Rom. x. 17.) When God first created man, it is said that
He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, but when God new
creates man, He breathes into his ears. This is the Word that raiseth the
dead, calling them out of the grave ; this is that Word that opens the eyes
of the blind, that turns the hearts of the disobedient and rebellious. And
, though wicked and profane men scoff at preaching, and count all ministers
* words, and God s words too, but so much wind, yet they are such wind,
believe it, as is able to tear rocks and rend mountains ; such wind as, if
ever they are saved, must shake and overturn the foundations of all their
1 1 carnal confidence and presumption. Be exhorted therefore more to prize
and more to frequent the preaching of the Word." Bishop Hopkins. 1670.
REGENERATION. 115
again unto a lively hope." (1 Peter i. 3.) Sometimes it is
ascribed to God the Son : " The Son quickeneth whom He
will." (John iii. 21.) "If ye know that He is righteous, ye I
know that every one that cloeth righteousness is born of Him.")
(1 John ii. 29.) Sometimes it is ascribed to the Spirit, and
He in fact is the great agent by whom it is always effected :
"That which is born of the Spirit is Spirit." (John iii. 6.)
Ijut man Jias no power to work the change. It_J8 something
far, far beyond His rcacli. ^ The condition of man after the/
M o J Adam," says the Tenth Article of the Church of*
England, "is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself,
by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and call
ing upon God." Xo minister, on earth can convey grace to
any one of his congregation at his discretion. He may preach
as truly and faithfully ^ as Paul or A^ollos : but God must
give the increase." (1 Cor, iii. 6.^ He mayHbaptize with
water in the name of the Trinity ; but unless the Holy Ghost
accompanies and blesses the ordinance, there is no deatlTunto
sin, and no new birth unto righteousness. Jesus alone, "the |
great liead of the Onurch, can baptize with the Holy Ghost. I
Blessed and happy are they, who have the inward baptism, as|
well as the outward.*
I believe the foregoing account of Regeneration to be Scrip
tural and correct. It is that change of heart which is the
distinguishing mark of a true Christian man, the invariable
companion of a justifying faith in Christ, the inseparable con
sequence of vital union with Him, and the root and beginning
of inward sanctitication. I ask my readers to ponder it well
" The Scripture carries it, that no more than a child can beget itself, or gj
a dead man quicken himself, or a nonentity create itself ; no more can any II
carnal man regenerate himself, or work true saving grace in his own soul.""
Bishop Hopkins. 1670.
There are twojdnds .of baptism, and both necessary; the one interior, jj
which is the cleansing of tfce neart, tne~drawmg of "the J&iher, lh opera- W
tion of the Holy Ghost ; and this baptism is in man when he believeth and ft
trusteth that Christ is the only method of his salvation." Bishop Hooper. f\
Io47
"It is on all parts gladly confessed, that there may be, in divers cases, J
life by virtue of inward baptism, where outward is not found." Richard*
Hooker.
" There is a baptism of the Spirit as of water." Bishop Jeremy Taylor. It
116
KNOTS UNTIED.
before they go any further. It is of the utmost importance that
our views should be clear upon this point, What Regeneration
really is.
I know well that many will not allow that Eegeneration is
what I have described it to be. They will think the statement
I have made, by way of definition, much too strong. Some
hold that Kegeneration only means admission into a state of
ecclesiastical privileges, by being made a member of the Church,
but does not mean a change of heart. Some tell us that a
regenerate man has a certain power within him which enables
him to repent and believe if he thinks fit, but that he still needs
a further change in order to make him a true Christian. Some I
say there is a difference between Regeneration and being bornl
again* Others say there is a difference between being born J
again and con version.
To all this I have one simple reply, and that is, / can find no
such Eegeneration spoken of anywhere in the Bible. A Regenera
tion which only means admission into a state of ecclesiast
ical privilege may be ancient and primitive for anything I
know. But something more than this is wanted. A few plain
texts of Scripture are needed ; and these texts have yet to be
found.
Such a notion of Regeneration is utterly inconsistent with
that which St. John gives us in his first Epistle. It renders It
necessary to invent the awkward theory that there arc two
Regenerations, and is thus eminently calculated to confuse the
minds of unlearned people, and introduce false doctrine. It is
a notion which seems not to answer to the solemnity with which
our Lord introduces the subject to Nicodemus. When He
said, " Verily, verily, except a man be born again, he cannot
see the kingdom of God," did He only mean except a man be
admitted to a state of ecclesiastical privilege 1 Surely He
meant more than this, jjuch a Regeneration a man might have.
like Simon Magus, and yet never be saved. Such a Regenera
tion he might never have, like the penitent thief, and yet see
the kingdom of God. Surely He must have meant a change of
heart. As to the notion that there is any distinction between*
l)eim> reenerate and being born again, it is one which will no
examination It is
the general opinion of all who know v A^
^sions mean one and the same thino-. A
Greek, that the two expressions mean one and the same thing.
REGENERATION.
To me, indeed, there seems to be much confusion of ideas, and /
indistinctness of apprehension in men s minds on this simple I
point, what Regeneration really is, and all arising from not}
simply adhering to the Word of God. That a man is admitted
into a state of great privilege when he is made a member of a
* pure Church of Christ, I do not for an instant deny. That he
is in a far better and more advantageous position for his soul,
than if he did not belong to the Church, I make no question.
That a wide door is set open before his soul, which is not set
before the poor heathen, I can most clearly see. But I do not
see that the Bible eve) calls this Regeneration. And I cannot
find a single text in Scripture which warrants the assumption
that it is so. It is very important in theology to distinguish
things that differ! Church privileges are one thing ; Regenera
tion is another. I, for one, dare not confound them.*
I am quite aware that great and good men have clung to that -
low view of Regeneration, to which I have adverted, t But
when a doctrine of the everlasting Gospel is at stake, I can call
no man master. The words of the old philosopher are never
to be forgotten : " I love Plato, I love Socrates, but I love truth
better than either." I say unhesitatingly, that those who hold
the view that there are two Regenerations, can bring forward
no plain text in proof of it. I firmly believe that no plain
reader of the Bible only would ever find this view there for
himself ; and that goes very far to make me suspect it is an
idea of man s invention. The only Regeneration that I can seei/
//| in Scripture is, not a change of state, but a change of heart. l\
That is the view, I once more assert, which the Church Cate
chism takes when it speaks of the " death unto sin, and new
birth unto righteousness," and on that view I take my stand.
The doctrine before us is one of vital importance. This is no
* " The mixture of those things by speech, which by nature are divided, is
the mother of all error." Hooker. 1595.
f For instance, Bishop Davenant and Bishop Hopkins frequently speak of
a " Sacramental Regeneration," when they are handling the subject of
baptism, as a thing entirely distinct from Spiritual Regeneration. The general
^tenor of their writings is to speak of the godly as the regenerate, and the
^ingodly as the unregenerate. But with every feeling of respect for two such
>good men, the question yet remains, What Scripture warrant have we for
saying there are two Regenerations? I answer unhesitatingly, We have
none at all.
118 KNOTS UNTIED.
matter of names, and words, and forms, about which I am
writing. It is a thing that we must feel and know by experi
ence, each for himself, if we are to be saved. Let us try to
become acquainted with it. Let not the din and smoke of
controversy draw off our attention from our own hearts. Are
our hearts changed ? Alas, it is poor work to wrangle, and
argue, and dispute about Regeneration, if after all we know
nothing about it within.
II. Let me show, in the second place, the necessity there is for
our being regenerate, or born again.
That there is such a necessity is most plain from our Lord
Jesus Christ s words in the third chapter of St. John s Gospel.
Xothing can be more clear and positive than His language to >*
Xicodemus : " Except a man be born again, he cannot see the \
kingdom of God." " Marvel not that I say unto thee, Ye must w
be born again." (John iii. 3, 7.)
The reason of this necessity is the exceeding sinfulness and <r
corruption of our natural hearts. The words of St. Paul to the v
Corinthians are literally accurate : " The natural man receiveth J
not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness J
unto him." (1 Cor. ii. 14.) Just as rivers flow downward, $
and sparks fly upward, and stones fall to the ground, so does a ^
man s heart naturally incline to what is evil. We love our
soul s enemies, we dislike our soul s friends. We call good
evil, and we call evil good. We take pleasure in ungodliness,
we take no pleasure in Christ. We not only commit sin, but
we also love sin. We not only need to be cleansed from the
guilt of sin, but we also need to be delivered from its power.
The natural tone, bias, and current of our minds must be com
pletely altered. The image of God, which sin has blotted out,
must be restored. The disorder and confusion which reigns
within us must be put down. The first things must no longer
be last, and the last first. The Spirit must let in the light on
our hearts, put everything in its right place, and create all
things new.
It ought always to be remembered that there are two distinct
things which the Lord Jesus Christ does for every sinner whom
He undertakes to save. He washes him from his sins in His
own blood, and gives him a free pardon : this is his justifica-
REGENERATION. 119
tion. He puts the Holy Spirit into his heart, and makes him)|
an entirely new man : this is his Regeneration.
The two things are both absolutely necessary to salvation.
The change^ of heart is as neoessary as the pardon ; and^the
pardon is as necessary as the change. Without the pardon we
have no right or title to heaven. Without the change we
should not be meet and ready to enjoy heaven, even if we got
there.
The two things are never separate. They are never found
apart. Every justified man is also a regenerate man, and every
IregPRerate man is also a justified man. When the Lord Jesus
Christ gives a man remission of .sins, lie also gives him repent
ance. When He grants peace with Cod, He also grants " power
to become a son of God." There are two great standing maxims
of the glorious Gospel, which ought never to be forgotten. One
is : " He that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark xvi. 16.)
The other is : "If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is
Aione of His." (Kom. viii. 9.)
The man who denies the universal necessity of Regeneration
can know very little of the heart s corruption. He is blind
indeed who fancies that pardon is all we want in order to get to
heaven, and does not see that pardon without a change of heart
would fe a useless gift. Blessed be God that both are freely
offered to us in Christ s Gospel, and that Jesus is able and will
ing to give the one as well as the other !
Surely we must be aware that the vast majority of people in
the world see nothing, feel nothing, and know nothing in religion
as they ought. How and why is this, is not the present ques
tion. I only put it to the conscience of every reader of this
volume, Is it not the fact 1
Tell them of the sinfulness of many things which they are
doing continually; and what is generally the reply? "They
see no harm,"
Tell them of the awful peril in which their souls are, of
the shortness of time, the nearness of eternity, the uncer
tainty of life, the reality of judgment. They feel no danger.
Tell them of their need of a Saviour, mighty, loving, and
Divine, and of the impossibility of being saved from hell,
except by faith in Him. It all falls flat and dead on their ears.
They see no such great barrier between themselves and heaven.
120 KNOTS UNTIED.
i Tell them of holiness, and the high standard of living which
I the Bible requires. They cannot comprehend the need of such
Istrictness. They see no use in being so very good.
1 There are thousands and tens of thousands of such people on
every side of us. They will hear these things all their lives.
They will even attend the ministry of the most striking
preachers, and listen to the most powerful appeals to their
consciences. And yet when you come to visit them on their
death-beds, they are like men and women who never heard
these things at all. They know nothing of the leading doc
trines of the Gospel by experience. They can render no reason
whatever of their own hope.
And-whv; ai\d wherefore is all this 1 What is the explana
tion ? What is the cause of such a state of things ? It all
comes from this, that man naturally has no sense of spiritual
things. In vain the sun of righteousness shines before him :
J)he eyes of his soul are blind, and cannot see. In vain the
music of Christ s invitations sound around him : the ears of his
soul are deaf, and cannot hear it. In vain the wrath of God
against sin is set forth : the perceptions of his soul are stopped
up ; like the sleeping traveller, he does not perceive the com
ing storm. In vain the bread and water of life are offered to
him : his soul is neither hungry for the one, nor thirsty for the
other. In vain he is advised to flee to the Great Physician :
his soul is unconscious of its disease ; why should he go 1 In
vain you put a price into his hand to buy wisdom : the mind
of his soul wanders, he is like the lunatic, who calls straws a
crown, and dust diamonds; he says, "I am rich, and increased
with goods, and have need of nothing." Alas, there is nothing
so sad as the utter corruption of our nature ! There is nothing
J30 painful as the anatomy of a dead soul.
I Now what does such a man neecH He needs to be
again, and made a new creature. He needs a complete putting
f off the old man, and a complete putting on the new. We do
not live our natural life till we are born into the world, and
M\-J^ do not live our spiritual life till we are born of the Spirit.
\V^ -But we must furthermore be aware that the vast majority of
(people are utterly unfit to enjoy heaven in their present state.
I state it as a great fact. Is it not so ?
Look at the masses of men and women gathered together in
BEGENERATION. 121
our cities and towns, and observe them well. They are all
dying creatures, all immortal beings, all going to the judg
ment-seat of Christ, all certain to live for ever in heaven or in
hell. But where is the slightest evidence that most of them
are in the least degree meet and ready for heaven 1
Look at the greater part of those who are called Christians,
in every part throughout the land. Take any parish you please
in town or country. Take that which you know best. What
are the tastes and pleasures of the majority of the people who
live there ? What do they like best, when they have a choice 1
What do they enjoy most, when they can have their own way ?
Observe the manner in which they spend their Sundays. Mark
how little delight they seem to feel in the Bible and prayer.
Take notice of the low and earthly notions of pleasure and
happiness which everywhere prevail, among young and old,
among rich and poor. Mark well these things, and then
think quietly over this question : " What would these people
do in heaven ? "
You and I, it may be said, know little about heaven. Our
notions of heaven may be very dim and indistinct. But at all
events, I suppose \ve are agreed in thinking that heaven is a
very holy place, that God is there, and Christ is there, and
saints and angels are there, that sin is not there in any shape,
and that nothing is said, thought, or done, which God does
not like. Only let this be granted, and then I think there can
be no doubt the great majority of people around us are as little
fit for heaven as a bird for swimming beneath the sea, or a fish
for living upon dry land.*
what is it that they need in order to make them fit to /
* " Tell me, thou that in holy duties grudgest at every word that is spoken ;
^iat thinkest every summons to the public worship as unpleasant as the
sound of thy passing bell ; that sayest, When will the Sabbath be gone,
and the ordinances be over ? What wilt thou do in heaven ! What shall
such an unholy heart do there, where a Sabbath shall be as long as eternity
^itself ; where there shall be nothing but holy duties ; and where there shall
not be a spare minute, so much as for a vain thought, or an idle word?
What wilt thou dp in heaven, where whatsoever thou shalt hear, see, or
converse with, all is holy? And by how much more perfect the holiness of
heaven is than that of the saints on earth, by so much the more irksome
and intolerable would it be to wicked men, for if they cannot endure the
weak light of a star, how will they be able to endure the dazzling light of
the sun itself?" Bishop Hopkins.
122 KNOTS UNTIED.
enjoy heaven ? They need to be regenerated and born again.
It is not a little changing and outward amendment that they
require. It is not merely the putting a restraint on raging
passions and the quieting of unruly affections. All this is not
enough. Old age, the want of opportunity for indulgence, the
fear of man, may produce all this. The tiger is still a tiger,
even when he is chained, and the serpent is still a serpent, even
when he lies motionless and coiled up. The alteration needed
is far greater and deeper. Every one must have a new nature
put within him ; every one must be made a new creature ; the
fountain-head must be purified ; the root must be set right ;
each one wants a new heart and a new will. The change
required is not that of the snake when he casts his skin and yet
remains a reptile still : it is the change of the caterpillar when
he dies, and his crawling life ceases ; but from his body rises
jthe butterfly, a new animal, with a new nature.
All this, and nothing less, is required. Well says the Homily
of Good Works : " They be as much dead to God that lack faith
as those are to the world that lack souls."
The plain truth is 3 the vast proportion of professing Christians
in the world jiave_no_tlnng_whatever_of_Christianity excepf the
name. ~The reality of Christianity, the graces, the experience,
the faith, the hopes, the life, the conflict, the tastes, the hunger
ing and thirsting after righteousness, all these are things of
which they know nothing at all. They need to be converted
as truly as any among the Gentiles to whom Paul preached, and
to be turned from idols, and renewed in the spirit of their minds
as really, if not as literally. And one main part of the message
which should be continually delivered to the greater portion of
every congregation on earth is this : "Ye must be born again."
I write this down deliberately. I know it will sound dreadful
and uncharitable in many ears.* But I ask any o ne to tSklTthe
New Testament in his hand, and see what it says is Christianity,
and compare that with the ways of professing Christians, and
then deny the truth of what I have written, if he can.
And now let every one who reads these pages remember this
grand principle of Scriptural religion: "No salvation without I
Regeneration, no spiritual life without a new birth, no)
heaven without a new heart."
Let us not think for a moment that the subject of this paper
REGENERATION. 123
is a mere matter of controversy, an empty question for learned
men to argue about, but not one that concerns us. It concerns
us deeply ; it touches our own eternal interests, it is a thing
that we must know for ourselves, feel for ourselves, and experi
ence for ourselves, if we would ever be saved. !N"o soul of man,
woman, or child, will ever enter heaven without having been
born again.*
Andjgtns notjhink^for a moment that this Regrenerationjs
a change which people may go through after they are dead,
though they never went^h"reugh it while they wereajiye. Such
a notion is absurd. Now or never is the only time to be saved.
Xow, in this world of toil and labour, and money-getting, and
business, now we must be prepared for heaven, if we are ever
to be prepared at all. Now is the only time to be justified,
now the only time to be sanctified, and now the only time to be
" born again." So sure as the Bible is true^the man who dies
without these three things^ will only nsejgain at the last day
to be lost f or eve
We may be saved and reach heaven without many things
which men reckon of great importance, without riches, without
learning, without books, without worldly comforts, without
I health, without house, without lands, without friends; but
i without Regeneration we shall neuerjbe saved at all. Without
our "natural birth we should neverTiave lived and moved and
read these pages on earth : without a new birth we shall never
live and move in heaven. I bless God that the saints in glory
will be a multitude that no man can number. I comfort myself
with the thought that after all there will be " much people " in
heaven. But this I know, and am persuaded of irom God s
(Word, that of aH who reach heaven there will not be one single
individuaTwfe Sas^BLQ^been jip.rji apiijvf
* " Make sure to yourselves this great change. It is no notion that I have
now preached unto you. Your nature and your lives must be changed, or,
believe it, you will be found at the last day under the wrath of God. For
God will not change or alter the word that is gone out of His mouth. He
hath said it : Christ, who is the truth and word of God, hath pronounced it,
that without the new birth, or regeneration, no man shall inherit the
kingdom of God." Bishop Hopkins. 1670.
ji f " Regeneration, or the new birth, is of absolute necessity unto eternal I
Hlife. There is no other change simply necessary, but only this. If thou art Jl
((poor, thou mayest so continue, and yet be saved. If thou art despised, thoujl
124 KNOTS UNTIED.
III. Let me, in the third place, point out the marks of being
regenerate, or born again.
0L It is a most important thing to have clear and distinct views
^on this part of the subject we are considering. We have seen
* what Regeneration is, and why it is necessary to salvation.
The next step is to find out the signs and evidences by which
a man may know whether he is born again or not, whether
his heart has been changed by the Holy Spirit, or whether his
change is yet to come.
Xow these signs and evidences are laid down plainly for us
in Scripture. God has not left us in ignorance on this point.
He foresaw how some would torture themselves with doubts and
questionings, and would never believe it was well with their
souls. He foresaw how others would take it for granted they
were " regenerate," who had no right to do so at all. He has
therefore mercifully provided us with a test and gauge of our
spiritual condition, in the First Epistle general of St. John.
There he has written for our learning what the regenerate man
is, and what the regenerate man does, his ways, his habits, his
manner of life, his faith, his experience. Every one who
wishes to possess the key to a right understanding of this
subject should thoroughly study the First Epistle of St. John.
I invite the reader s particular attention to these marks and \
evidences of Regeneration, while I try to set them forth in A
IDrder. I might easily mention other evidences besides those I
am about to mention. But I will not do so. I would rather
^confine myself to the First Epistle of St. John, because of the *
peculiar explicitness of its statements about the man that is
Tborn of God. He that hath an ear let him hear what the *
Moved Apostle says about the marks of Regeneration.
(1) First of all, St. John says, "Whosoever is born of God
doth not commit sin ; " and again, " Whosoever is born of God
feinneth not." (1 John iii. 9 ; v. 18.)
A regenerate man doe^ not commit sin as a habit. He no
longer sins with his heart and will, and whole inclination, as
~~ * ~
mayest so continue, and yet be saved. If thou art unlearned, thou mayest
so continue, and yet be saved. Only one change is necessary. If thou art
wicked and ungodly, and continuest so, Christ, Who hath the keys of heaven,
Who shutteth and no man openeth, hath Himself doomed thee, that thou
shalt in no wise enter into the kingdom of God." Bishop Hopkins. 1670.
REGENERATION. 125
an unrcgcnerato man does. There was probably a time when
he did not think whether his actions were sinful or not, and
never felt grieved after doing evil. There was no quarrel
between him and sin ; they were friends. IS T ow he hates sin,
flees from it, fights against it, counts it his greatest plague,
gi-oans under the burden of its presence, mourns when he falls
under its influence, and longs to be delivered from it altogether.
In one word, sin no longer pleases him, nor is even a matter of
indifference : it has become the abominable thing which he
hates. He cannot prevent it dwelling within him. " If he
said he had no sin, there would be no truth in him" (1 John
i. 8) ; but he can say that he cordially abhors it, and the great
desire of his soul is not to commit sin at all. He cannot
prevent bad thoughts arising within him, and short-comings,
omissions, and defects appearing both in his words and actions.
He knows, as St. James says, that "in many things we offend
all." (James iii. 2.) But he ean say truly, and as in the sight
of God, that these things are a daily grief and sorrow to him,
and that his whole nature does not consent unto them, as that
of the unregenerate man does.
(2) Secondly, St. John says, " whosoever believeth that
Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." (1 John v. 1.)
L A regenerate man believes that Jesus Christ is the only
Saviour by whom his soul can be pardoned and justified, that
^He is the Divine Person appointed and anointed by God
Father for this very purpose, and that beside Him there is
* Saviour at all. In himself he sees nothing but un worthiness,
but in Christ he sees ground for the fullest confidence, and^
^ trusting in Him he believes that his sins are all forgiven, and
jthis iniquities all put away. He believes that for the sake of^
Christ s finished work and death upon the cross he is reckoned
righteous in God s sight, and may look forward to death and^
^judgment without alarm. He may have his fears and doubts.
He may sometimes tell you he feels as if he had no faith at all.
< But ask him whether he is Avilling to trust in anything instead,*
of Christ, and see what he will say. Ask him whether he will
rest his hopes of eternal life on his own goodness, his own
/C amendments, his prayers, his minister, his doings in church and/{
out of church, either in whole or in part, and see what he will
jneply. Ask him whether he will give up Christ, and place
126 KNOTS UNTIED.
^confidence in any other way of salvation. Depend upon it, he
fctvould say, that though he does feel weak and bad, he would
not give up Christ for all the world. Depend upon it, he would
say he found a preciousness in Christ, a suitableness to his own
soul in Christ, that he found nowhere else, and that he must
cling to Him.
(3) Thirdly, St. John says, " Every one that doeth righteous
ness is born of God." (1 John ii. 29.)
fU The regenerate man is a holy man. He endeavours to live
Jh according to God s will, to do the things that please God, to
^ avoid the things that God hates. His aim and desire is to love
God with heart, and soul, and mind, and strength, and to Jove
^his neighbour as himself. His wish is to be continually looking
/to Christ as his example as well as his Saviour, and to show
Miimself Christ s friend by doing whatsoever Christ commands.
i No doubt he is not perfect. None will tell you that sooner
^than himself. He groans under the burden of indwelling
corruption cleaving to him. He finds an evil principle within
him constantly warring against grace, and trying to draw him
away from God. But he does not consent to it, though he
cannot prevent its presence. In spite of all short-comings, the
average bent and bias of his way is holy, his doings holy,
his tastes holy, and his habits holy. In spite of all his
swerving and turning aside, like a ship beating up against a
contrary wind, the general course of his life is in one direction,
toward God and for God. And though he may sometimes feel
so low that he questions whether he is a Christian at all, in his
calmer moments he will generally be able to say with old John
Newton, " I am not what I ought to be ; I am not what I wantj
to be ; I am not what I hope to be in another world ; but still]
I am not what I once used to be, and by the grace of God I am)
what I am." *
(4) Fourthly, St. John says, " We know that we have passed
from death unto life, because we love the brethren." (1 John
iii. 14.)
A regenerate man has a special love foralj^t^e dgsciplgs of\
* " Let none conclude that they have no grace because they have many
imperfections in their obedience. Thy grace may be very weak and imperfect,
and yet thou mayest be truly born again to God, and be a genuine son and
heir of heaven," Bishop Hopkins. 1670.
REGENEKATION. 127
. Christ. Like his Father in heaven, he loves all men with a4
[great general love, but he has a special love f orj/hem who are ofe
lone mind with himself. Like his Lord and Saviour, he loves
the worst of sinners, and could weep over them ; but he has a
peculiar love for those who are believers. He is never so much
at home as when he is in their company : he is never so happy
as when he is among the saints and the excellent of the earth.
Others may value learning, or cleverness, or agreeableness, or
riches, or rank, in the society they choose. The regenerate man
values grace. Those who have most grace, and are most like
Christ, are those he most loves. He feels that they are members
of the same family with himself, his brethren, his sisters,
children of the same Father. He feels that they are fellow-
soldiers, lighting under the same captain, warring against the
same enemy. He feels that they are his fellow-travellers,
journeying along the same road, tried by the same difficulties,
and soon about to rest with him in the same eternal home. He
understands them, and they understand him. There is a kind
of spiritual freemasonry between them. He and they may be
very different in many ways, in rank, in station, in wealth.
What matter 1 They are Jesus Christ s people : they are His
Father s sons and daughters. Then he cannot help loving
them.
(5) Fifthly, St. John says, " Whatsoever is born of God,
overcome th the world." (1 John v. 4.)
A regenerate man does not make the world s opinion his rulr,
of right and wrong. He does not mind going against the stream
of the world s ways, notions, and customs. " What will men
say ? " is no longer a turning point with him. He overcomes
the love of the world. He finds no pleasure in things which
most around him call happiness. He cannot enjoy their
enjoyments, they weary him, they appear to him vain,
unprofitable, and unworthy of an immortal being. He over
comes the fear of the world. He is content to do many things
which all around him think unnecessary, to say the least.
(;They blame him : it does not move him. They ridicule him :
he does not give way. He loves the praise of God more than
the praise of man. He fears offending Him more than giving
offence to man. He has counted the cost. He has taken his
stand. It is a small thing with him now, whether he is blamed
128 KNOTS UNTIED.
or praised. His eye is upon Him that is invisible. Him he is
resolved to follow whithersoever He goeth. It may be necessary
in this following to come out from the world and be separate.
The regenerate man will not shrink from doing so. Tell him
that he is unlike other people, that his views are not the views
of society .generally, and that he is making himself singular and
peculiar. You will not shake him. He is no longer the
servant of fashion and custom. To please the world is quite a
secondary consideration with him. His first aim is to please
God.
(6) Sixthly, St. John says, "He that is begotten of God
keepeth himself." (1 John v. 18.)
A regenerate man is very careful of his own soul. He
endeavours not only to keep clear of sin, but also to keep clear
of everything which may lead to it. He is careful about the
company he keeps. He feels that evil communications corrupt
the heart, and that evil is far more catching than good, just as
disease is more infectious than health. He is careful about the
employment of his time : his chief desire about it is to spend it
profitably. He is careful about the books he reads : he fears
getting his mind poisoned by mischievous writings. He is
careful about the friendships he forms : it is not enough for
him that people are kind and amiable and good-natured, all
this is very well ; but will they do good to his soul 1 He is
careful over his own daily habits and behaviour : he tries to
recollect that his own heart is deceitful, that the world is full of
wickedness, that the devil is always labouring to do him harm,
and therefore he would fain be always on his guard. He
desires to live like a soldier in an enemy s country, to wear his
armour continually, and to be prepared for temptation. He
hnds by experience that his soul is ever among enemies, and he
studies to be a watchful, humble, prayerful man.
Such are the six great marks of Regeneration, which God
has given for our learning. Let every one who has gone so far
with me, read them over with attention, and lay them to heart.
I believe they were written with a view to settle the great
question of the present day, and intended to prevent disputes.
Once more, then, I ask the reader to mark and consider them.
I know there is a vast difference in the depth and distinct-
REGENERATION. 129
ness of these marks among those who are "regenerate." In
some people they are faint, dim, feeble, and hardly to be dis
cerned. Yon almost need a microscope to make them out. In
others they are bold, sharp, clear, plain, and unmistakable, so
that he who runs may read them. Some of these marks are
more visible in some people, and others are more visible in
others. It seldom happens that all are equally manifest in
one and the same soul. All this I am quite ready to allow.
But still, after every allowance, here we find boldly painted
the six marks of being bom of God. Here are certain positive
things laid down by St. John as parts of the regenerate man s
character, as plainly and distinctly as the features of a man s
face. Here is an inspired Apostle writing one of the last
general Epistles to the Church of Christ, telling us that a man
born of God does not commit sin, believes that Jesus is the
Christ, doeth righteousness, loves the brethren, overcomes
the world, and keepeth himself. And more than once in the
very same Epistle, when these marks are mentioned, the
Apostle tells us that he who has not this or that mark is " not
of God." I ask the reader to observe all this.
Now what shall we say to these things ? What they can
say who "hold that Regeneration is only an admission to outward
Church privileges, I am sure I do not know. For myself, I say
boldly, I can only come to one conclusion. That conclusion is,
that those persons only are " regenerate " who have these six
marks about them, and that all men and women who have not
these marks are not "regenerate," are not born again. And I
firmly believe that this is the conclusion to which the Apostle
wished us to come.
I commend what I have been saying to the serious considera
tion of all my readers. I believe that I have said nothing but
what is God s truth. We live in a day of gross darkness on
the subject of Regeneration. Thousands are darkening God s
counsel by confounding baptism and Regeneration. Let us
beware of this. Let us keep the two subjects separate in our
mind. Let us get clear views about Regeneration first of all,
and then we are not likely to fall into mistakes about baptism.
And when we have got clear views let us hold them fast, and
never let them go.
VII.
PEAYER-BOOK STATEMENTS ABOUT
REGENERATION.
"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
JOHN iii. 3.
" This child is regenerate." Baptismal Service of the Church of
England.
IN this paper I have one simple object in view. I wish to
throw light on certain expressions about " Regeneration " in the
Baptismal Service of the Church of England.
The subject is one of no slight importance. The minds of
many true Christians in the Church of England are troubled
about it. They do not see the real meaning of our excellent
Reformers in putting such language in a Prayer-book Service.
They are perplexed and confounded by the bold and reckless
assertions made by opponents of Evangelical Religion within the
Church, and of Dissenters outside the Church, and, though not
convinced, they find nothing to reply.
I propose in this paper to supply an answer to the common
arguments in favour of " Baptismal Regeneration," which are
based on the Baptismal Service of the Prayer-book. I wish
to show that in this, as in many other questions, the truth is not
so entirely on one side, as many seem to suppose. Above all, I
wish to show that it is possible to be a consistent, honest, thought
ful member of the Church of England, and yet not to hold the
doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration.
In considering this subject, I shall strictly confine myself to
the one point at issue. I purposely avoid entering into the
general question of the nature of Regeneration and the Scriptural
warrant for infant baptism. I shall only make a few pre
liminary remarks by way of explanation, and to prevent mis
takes about the meaning of words.
130
PRAYER-BOOK STATEMENTS : REGENERATION. 131
(1) My first remark is this : I believe that, according to
Scripture, Regeneration is that great change of heart and
character which is absolutely needful to man s salvation,
" Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of
God." (John iii. 3.) Sometimes it is called conversion,
sometimes being made alive from the dead, sometimes putting
off the old man, and putting on the new, sometimes a new
creation, sometimes being renewed, sometimes being made
partaker of the Divine nature. All these expressions of the
Bible come to the same thing. They are all the same truth,
only viewed from different points. They all describe that
mighty, radical change of nature, which it is the special office
of the Holy Ghost to give, and without which no one can be
saved.
I am aware that many do not allow " Regeneration " to be
what I have here described it. They regard it as nothing more
than an admission to Church privileges, a change of state, and
not a change of heart. But what plain text of Scripture can
they show us in support of this view ? I answer boldly, " Not
one." *
(2) My second remark is this. I believe there is only one
sure evidence, according to Scripture, of any one being a re
generate person. That evidence is the fruit that he brings fortli
in his heart and in his life. " Every tree is known by his own
fruit." Those fruits are laid down clearly and plainly in the
New Testament. The Sermon on the Mount, and the latter part
of most of St. Paul s Epistles, contain unmistakable descrip
tions of the man who is born of the Spirit. But nowhere shall
we find the marks of Regeneration so fully given as in the first
Epistle of St. John. "Whosoever is born of God sinneth
not." f " Whosoever belie veth that Jesus is the Christ is born
* I willingly concede that this low view of Regeneration is held by many
holy and good men, like Bishop Davenant and Bishop Hopkins, whose doc
trinal views are in all other respects Scriptural and sound. But I can call
no man master. Warrant of Scripture for drawing a distinction between
baptismal and spiritual Regeneration, I can nowhere find.
f "The interpretation of this place that I judge to be the most natural
and unforced is this : He that is born of God doth not commit sin ; that
is, he doth not sin in that malignant manner in which the children of the
devil do ; he doth not make a trade of sin, nor live in the constant and
allowed practice of it. There is a great difference betwixt regenerate and
132 KNOTS UNTIED.
of God." "Every one that doeth righteousness is born of
Him." "Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world."
"He that is begotten of God keepeth himself." "In this the
children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil :
whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he
that loveth not his brother." (1 John v. 18 ; 1 John v. 1 ;
1 John ii. 29 ; 1 John v. 4 ; 1 John v. 18 ; 1 John iii. 10.)
Of course I am aware that many divines maintain that we
may call people " regenerate," in whom none of the marks just
described are seen, or ever were seen since they were born.
They tell us, in short, that people may possess the gift of the
Spirit, and the grace of Regeneration, when neither the gift nor
the grace can be seen. Such a doctrine appears to me dangerous
in the highest degree. It seems to my mind little better than
Antinomianism.
(3) My third remark is this. I believe that Regeneration
and baptism, according to Scripture, do not necessarily go
together. J see that people may be filled with the Holy Ghost,
and have new hearts, without baptism, like John the Baptist
and the penitent thief. I see also that people may be baptized,
and yet remain in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity,
like Simon Magus. Above all, I find St. Peter telling us
expressly, that the baptism which " saves," and whereby we are
buried with Christ, and put on Christ, is not water-baptism
only, whether infant or adult. It is " not " the putting away
of the filth of the flesh, but the " answer of a good conscience."
l^Peter iii. 21.)
it is well known that many people hold that baptism and
Regeneration are inseparable ; but there is a fatal absence of
texts in support of this view. Sixteen times, at least, the new
is mentioned in the New Testament.* " Regeneration " is
a worj iise^ twice. buJL only once in the sense of a change of
jhearik " Born again," " born of God," " born of the Spirit,"
" begotten of God," are expressions used frequently. Once
unregenerate persons in the very sins that they commit. All indeed sin ;
but a child of God cannot sin, that is, though he doth sin, yet he cannot sin
after such a manner as wicked and unregenerate men do." Bishop Hopkins.
1670.
I* John i. 13. John iii. 3. John iii. 5. John iii. 7. John iii. 8. Titus /
iii. 5. 1 Peter i. 3. 1 Peter i. 23. James i. 18. 1 John ii. 29. 1 John iii. J
9. 1 John iv. 7. 1 John v. 1. 1 John v. 4. 1 John v. 18.
PRAYER-BOOK STATEMENTS : REGENERATION. 133
the word "water" is joined with the words "born of the
Spirit ; " once the word " washing " is joined with the word
" Regeneration ; " twice believers are said to be born of the
" Word of God," the " Word of truth." But it is a striking fact
that there is not one text in Scripture which save distinctly and
expressly that we are bom again in baptism^ and that every
hantized person is necessarily regenerate !
(4) My fourth and last remark is this. I believe that accord
ing to Scripture, baptism has no more power to confer Regenera
tion on infants, ex opere operato, than it has upon grown-up people.
That infants ought to be solemnly and formally admitted into
the Church under the New Testament, as well as under the Old,
I make no question. The promise to the children of believers, and
the behaviour of our Lord Jesus Christ to children, oug
t encourage all believing parents to expect the greatest bleasrpga in
bringing their infants to be baptized. But beyond this I cannot go.
I am aware that many people think that infants must be
regenerated in baptism, as a matter of course, because they put
no bar in the way of grace, and must therefore receive the
sacrament worthily. Once more I am obliged to say, there is a
fatal absence of Scripture in defence of this view. The right
of Christian infants to baptism is only through their parents.
The precise effect of baptism on infants is never once stated
in the New Testament. There ia no description of a
ti the New r CEfttft Tnen k There is no description of a child
laptism ; and to say that children T bom in sin, as all are, are^
hemselves worihv to receive grace, appears to me a ne:
themselves worthy to receive grace, appears to me a near
approach to the old heresy of Pelagianism.*
I now come to the point which forms the chief subject of
this paper. That point is the true interpretation of some
expressions in the Baptismal Service of the Church of England,
which appear at first sight to contradict the view which I have
been endeavouring to set forth on the subject of Regeneration.
* If infants are in themselves worthy to receive grace, because they put no
bar in its way, let this question be answered: " Why do not missionaries
to the heathen baptize all the heathen infants whom they can find, without
waiting for the will of their parents?" No Protestant missionary at any
rate thinks of doing so.
If the children of believing and unbelieving parents are sure to receive
exactly the same amount of grace in baptism, by virtue of the baptismal
water, in whatever state of mind their parents bring them to the font, the
whole sacrament becomes nothing but a form.
134 KNOTS UNTIED.
It is asserted that the Prayer-book decidedly teaches the doctrine
of Baptismal Regeneration in the Baptismal Service. It is said
that the words of that service, "Seeing now that this child is
regenerate," "We yield Thee hearty thanks, that it hath
pleased Thee to regenerate this child with Thy Holy Spirit,"
admit of only one meaning. They are used, it is said, over
every child that is baptized. They prove, it is said, beyond all
question, that the Church of England maintains the doctrine of
Baptismal Regeneration. They settle the point, it is said, and
leave no room to doubt. These are the statements I now propose
to examine. Can they be proved, or can they not 1 I say
unhesitatingly that they cannot^ and I will proceed to give my
reasons for saying so, if the reader will give me his patient
attention.
I desire to approach the whole subject in dispute with a
sorrowful recollection of the sad difference of opinion which has
long prevailed in my own Church upon the subject which it
involves. I am quite aware of the positive assertions so fre
quently made, that the views of Regeneration I have tried to
set forth are not " Church views," and so forth. Such assertions
go for very little with me. I have read Bishop Jewel s Apology,
and I do not forget what he says there about those " wjio impose
upon silly men by vain and useless shows, and seek to over
whelm us with the mere name of the Church," I am thoroughly
persuaded that the views of Regeneration I maintain are the
views of the Prayer-book, Articles, and Homilies of the Church
England, and I will endeavour to satisfy the reader that I
have good reasons for saying so. The more I have searched
the subject, the more thoroughly convinced have I felt in
my own mind that those who say the views I advocate are not
" Church views" are asserting what they cannot prove.
And now let me proceed to reply to the objection that the
invariable Regeneration of all infants in baptism is proved to
be the doctrine of the Church of England by the language of
her Baptismal Service.
I. I answer then, first of all, that the mere quotation of two
isolated expressions in one particular service in our Liturgy is
not of itself sufficient. It must be proved that the sense in
which the objector takes these expressions is the correct one.
PRAYER-BOOK STATEMENTS : REGENERATION. 135
It must also be shown that this sense will bear comparison with
the other Services and formularies of the Church, and does not
involve any contradiction. If this last point cannot be shown
and proved, it is clear that the objector has put a wrong inter
pretation on the Baptismal Service, and does not understand the
great principle on which all the Services of our Church are
drawn up.
It is a most unsound method of reasoning to take one < two (
expressions out of a book which has been written as one great
whole, to place a certain meaning on these expressions, and
then refuse to inquire whether that meaning can be reconcile,
with the general spirit of the rest of the book. The beginning
of every heresy and erroneous tenet in religion may be trace(
up to this kind of reasoning, and to unfair and partial quota
tions. ,
This is precisely the Roman Catholic s argument when lie
wants to prove the doctrine of transubstantiation. "I read,"
he says, "these plain words, This is My body this is My
blood. I want no more, I have nothing to do with your
explanations and quotations from other parts of the Bible.
Here is quite enough for me. The Lord Jesus Christ says,
< This is My body. This settles the question."
This again is precisely the Arian s argument, when he wants
to prove that the Lord Jesus Christ is inferior to the lather.
" I read," he says, " these plain words, < My Father is greater
than I " It is in vain you tell him that there are other texts
which show the Son to be equal with the Father, and give a
different meaning to the one he has quoted. It matters not.
He rests on the one single text that he has chosen to rest on,
and he will hear nothing further.
This also is precisely the Socinian s argument, when he wants
to prove that Jesus Christ is only a man, and not God.
read," he tells us, "these plain words, The man, Christ Jesus.
Do not talk to me about other passages which contradict my
view. All I know is, here are words which cannot be mistaken,
The man, Christ Jesus. "
Now without desiring to give offence, I must frankly say
that I observe this kind of argument continually used in dis
cussing the Church of England s doctrine about Regeneration.
People quote the words of our Baptismal Service, "
136 KNOTS UNTIED.
that this child is regenerate," etc., as an unanswerable proof that
the Church considers all baptized infants to be born again.
They will not listen to anything else that is brought forward
from other Services and formularies of the Church. They tell
you they take their stand on the simple expression, " This child
is regenerate." The words are plain, they inform us ! They
settle the question incontrovertibly ! They seem to doubt
your honesty and good sense, if you are not at once convinced.
And all this time they do not see that they are taking their
stand on very dangerous ground, and putting a sword into the
hand of the next Socinian, Arian, or Roman Catholic who
happens to dispute with them.
I warn such people, if this paper falls in their hands, that
this favourite argument will not do. A single quotation
dragged out of a Service will not suffice. They must prove
that the meaning they attach to it is consistent with the rest of
the Prayer-book, and with the Articles and Homilies. They
must not expound one place of the Prayer-book, any more than
of tl^e pible T so as to make it repugnant to another. And
this, whether they mean it or not, I firmly believe they are doing.
II. I answer, in the next place, that to say all baptized
infants are regenerate, because of the expressions in the
Baptismal Service, is to contradict the great principle on ivhich
the whole Prayer-book is drawn up.
The principle of the Prayer-book is to suppose all members
of the Church to be in reality what they are in profession, to
be true believers in Christ, to be sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
The Prayer-book takes the highest standard of what a Christian
ought to be, and is all through worded accordingly. The
minister addresses those who assemble together for public
worship as believers. The people who use the words the Liturgy
puts into their mouths, are supposed to be believers. But those
who drew up the Prayer-book never meant to assert that all
who were. members of the Church of England were -actually and
really true Christians. On the contrary, they tell us expressly
in the Articles, that "in the visible Church the evil be ever
mingled w r ith the good." But they held that if forms of de
votion were drawn up at all, they must be drawn up on the
supposition that those who used them were real Christians, and
\
PRAYER-BOOK STATEMENTS : REGENERATION. 137
not false ones. And in so doing I think they were quite right.
A Liturgy for unbelievers and unconverted men would be absurd,
and practically useless ! The part of the congregation for whom
it was meant would care little or nothing for any Liturgy at all.
The holy and believing part of the congregation would find
its language entirely unsuited to them.
Now this general principle of the Prayer-book is the prin
ciple on which the Baptismal Service is drawn up. It supposes
those who bring their children to be baptized, to bring them as
believers. As the seed of godly parents and children of be
lievers, their infants are baptized. As believers, the sponsors
and parents are exhorted to pray that the child may be born
again, and encouraged to lay hold on the promises. And as the
child of believers the infant when baptized is pronounced " re
generate," and thanks are given for it.
The principle which the Church lays down as an abstract
principle is this, that baptism when rightly and worthily re
ceived, is a means whereby we may receive inward and spiritual
grace, even a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteous
ness.* That an infant may receive baptism "rightly" the
Church of England unquestionably holds, though the way and
manner of it may be a hidden thing to us ; for as good Arch
bishop Usher beautifully remarks, "He that hath said of infants,
to them belongs the kingdom of God, knows how to settle
upon them the kingdom of heaven." Her ministers cannot
see the book of God s election. They cannot see the hidden
workings of the Holy Ghost. They cannot read the hearts of
parents and sponsors. They can never say of any individual
child, "This child is certainly receiving baptism unworthily."
And this being the case, the Church most wisely leans to the
side of charity, assumes hopefully of each child that it receives
baptism worthily, and uses language accordingly.
The men who drew up our Baptismal Service, held that there
was a connection between baptism and spiritual KegeJ^eration,
It may be well to remark that this is also the doctrine of the Church of
Scotland. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time
wherein it is administered ; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this
ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and (
\conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that
-jrace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God s own will, in His |
ippomted time." Scotch Confession of Faith, chap. 28.
138 KNOTS UNTIED.
.and they were right* The^knew that there was nothing too
high in the way of Messing^to expect for the child ofjijeliever.
They knew that GrodT might of bis sovereign mercyjamrace
to, any child Trafpre, or^in. orlit, or by the act of baptism. At
all events jhey dared notjundertake the responsibility of deny
ing it In tEe case^prany particufar infant and they therefore
took the", safer course, to express a charitable hope of all. They
I could not draw up two Services of baptism, one of a high
standard of privilege, the other of a low one. They could not
j leave it to the option of a minister to decide when one should
(be used, and when the other. It would have made a minister s
position at the baptismal font a most invidious one ; it would
have exposed him to the risk of making painful mistakes ; it
(would have required him to decide points which none but God
can decide. They leaned to the side of charity. _They drew
up a form containing the highest standard of privilege and
blessing, and required that in every case of infant baptism that
form, and that only, should be used. And in so doing they
acted in the spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ s remarkable words
to the seventy disciples, " Into whatsoever house ye enter, first
say, Peace be to this house. And if the son of peace be there,
your peace shall rest upon it : if not, it shall turn to you again."
(Luke x. 5, 6.)
But as for maintaining that the ministerial act of baptizing
child did always necessarily convey Regeneration, and that
every infant baptized was invariably born again, I believe it
never entered into the thoughts of those who drew up the
Prayer-book. In the judgment of charity and hope they sup
posed all to be regenerated in baptism, and used language,
accordingly. Whether any particular child was actually am}
really regenerated they left to be decided by its life and ways
when it grew up. To say that the assertions of the Prayer-!
book Baptismal Service are to be taken for more than a charitA
able supposition, will be found, on close examination, to throw!
the whole Prayer-book into confusion, f
* "There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union I
between the sign and the thing signified ; whence it comes to pass that the I
names and effects of the one are attributed to the other. "Scotch Confession)
f " What y you of infants baptized that are born in the Church ? Doth II
the inward grace in their baptism always attend upon the outward sign . M
PRAYER-BOOK STATEMENTS : REGENERATION. 139
This is the only principle on which many of the Collects can
be reasonably explained. The Collect for the Epiphany says,
" Grant that we who know Thee now by faith, may after this
life have the fruition of Thy glorious God-head." Will any
one tell us that the compilers of the Prayer-book meant to
teach, that all who use the Prayer-book do know God by faith 1
Surely not. The Collect for Sexagesima Sunday says, " 0,
Lord God, Who seest that we put not our trust in anything
that we do," etc. Will any dare to say that these words could
ever be literally true of all members of the Church of England ?
Are they not manifestly a charitable supposition ? The Collect
for the Third Sunday after Trinity says, " We, to whom Thou
hast given a hearty desire to pray," etc. Who can have a
doubt that this is a form of words, which is used by many of
whom it could not strictly and truly be said for one minute 1
Who can fail to see in all these instances one uniform principle,
Surely, no. The sacrament of baptism is effectual in infants only to those
and to all those who belong unto the election of grace. Which thing,
though we in the judgment of charity do judge of every particular infant,
yet we have no ground to judge so of all in general : or if we should judge so,
yet is it not any judgment of certainty. We may be mistaken." Archbishop
Usher. 1620.
" All that receive baptism are called children of God, regenerate, justified :
for to us they must be taken for such in charity, until they show themselves
other. But the author (Bishop Montague, a friend of Archbishop Laud)
affirmeth that this is not left to men s charity, as you, saith he, do inform
the world, because we are taught in the service book of our Church earnestly
to believe that Christ hath favourably received these infants that are baptized,
that He hath embraced them with the arms of His mercy, that He hath
given them the blessing of everlasting life ; and out of that belief and per
suasion we are to give thanks faithfully and devoutly for it. All this we
receive and make no doubt of it : but when we have said all we must come
to this, that all this is the charity of the Church, and what more can you
make of it ? "George Carleton, Bishop of Chichester. 1619
"We are to distinguish between the judgment of charity and the judg
ment of certainty. For although in the general we know that not every
one that is baptized is justified or shall be saved, yet when we come to
particulars, we are to judge of them that are baptized that they are
regenerated and justified, and shall be saved, until they shall discover
themselves not to be such. And so our book of Common Prayer speaketh
of them." George Downame, Bishop of Derry. 1620.
"The office for baptizing infants carries on the supposition of an internal
Regeneration." Bishop Barnct. 1689.
There is justification for that prayer in our public liturgy, when the con
gregation gives thanks to God for the child baptized, that it hath pleased Him
to regenerate this infant by His Holy Spirit, etc. For it cannot be denied
140 KNOTS UNTIED.
the principle of charitably assuming that members of a Church
are what they profess to be 1 The Church puts in the mouth
of her worshipping people the sentiments and language they
ought to use, and if they do not come up to her high standard,
the fault is theirs, not hers. But to say that by adopting such
expressions she stamps and accredits all her members as real
and true Christians in the sight of God, would be manifestly
absurd.
This is the only principle on which the Service for the Church
ing of Women can be interpreted. Every woman for whom
that Service is used, is spoken of as " the Lord s servant," and
is required to answer that she "puts her trust in the Lord."
Yet who in his senses can doubt that such words are utterly
inapplicable in the case of a great proportion of those who come
to be churched ? They are not " servants " of the Lord ! They
do not in any sense " put their trust " in Him ! And who
would dare to argue that the compilers of the Liturgy con-
but that the holy ordinance of baptism, the seal of our sanctification, doth
take effect many times immediately in the infusion of present grace into the
infant s soul, though many times also it hath not its effect till many years
after. But seeing it is questionably true in many, we may and must charit
ably suppose it in every one, for when we come to particulars whom dare we
exclude? And this we may do without tying the grace of Regeneration
necessarily to baptism, as some complain that we do." William Pemblc,
Magdalen Hall, Oxford. 1635.
" The Apostles always, when they descend to particular men or Churches,
PRESUME every Christian to be elect, sanctified, justified, and in the way of
being glorified, until he himself shall have proved himself to be wicked, or
an apostate." Bishop Davenant. 1627.
" As to what he says, that no one can be a minister of the Church of Eng
land, who is not certainly persuaded of the Regeneration of every infant
baptized, neither also is that true. The minister truly gives God thanks
after each infant has been baptized, that it has pleased God to regenerate
him with His Holy Spirit. But it does not then follow that he ought to be
certain of the Regeneration of every infant baptized. For it is sufficient if
he is persuaded of the Regeneration of some only, for instance, of "elect
infants, or if you like, even of some only of their number, that on that
account he may be able, nay ought, to give God thanks for each and all
baptized. Since who is elect he knows not : and it is but just that he should
bit the judgment of charity presume, that as many as he baptizes are elect,
and if any are regenerated in baptism (which none but a Socinian or other
Catabaptist will deny) regenerated." Dr. Durel, Dean of Windsor, and
Chaplain to the King. 1677.
" Though the work of grace be not perfectly wrought, yet when the means
are used, without something appearing to the contrary, we ought to presume
of the good effect." Bishop Pearson. 1680.
PRAYER-BOOK STATEMENTS : REGENERATION. 141
sidered that all women who were churched did really trust in
the Lord, merely because they used this language 1 The simple
explanation is, that they drew up the Service on the same
great principle which runs through the whole Prayer-book,
the principle of charitable supposition.
This is the only principle on which the Service of Baptism
for grown-up people can be interpreted. In that Service the
minister first prays that the person about to be baptized may
have the Holy Spirit given to him and be born again. The
Church cannot take upon herself to pronounce decidedly that
he is born again, until he has witnessed a good confession, and
shown his readiness to receive the seal of baptism. Then,
after that prayer, he is called upon openly to profess repent
ance and faith before the minister and congregation, and that
being done he is baptized. Then, and not till then, comes the
declaration that the person baptized is " regenerate," and he is
born again and made an heir of everlasting salvation. But can
these words be strictly and literally true if the person baptized
is a hypocrite, and has all along professed that which he does
not feel 1 Are not the words manifestly used on the charitable
supposition that he has repented and does believe, and in no
other sense at all ? And is it not plain to every one that in
the absence of this repentance and faith, the words used are a
mere form, used, because the Church cannot draw up two
forms, but not for a moment implying that inward and spiritual
grace necessarily accompanies the outward sign, or that a "death
unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness " is necessarily con
veyed to the soul ? In short, the person baptized is pronounced
regenerate upon the broad principle of the Prayer-book, that,
in the Church-services people are charitably supposed to be
what they profess to be.
This is the only intelligible principle on which the Burial
Service can be interpreted. In that Service the person buried
is spoken of as a "dear brother or sister." It is said that it
hath " pleased God of His great mercy to take to Himself his
soul." It is said, "We give Thee hearty thanks that it hath
pleased Thee to deliver this our brother out of the miseries of
this sinful world." It is said that "our hope is, this our
brother rests in Christ." Now what does all this mean ? Did
the compilers of the Prayer-book wish us to believe that all
142 KNOTS UNTIED.
this was strictly and literally applicable to every individual
member of the Church over whose body these words were read 1
Will any one look the Service honestly in the face and dare to
say so 1 I cannot think it. The simple explanation of the
Service is, that it was drawn up, like the rest, on the pre
sumption that all members of a Church were what they
professed to be. The key to the interpretation of it is the
same great principle, the principle of charitable supposition.
This is the only principle on which the Catechism can be
interpreted. In it every child is taught to say, " In baptism I
was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor
of the kingdom of heaven ; " and a little further on, " I learn to
believe in God the Holy Ghost who sanctifieth me and all the
elect people of God." Now what does this mean 1 Did the
Prayer-book writers intend to lay it down as an abstract prin
ciple that all baptized children are " sanctified " and all " elect " ?
Will any one in the present day stand forth and tell us that all
the children in his parish are actually sanctified by the Holy
Ghost ? If he can, I can only say, that his parish is an exception,
or else Bible words have no meaning. But I cannot yet believe
that any one would say so. I believe there is but one explanation
of all these expressions in the Catechism. They are the words
of charitable supposition^ and in no other sense can they be taken.
I lay these things before any one who fancies that all children
are regenerated in baptism, because of the expressions in the
Prayer-book service, and I ask him to weigh them well. I am
not to be moved from my ground by hard names, and bitter
epithets, and insinuations that I am not a real Churchman. I
am not to be shaken by scraps and sentences torn from their
places, and thrust isolated and alone upon our notice. What I
say is, that in interpreting the Baptismal Service of the Church
we must be consistent.
Men say that the view of the Service I maintain is " non-
natural and dishonest." I deny the charge altogether. I might
retort it on many of those who make it. Whose view is most
unnatural, I ask ? Is it the view of the man who expounds the
Baptismal Service on one principle, and the Burial Service on
another ? or is it my view, which interprets all on one uniform
and the same system 1
We must be consistent I repeat. I refuse to interpret one
PRAYER-BOOK STATEMENTS : REGENERATION. 143
part of the Prayer-book on one principle, and another part on
another. The expressions to which I have been calling atten
tion are either abstract dogmatic declarations, or charitable
assumptions and suppositions. They cannot be both. And I
now call upon those who hold all children to be invariably
regenerated, because of strong expressions in the Baptismal
Service, to carry out their principles honestly, fairly, fully, and
consistently, if they can.
If all children are actually regenerated in baptism, because
the Service says, "This child is regenerate," then by parity of
reasoning it follows that all people who use the Collect have
faith, and a hearty desire to pray! all women who are churched
put their trust in the Lord ! all members of the Church who
are buried are dear brethren, and we hope rest in Christ ! and
all children who say the Catechism are sanctified by the Holy
Ghost and are elect ! Consistency demands it. Fair interpre
tation of words demands it. There is not a jot of evidence to
show that those are not really sanctified and elect who say the
Catechism, if you once maintain that those are all actually
" regenerated " over whom the words of the Baptismal Service
have been used.
But if I am to be told that the children who use the Cate
chism are not necessarily all elect and sanctified, and that the
people buried are not necessarily all resting in Christ, and that
the language in both cases is that of charitable supposition, then
I reply, in common fairness let us be allowed to take the
language of the Baptismal Service in the same sense. I see one
uniform principle running through all the Prayer-book, through
all the Offices, through all the devotional Formularies of the
Church. That principle is the principle of charitable supposi
tion. Following that principle, I can make good sense and
good divinity of every Service in the book. Without that
principle I cannot. On that principle therefore I take my
stand. If I say all baptized children are really, literally, and
actually "regenerate," because of certain words in the Baptismal
Service, I contradict that principle. I believe our Services
were meant to be consistent one with another, and not contra
dictory. I therefore cannot say so.
III. My next answer to those who say all baptized persons
144 KNOTS UNTIED.
are regenerate, because of the Baptismal Service, is this, that
such a view would not agree witli the Thirty-nine Articles.
Now I am aware that many have a very low opinion of the
Articles. Many seem to know little about them, and to attach
little weight to any quotation from them. " The Prayer-book !
the Prayer-book ! " is the watch-word of these people ; " all we
have to do with is, what does the Prayer-book say ? " I disagree
with such persons entirely. I look upon the Thirty-nine
Articles as the Church of England s Confession of faith. I
believe the words of the declaration which prefaces them are
strictly true, " That the Articles of the Church of England do
contain the true doctrine of the Church of England," and that
any doctrine which does not entirely harmonize with those
Articles is not the doctrine of the Church. I honour and love
the book of Common Prayer, but I do not call it the Church s
Confession of faith. I delight in it as an incomparable manual
of public worship, but if I want to ascertain the deliberate
judgment of the Church upon any point of doctrine, I turn first
to the Articles. What would a Lutheran or Scotch Presby
terian say of me, if I judged his Church by his minister s
prayers, and did not judge it by the Augsburg or Westminster
Confessions? I do not say this in order to disparage the
Prayer-book, but to point out calmly what it really is. I want
to place the Thirty-nine Articles in their proper position before
the reader s mind, and so to make him see the real value of
what they say. It is a circumstance deeply to be regretted that
the Articles are not more read and studied by members of the
Church of England.
I will now ask the reader of this paper to observe the striking
prominence which the Articles everywhere give to the Bible as
the only rule of faith. The Sixth Article says, that " What
soever is not read in Holy Scripture, nor may be proved thereby,
is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as
an article of the faith, or be thought requisite and necessary to
salvation." The Eighth says, that the "Three Creeds ought
thoroughly to be believed and received, for they may be proved
by most certain warrant of Holy Scripture." The Twentieth
says, that "It is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything
that is contrary to God s Word written, neither may it so
expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another."
PRAYER-BOOK STATEMENTS : REGENERATION. 145
The Twenty-first says, that "things ordained by General
Councils as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor
authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of
Holy Scripture." The Twenty-second condemns certain Romish
doctrines, because they "are grounded upon no warranty of
Scripture, but are rather repugnant to the Word of God." The
Twenty-eighth condemns transubstantiation, because it " cannot
bo proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words
of Scripture." The Thirty-fourth says, that traditions and
ceremonies of the Church may be changed, so long as " nothing
be ordained against God s Word."
All these quotations make it perfectly certain that the Bible
is the sole rule of faith in the Church of England, and that
nothing is a doctrine of the Church which cannot be entirely
reconciled with the Word of God. And I see here a complete
answer to those who say we make an idol of the Bible, and
tell us we ought to go first to the Prayer-book, or to the opinion
of the primitive Church ! I see also that any meaning placed
upon any part of the Prayer-book which at all disagrees with
the Bible, and cannot be proved by the Bible, must be an
incorrect meaning. I am not to listen to any interpretation of
any Service in the Liturgy, which cannot be thoroughly recon
ciled with Scripture. It may sound very plausible. It may
be defended very speciously. But does it in any way jar with
plain texts in the Bible ? If it does, there is a mistake some
where. There is a flaw in the interpretation. On the very face
of it, it is incorrect. It is utterly absurd to suppose that the
founders of our Church would assert the supremacy of Scripture
seven or eight times over, and then draw up a service in the
Prayer-book at all inconsistent with Scripture ! And unless
the doctrine that all children baptized are necessarily regenerated
in baptism, can first be shown to be in the Bible, it is a mere
waste of time to begin any discussion of the subject by talkino-
of the Prayer-book.
I ask the reader, in the next place, to observe what the
Twenty-fifth and Twenty-sixth Articles say. The Twenty-fifth
speaks generally of sacraments ; and it says of them, both of
baptism and of the Lord s Supper, "In such only as worthily
receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation."
The Twenty-sixth speaks of the unworthiness of ministers not
146 KNOTS UNTIED.
hindering the effect of the sacraments. It says, " Neither is the
effect of Christ s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, or
the grace of God s gifts diminished, from such as by faith and
rightly do receive the sacraments." Here we have a broad
general principle twice asserted. The benefit of either sacra
ment is clearly confined to such as rightly, worthily, and with
faith receive it. The Romish notion of all alike getting good
from it, ex opere operato, is with equal clearness pointed at
and rejected. Now can this be reconciled with the doctrine
that all who are baptized are at once invariably regenerated ?
I say decidedly that it cannot.
I ask the reader, in the next place, to observe the language of
the Article about baptism, the Twenty-seventh. It says,
" Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of differ
ence, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that are
not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new
birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism
rigidly are grafted into the Church ; the promises of forgiveness
of sin and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy
Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed ; faith is confirmed and
grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The baptism of
young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church as
most agreeable with the institution of Christ." Nothing can be
more striking than the wise caution of all this language, when
contrasted with the statements about baptism with which our
ears are continually assailed in this day. There is not a word
said which might lead us to suppose that a different principle is
to be applied to the baptism of infants, from that which has
been already laid down about all sacraments, in the Twenty-fifth
Article. We are left to the inevitable conclusion that in all
cases worthy reception is essential to the full efficacy of the
sacrament. There is not a word said about a great inward
and spiritual blessing invariably and necessarily attending the
baptism of an infant. There is a perfect silence on that head,
and a most speaking silence too. Surely a doctrine involving
such immense and important consequences as the universal
spiritual regeneration of all infants in baptism, would never have
been passed over in entire silence, if it had been the doctrine of
the Church. The authors of the Articles unquestionably knew
the importance of the document they were drawing up. Un-
PKAYER-BOOK STATEMENTS : REGENERATION. 147
questionably they weighed well every word and every statement
they put down on paper. And yet they are perfectly silent on
the subject ! That silence is like the occasional silence of
Scripture, a great fact, and one which can never be got over.
I ask the reader, in the next place, to observe what the
Thirteenth Article says. It tells us that " Works done before
the grace of Christ and the inspiration of His Spirit are not
pleasant to God," etc. Here we are plainly taught that works
may be done by men before grace and the Spirit are given to
them, and this too by baptized members of the Church, for it is
for them tli.it the Articles are drawn up ! But how can this be
reconciled with the notion that all baptized persons are neces
sarily regenerated ? How can any person be regenerated without
having the "grace of Christ and the inspiration of the Spirit"?
There is only one view on which the Article can be reasonably
explained. That view is the simple one, that many baptized
people are not regenerate, have no grace and no indwelling of
the Spirit, and that it is their case before they are born again
and converted, which is here described.
The last Article I will ask the reader to observe is the Seven
teenth. The subject of that Article is Predestination and
Election. It is a subject which many people dislike exceedingly,
and are ready to stop their ears whenever it is mentioned. I
acknowledge freely that it is a deep subject. But there stands
the Article ! It cannot be denied that it forms part of our
Church s Confession of faith. Whether men like it or not, they
must not talk as if it did not exist, in discussing the subject of
the Church s doctrines. The Article begins with laying down
the great truth that God "hath constantly decreed by His
counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those
whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring
them by Christ to everlasting salvation." It then proceeds to
describe the calling of these persons by God s Spirit, and the
consequences of that calling ;" They through grace obey the
calling : they be justified freely : they be made sons of God l>/
adoption : they be made like the image of His only-begotten
Son, Jesus Christ ; they walk religiously in good works, and at
length by God s mercy they attain to everlasting felicity." ]S T ow
all I ask the reader to consider is this, did the writers of the
Articles mean to say that these persons were a separate and
148 KNOTS UNTIED.
distinct class from those who were " regenerated," or not ? We
must think so, if we consider baptism is always accompanied by
Regeneration. The things spoken of in this description are
things of which multitudes of baptized persons know nothing at
all. I do not, however, believe that such an idea ever entered
into the minds of those who wrote the Articles. I believe that
they looked on Election, Justification, Adoption, and Regenera
tion, as the peculiar privileges of a certain number, but not of
all members of the visible Church ; and that just as all baptized
people are not elect, justified, and sanctified, so also all baptized
people are not regenerated. Very striking is the difference
between the language of the Article which treats of baptism,
and the Article which treats of election. In the former we find
the cautious general statement, that in baptism " the promises
of our adoption to be the sons of God are visibly signed and
sealed" In the latter we find the broad assertion that the elect
" be made the sons of God by adoption."
Such is the doctrine of the Articles. If Regeneration be
what the Catechism describes it, "a death unto sin and a new
birth unto righteousness," I cannot find the slightest ground
in the Articles for the notion that all baptized persons are
necessarily regenerate. There is an absence of any direct asser
tion of such a doctrine. There are several passages which
appear completely inconsistent with it. I cannot suppose that
the Articles and Liturgy were meant to be contrary one to the
other. The men who drew up the Thirty-nine Articles in
1562, were the men who compiled the Prayer-book in 1549.
They drew up the Articles with a certain and distinct know
ledge of the contents of the Prayer-book. Yet the interpreta
tion of the Baptismal Service I am contending against would
make the one formulary contradictory to the other. The con
clusion I come to is clear and decided, such an interpretation
cannot be correct.
IV. My last answer to those who say that all baptized per
sons are necessarily regenerated, because of the wording of the
Baptismal Service, is this, such a doctrine would make the
Prayer-look disagree with the Homilies of the Church of England.
The Homilies are not liked by some persons any more than
the Thirty-nine Articles. No doubt they are human composi-
PRAYER-BOOK STATEMENTS : REGENERATION. 149
tions, and therefore not perfect; no doubt they contain words and
expressions here and there which might be amended; but, after
all, the members of the Church of England are bound to recollect
that the Thirty-fifth Article expressly asserts that the Homilies
contain " a godly and wholesome doctrine." Whatever their
deficiencies may be, the general tone of their doctrine is clear
and unmistakable. And any interpretation of the Prayer-book
Services which makes those Services inconsistent with the Homi
lies must, on the very face of it, be an incorrect interpretation.
Let me then call the reader s attention to the following-
passages in the Homilies :
In the Homily of Charity there are the following passages :
"What thing can we wish so good for us as the heavenly
Father to reckon and take us for His children ? And this
shall we be sure of, saith Christ, if we love every man with
out exception. And if we do otherwise, saith He, we be no
better than the Pharisees, publicans, and heathens, and shall
have our reward with them, that is to be shut out from the
number of God s chosen children, and from His everlasting
inheritance in heaven." And again : " He that beareth a good
heart and mind, and useth well his tongue and deeds unto
every man, friend or foe, he may know thereby that he hath
charity. And then he is sure also that Almighty God taketh
him for His dearly-beloved son; as Saint John saith, hereby
manifestly are known the children of God from the children
of the devil ; for whosoever doth not love his brother belongeth
not unto God."
In the Homily of Almsdeeds there is this passage : " God
of His mercy and special favour towards them whom He hath
appointed to everlasting salvation, hath so offered His grace
especially, and they have so received it faithfully, that,
although by reason of their sinful living outwardly they seemed
before to have been the children of wrath and perdition, yet
now, the Spirit of God working mightily in them, unto obedi
ence to God s will and commandments, they declare by their
outward deeds and life, in the showing of mercy and charity
which cannot come but of the Spirit of God and His
especial grace that they are the undoubted children of God,
appointed to everlasting life. And so, as by their wickedness
and ungodly living they showed themselves, according to the
150 KNOTS UNTIED.
judgment of men, which follow the outward appearance, to be
reprobates and castaways, so now by their obedience unto
God s holy will, and by their mercifulness and tender pity,
wherein they show themselves to be like unto God, who is the
Fountain and Spring of all mercy, they declare openly and
manifestly unto the sight of men that they are the sons of God,
and elect of Him unto salvation."
In the Homily for Whit-Sunday, I read the following pas
sages : "It is the Holy Ghost, and no other thing, that doth
quicken the minds of men, stirring up good and godly motions
in their hearts, which are agreeable to the will and command
ment of God, such as otherwise of their own crooked and
perverse nature they should never have. That which is born
of the flesh, saith Christ, is flesh, and that which is born of
the Spirit is spirit. As who should say, man of his own
nature is fleshly and carnal, corrupt and naught, sinful and
disobedient to God, without any spark of goodness in him,
without any virtuous or godly notion, only given to evil
thoughts and wicked deeds. As for the works of the Spirit,
the fruits of faith, charitable and godly motions, if he have
any at all in him, they proceed only of the Holy Ghost, who
is the only worker of our sanctification, and maketh us new
men in Christ Jesus. Did not God s Holy Spirit work in the
child David, when from a poor shepherd he became a princely
prophet 1 ? Did not God s Holy Spirit miraculously work in
Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom, when of a proud
publican he became a humble and lowly evangelist 1 And who
can choose but marvel to consider that Peter should become,
of a simple fisher, a chief and mighty Apostle 1 ? Paul of a
cruel and bloody persecutor, to teach the Gentiles 1 Such is
the power of the Holy Ghost to regenerate men, and, as it were,
to bring them forth anew, so that they shall be nothing like
the men that they were before. Neither doth He think it suffi
cient inwardly to work the spiritual and new birth of man
unless He do also dwell and abide in him. Oh, what comfort
is this to the heart of a true Christian, to think that the Holy
Ghost dwelleth within him ! "
And then comes the following passage, which I request the
reader specially to observe : " How shall I know that the Holy
Ghost is within me 1 some men perchance will say : Forsooth,
PKAYEK-BOOK STATEMENTS I KEGENEKATION. 151
as the tree is known by his fruit, so is also the Holy Ghost.
The fruits of the Holy Ghost, according to the mind of St.
Paul, are these : love, joy, peace, long - suffering, gentleness,
goodness, faithfulness, meekness, temperance, etc. Contrari
wise the deeds of the flesh are these : adultery, fornication,
uncleanness, wantonness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, debate,
emulation, wrath, contention, sedition, heresy, envy, murder,
drunkenness, gluttony, and such like. Here is now that glass
wherein thou must behold thyself, and discern whether thou
have the Holy Ghost within thee or the spirit of the flesh.
If thou see that thy works be virtuous and good, consonant to
the prescribed rule of God s Word, savouring and tasting not
of the flesh, but of the Spirit, then assure thyself that thou
art endued with the Holy Ghost ; otherwise, in thinking well of
thyself, thou dost nothing but deceive thyself." Once more :
" To conclude and make an end, ye shall briefly take this short
lesson : wheresoever ye find the spirit of arrogance and pride,
the spirit of envy, hatred, contention, cruelty, murder, extor
tion, witchcraft, necromancy, etc., assure yourselves that there
is the spirit of the devil, and not of God, albeit they pretend
outwardly to the world never so much holiness. For as the
Gospel teacheth us, the Spirit of Jesus is a good spirit, an holy
spirit, a sweet spirit, a lowly spirit, a merciful spirit, full of
charity and love, full of forgiveness and pity, not rendering-
evil for evil, extremity for extremity, but overcoming evil with
good, and remitting all offence even from the heart. According
to which rule, if any man live uprightly, of him it may safely
be pronounced that he hath the Holy Ghost within him :
if not, then it is a plain token that he doth usurp the name of
the Holy Ghost in vain"
I lay these passages before the reader in their naked simplicity.
I will not weary him with long comments upon them. In fact
none are needed. Two things, I think, are abundantly evident.
One is, that in the judgment of the Homilies, no men are the
"undoubted children of God" and "sons of God," and elect
unto salvation, unless it is proved by their charity and good
works. The other is, that no man has the Holy Ghost within
him, in the judgment of the Homilies, except he brings forth
the fruits of the Spirit in his life. But all this is flatly contra
dictory to the doctrine of those who say that all baptized
152 KXOTS UNTIED.
persons are necessarily regenerate. They tell us that all people
are made the children of God by virtue of their baptism, what
ever be their manner of living, and must be addressed as such
all their lives ; and that all people have the grace of the Holy
Ghost within them by virtue of their baptism, and must be
considered "regenerate," whatever fruits they may be bringing
forth in their daily habits and conversation. According to this,
the Homilies say one thing and the Prayer-book says another !
I leave the reader to judge whether it is in the least degree
probable this can be the case. These Homilies were put forth
by authority, in the year 1562, and appointed to be read in
churches in order to supply the deficiency of good preaching,
and when they had been once read, they were to be "repeated
and read again." And yet according to the interpretation of
the Baptismal Service I am contending against, these Homilies
contradict the Prayer-book ! Surely it is difficult to avoid the
conclusion which I most unhesitatingly come to myself, that a
system of interpreting the Baptismal Service which sets the
Prayer-book at variance with the Homilies, as well as with the
Articles, must be incorrect.
I leave the subject of the Church of England s views about
Regeneration here. I wish I could have spoken of it more
shortly. But I have been anxious to meet the objections drawn
from the Baptismal Service fully, openly, and face to face. I
have not a doubt in my own mind as to the true doctrine of
the Church in the question. But many, I know, have been
troubled and perplexed about it, and few appear to me to see
the matter as clearly as they might. And it is to supply such
persons with information, as well as to meet the arguments of
adversaries, that I have gone into the question so fully as I have.
Other points might easily be dwelt upon, which would serve
to throw even more light on the subject, and seem still further
to bear out the views that I maintain, as to the real doctrine of
the Church of England about Regeneration.
Is it not notorious, for instance, that the Article about
baptism in our Confession of faith was entirely altered, and
brought into its present form, when Edward the Sixth came to
the throne? Our Reformers found an Article drawn up in
1536, in which the doctrine of grace always accompanying the
baptism of infants was plainly and unmistakably asserted.
PRAYER-BOOK STATEMENTS : REGENERATION. 153
The Articles of 1536 say, "By the sacrament of baptism,
infants, innocents, and children, do also obtain remission of
their sins, the grace and favour of God, and be made thereby
the very sons and children of God." The Reformers of our
Church, in drawing up the Articles of 1552, entirely abstained
from making any such assertion. They framed our present
Article on baptism, in which no such unqualified statement can
be found. Now, why did they do sol Why did they not
adopt the language of the old Article, if they really believed its
doctrine? Let any one answer these questions. Did it not
j plainly mean that they did not approve of the doctrine of the
[ invariable Regeneration of infants in baptism 1
Again, is it not notorious that the Irish Articles of 1615 have
never been repealed or disannulled by the Church of Ireland 1
Subscription to these Articles is undoubtedly not required at
Irish ordinations. Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles only
is held sufficient. But it was distinctly understood, when the
Thirty-nine Articles were received by the Irish Church, in
1634, that their reception did not imply any slur on the Irish
Articles, and only testified the agreement of the Church of
Ireland with that of England, both in doctrine and discipline.
Now these Irish Articles most plainly declare that the
" regenerate " are the elect, the justified, the believers, the true
Christians, who persevere unto the end ; and no less plainly
imply that those who are not true believers are not "regenerate!"
There can be no mistake about this. No man, I think, can
read these Articles and not see it. And yet there is the closest
union between the Church of England and the Church of
Ireland, and always has been. How could this be, if the
Church of Ireland s view about the " regenerate " had always
been considered false and heretical ? Why were the Irish
Articles not rejected as unsound, when, for uniformity s sake,
the Irish Articles were received ? How was it, that for many
years after 1634, the Irish Bishops always required subscription
to both Irish and English Articles at their ordinations ? Let
these questions also be answered. Did it not show plainly that
the two Churches were not thought to be at variance upon the
subject of Regeneration 1 *
* It was Archbishop Usher himself who proposed, in 1G34, that the English
Articles should be received by the Irish Church. Yet he was the principal
154 KNOTS UNTIED.
Again, is it not notorious that almost all the Bishops and
leading divines who took part in the Keformation of our Church,
were men who held opinions which, rightly or wrongly, are
called Calvinistic, and in the main were thoroughly agreed with
those clergy who are termed Evangelical in the present day 1
There is no room for doubt on this point. It has been allowed
by many who do not approve of Evangelical opinions themselves.
They were in frequent communication with the leading Swiss
Reformers. They procured the help of men like Peter Martyr
and Bucer to assist them in carrying on the work of Reforma
tion. And yet we are asked to believe that our Reformers
deliberately framed a Baptismal Service containing a doctrine
which is inconsistent with their own views ! Is it likely, is it
reasonable, is it agreeable to common sense, to suppose they
would do such a thing 1 ? And is it not an acknowledged axiom J
Jin interpreting all public documents, such as oaths, articles of I
faith, and religious formularies, that they are always to bel
(interpreted in the sense of those who drew them up and im-J
I posed them *? *
But I leave all these points, and hasten to a conclusion.
It only remains for me now to wind up all I have said with
a few words of solemn appeal to every one into whose hands
this paper may happen to fall.
I say "solemn appeal," and I say it advisedly. I feel
strongly the immense importance of sound and Scriptural views
of the whole question I have been considering. I feel it
especially as respects that part of it which touches the doctrine
of the Church of England. Men sometimes say it makes no
difference whether we think all baptized persons are regenerate
or not. They tell us it all comes to the same thing in the long
author of the Irish Articles of 1615. His biographer says, " He very well
understood the Articles of both Churches, and did then know that they were
so far from being inconsistent or contradictory to each other, that he thought
the Irish Articles did only contain the doctrine of the Church of England
more fully." Life of Archbishop Usher, l>y Dr. Parr, his chaplain. 1686.
" It is a settled rule with casuists, that oaths are always to be taken in*
the sense of the imposers ; the same is the case of solemn leagues or I
covenants. Without this principle, no faith, trust, or mutual confidence 1
could be kept up amongst men." Waterland on the Arian Subscriptions.
Works, vol. ii., chap. iii.
There is a passage in Bishop Sanderson s Prelections, on the Obligation of
an Oath, to the same effect,
PRAYER-BOOK STATEMENTS : REGENERATION. 155
run. I cannot say so. To my humble apprehension it seems to
make an immense difference. If I tell a man that he has grace in
his heart, and only needs to " stir up a gift," already within him,
it is one thing. If I tell him that he is dead in sins, and must
he " horn again," it is quite another. The moral effect of the
two messages must, on the very face of it, be widely different.
The one, I contend, is calculated by God s blessing to awaken
the sinner. The other, I contend, is calculated to lull him to
sleep. The one, I maintain, is likely to feed sloth, check self-
examination, and encourage an easy self-satisfied state of soul :
he has got some grace within him whenever he likes to use it,
why should he be in a hurry, why be afraid ? The other, I
maintain, is likely to rouse convictions, drive him to self -inquiry,
and frighten him out of his dangerous security : he has nothing
within him to rest upon, he must find a refuge and remedy,
he is lost and perishing, what must he do to be saved ? The one
message, I affirm, is likely to keep men natural men, the other to
make them spiritual men, the one to have 110 effect upon the
conscience, the other to lead to Christ. Let men say what
they will, I, for one, dare not say I think it all comes to the
same thing.
I see fresh reason continually for dreading the doctrine that
all baptized persons are regenerate. I hear of laymen who once
did run well, losing their first love, and appearing to make ship
wreck of their faith. I hear of ministers, who once bade fair
to be pillars in the Church, stumbling at this stumbling-stone,
and marring all their usefulness. I see the doctrine leavening
and spoiling the religion of many private Christians, and
insensibly paving the way for a long train of unscriptural
notions. I see it interfering with every leading doctrine of the
Gospel ; it encourages men to believe that election, adoption,
justification, and the indwelling of the Spirit, are all conferred
on them in baptism ; and then, to avoid the difficulties which
such a system entails, the fulness of all these mighty truths is
pared down, mutilated, and explained away ; or else the minds
of congregations are bewildered with contradictory and incon
sistent statements. I see it ultimately producing in some minds
a mere sacramental Christianity, a Christianity in which there
is much said about union with Christ, but it is a union begun
only by baptism, and kept up only by the Lord s Supper, a
156 KNOTS UNTIED.
Christianity in which the leading doctrines that the Apostle
Paul dwells on in almost all his Epistles, have nothing but a
subordinate position, a Christianity in which Christ has not
His rightful office, and faith has not its rightful place. I see
all this, and mourn over it unf eignedly. I cannot think that
the subject I am urging on the reader s attention is one of
secondary importance. And once more I say, I cannot leave
him without a solemn appeal to his conscience, whoever he may
be, into whose hands this paper may fall.
(a) I appeal then to all men who love the Bible, and make
it their standard of truth and error; and in saying this, I
address myself especially to all members of the Church of
England. I ask you to observe the manner of living of multi
tudes of baptized persons on every side of you, I ask you to
observe how their hearts are entirely set on this world, and
buried in its concerns. And I then ask you, Are they born of
God 1 If you say Yes, I answer, How can that be, when your
.Bible expressly says, " He that is born of God doeth righteous-
jness, and doth not commit sin"? (1 John ii. 29 ; iii. 9.) Are
(they children of God? If you say Yes, I answer, How can
that be, when the Bible says expressly, " In this the children
I of God are manifest and the children of the devil ; whosoever
doeth not righteousness is not of God"? (1 John iii. 10.)
Are they sons of God ? If you say Yes, I answer, How can
that be, when the Bible says expressly, " As many as are led
by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God " ? (Kom. viii.
14.) What will you say to these things? Surely you will not
turn your back upon the Bible.
(I) I appeal next to all who love the good old rule of the
Bible, "Every tree is known by its own fruit." (Luke vi. 44.)
I ask you to try the great bulk of professing Christians by the
fruits they bring forth, and to say what kind of fruits they are.
Is it not perfectly true that many baptized persons know little
or nothing of the fruits of the Spirit, and much, only too
much, of the works of the flesh ? Is it not certain that they
are destitute of those marks of being born of God which the
Bible describes ? What will you say to these things ? Surely
if you abide by your old principle you will hardly say that all
baptized people have within them the Holy Spirit.
(c) I appeal next to all who love the Church Catechism, and
PRAYER-BOOK STATEMENTS: REGENERATION. 157
profess to be guided by its statements about the sacraments.
You are aware that the inward and spiritual grace of baptism is
there said to be "a death unto sin and a new birth into right
eousness." I ask you, as in the sight of God, to say whether
any evidence whatever of this grace can be seen in the lives of
many baptized persons. Where is their deadness to sin ? They
live in it. It is their element. Where is their new birth unto
righteousness? They are habitual "servants of sin, and free
from righteousness." (Rom. vi. 20.) Sin reigns and rules in
their mortal bodies. They are enemies of all righteousness.
What will you say to these things ? Surely you will not tell
us that the outward and visible sign is always attended by the
inward and spiritual grace. If so, grace and no grace are the
same thing !
(d) I appeal, lastly, to all who dread Antinomianism and
licentious doctrine. You have heard of those wretched persons
who profess to glory in Christ and free grace, and yet think it
no shame to live immoral lives, and continue in wilful sin.
You think such conduct horrible, an insult to the Lord Jesus,
and a disgrace to Christianity. And you are right to think so.
But what will you say to the doctrine, that a man may have
the Holy Spirit, and yet not bring forth the fruits of the Spirit ;
may have grace in his heart, and yet show no sign of it in
his life 1 What will you say to these things ? Surely, if you
are consistent, you will recoil from the idea of dishonouring the
Third Person of the blessed Trinity, no less than you do from
dishonouring the Lord Himself. Surely you will shrink from
saying that all baptized persons have the Holy Ghost.
Once for all, in concluding this paper, I protest against the
charge that I am no true Churchman because I hold the opinions
that I do. In the matter of true and real attachment to the
Church of England, I will not give place by subjection to those
who are called High Churchmen, for one moment. Have they
signed the Thirty-nine Articles ex animo and bond fide ? So
have I. Have they declared their full assent to the Liturgy
and all things contained in it ? So have I. Have they pro
mised obedience to the Bishops ? So have I. Do they think
Episcopacy the best form of Church government ? So do I.
Do they honour the sacraments ? So do I. Do they think
them generally necessary to salvation 1 ? So do I. Do they
158 KNOTS UNTIED.
labour for the prosperity of the Church? So do I. Do they
urge on their congregations the privileges of the Church of
England ? So do I. Do they deprecate all needless secession
and separation from her ranks ? So do I. Do they oppose the
enemies of the Church, both Romish and infidel ? So do I.
Do they love the Prayer-book of the Church of England 1 So
do I. I repudiate with indignation the unworthy imputation
that I interpret any part of that Prayer-book in a dishonest or
unnatural sense. I offer no opinion as to the wisdom and
prudence of the Reformers in drawing up a Service in such a
way as to admit of its language being misunderstood, as it
unhappily is. But I believe with all my heart that the view I
hold of the meaning of the Prayer-book is the view of the very
men by whom it was compiled.
One thing I cannot see to be essential in order to prove
myself a true Churchman. I cannot see that I ought to hold
doctrines which make the Prayer-book clash and jar with the
Articles and Homilies. I cannot see that I must hold that all
baptized persons are necessarily and invariably born again. II
protest against the system of making the baptismal register, and!
not our lives, the great evidence of our Regeneration. I recoil
from the idea that a man may have grace, and yet nobody see
it in his behaviour, may have a new heart, and yet none dis
cover it in his conduct, may have the Holy Spirit, and yet no
fruit of the Spirit appear in any of his ways. I consider that
such a notion affects the honour of the Holy Ghost and the
cause of true holiness, and I dare not allow it. I consider it
throws confusion over the whole system of Christ s Gospel, and
involves the necessity of calling things in religion by wrong
names, and I dare not allow it. I think as highly of "baptism
as any one when rightly received. I count Churchmanship a
high privilege; but I think Regeneration a higher privilege
still, and one to which, unhappily, many Churchmen never
attain.
I deny that I hold any new doctrine about Regeneration in
saying this. I appeal to the Bible ; I appeal to the Articles ; I
appeal to the Prayer-book ; I appeal to the Homilies. In all
of them, I say unhesitatingly, I see the doctrine I maintain.
I appeal to the writings of all the principal Reformers of our
Church; I appeal to the works of some of the best and
PRAYER-BOOK STATEMENTS : REGENERATION. 159
worthiest Bishops who have ever adorned the Bench. I assert
confidently that it has been preached in Church of England
pulpits ever since the time of the Reformation, in many at
some periods, in some at all. There never has been wanting a
succession of faithful men, who have constantly said to the
mass of their congregation, " Ye must be born again." There
never was an attempt to shut the door against a minister for
preaching such doctrine, before the case of Mr. Gorham in our
own day. In short, if I err, I feel that I err in good company.
I err with Bishop Hooper and Bishop Latimer, those faithful
martyrs of Christ. I err with Jewel, with Leighton, and Usher,
and Hall, and Hopkins, and Carleton, and Davenant, and many
others, of whom I have not time to speak particularly. And
when I think of this, I am not disturbed by the charge that
do not agree with Archbishop Laud and the Non-jurors, or even
with others of later date still.
We are all travelling to a place where controversies will be
forgotten, and nothing but eternal realities remain. Would we
have a real hope in that day ? We must see to it that we have
a real Regeneration. Nothing else will do. "Except a man
be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John iii. 3.)
The, following quotations, bearing on the subject discussed in this paper,
are drawn from writers, of whom some are the greatest and moxt
learned divines the world has ever seen. They are specially com
mended to the attention of members of the Church of England.
" In baptism those that come feignedly, and those that come unfeignedly,
both be washed with the sacramental water, but both be not washed with
the Holy Ghost, and clothed with Christ."
"All that be washed with water be not washed with the Holy Spirit."-
Archbishop Cranmcr. 1553.
" Good and evil, clean and unclean, holy and profane, must needs pass by
the sacrament of baptism, except you will indeed in more ample and large
measure tie the grace of God unto it than ever did the Papists, and say all
that be baptized be also saved." Archbishop Whitgift. 1583.
" Are all they that are partakers of the outward washing of baptism, par
takers also of the inward washing of the Spirit ? Doth this sacrament seal
up their spiritual ingrafting into Christ to all who externally receive it.
Surely no ! Though God hath ordained these outward means for the convey
ance of grace to our souls, yet there is no necessity that we should tie the
Avorking of God s Spirit to the sacraments more than to the "\Vord." Arch
bishop Usher. 1024.
" In baptism, as the one part of that holy mystery is Christ s blood, so is
the other part the material water. Neither are these parts joined together
160 KNOTS UNTIED.
in place, but in mystery ; and therefore they be oftentimes severed, and the
one is received without the other." Bishop Jewel. 1559.
" Christ said, Except a man be born again from above, he cannot see the
kingdom of God, Ye must have a Regeneration : and what is this Regenera
tion ? _It is not to be christened in water as these fire-brands (the Roman
Catholics) expound it, and nothing else. Bishop Latimcr. 1540.
"All receive not the grace of God which receive the sacraments of His
grace." Richard Hooker. 1597.
"Not all are regenerated who are washed with the baptismal water." Dr.
Whittakcr, Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge. 1590.
" Grace sometimes precedes the sacrament, sometimes follows it, and some
times does not even follow it." Theodoret. 450 A.D.
"All did drink the same spiritual drink, but not with all was God well
pleased, and when the sacraments were all common, the grace was not
common to all, which constitutes the virtue of the sacraments. So also now,
when faith is revealed which was then veiled, the laver of Regeneration is
common to all who are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost ; but the grace itself of which they are sacraments,
and by_ which the members of the body of Christ are regenerated with their
Head, is not common to all." Augustine on the 77th Psalm. 390 A.D.
"Outward baptism may be administered, where inward conversion of the
heart is wanting ; and, on the other hand, inward conversion of the heart
may exist, where outward baptism has never been received." Augustine s
Treatise on Baptism. 390 A.D.
" Some have the outward sign, and not the inward grace. Some have the
inward grace, and not the outward sign. We must not commit idolatry by
deifying the outward element." A rchbishop Usher. 1624.
"We must not glory because we are made partakers of the external sacra
ment, unless we obtain besides the internal and quickening work of Christ.
For if this be wanting, as was said heretofore to Jews, O ye uncircumcised
in heart, so it may be justly said to us, O ye unbaptized in heart. "
Bishop Davenant. 1627.
" If outward baptism were a cause in itself possessed of that power, either
natural or supernatural, without the present operation whereof no such effect
could possibly grow, it must then follow that, seeing effects do never precede
the necessary causes out of which they spring, no man could ever receive
grace before baptism, which is apparently both known and confessed to be
otherwise in many particulars." Richard Hooker. 1597.
" The sacrament hath no grace included in it ; but to those that receive it
well it is turned to grace. After that manner the water in baptism hath
grace promised, and by that grace the Holy Spirit is given ; not that grace is
included in water, but that grace cometh by water." Bishop Ridley. 1547.
"What is so common as water? what is so common as bread and wine?
Yet Christ promiseth it to be found there, when He is sought with a faithful
heart." Bishop Latimcr. 1540.
"That baptism hath a power, is clear, in that it is so expressly said, it
doth save us. What kind of power is equally clear from the way it is here
expressed ; not by a natural power of the element ; though adapted and
sacramentally used, it only can wash away the filth of the body ; its
physical efficacy or power reached no further : but it is in the hand of the
Spirit of God as other sacraments are, and as the Word itself is, to purify the
PRAYEK-BOOK STATEMENTS : REGENERATION. 161
conscience, and convey grace and salvation to the soul, by the reference it
hath to, and union with that which it represents. Sacraments are neither
empty signs to them who believe, nor effectual causes of grace to them that
believe not. Sacraments do not save all who partake of them, yet they do
really and effectually save believers, for whose salvation they are means, as
the other external ordinances of God do. Though they have not that grace
which is peculiar to the author of them, yet a power they have such as befits
their nature, and by reason of which they are truly said to sanctify and
justify, and so to save, as the Apostle here avers of baptism." Archbishop
Leighton. 1680.
" Is Christ and the cleansing power of His blood only barely signified in the
sacrament of baptism ? Nay, more. The inward things are really exhibited
to the believer as well as the outward. There is that sacramental union
between them that the one is conveyed and sealed up by the other. Hence
are those phrases of being born again of water and the Holy Ghost, etc., etc.
The sacraments being rightly received do effect that which they do repre
sent." Archbishop Usher. 1624.
" What is the advantage or benefit of baptism to the common Christian ?
The same as was the benefit of circumcision to the Jew, outward. (Rom.
ii. 28.) There is a general grace of baptism which all the baptized partake of
as a common favour ; and that is their admission into the visible body of the
Church ; their matriculation and outward incorporation into the number of
the worshippers of God by external communion. And so as circumcision was
not only a seal of the righteousness which is by faith, but as an overplus,
God appointed it to be a wall of separation between Jew and Gentile : so is
baptism a badge of an outward member of the Church, a distinction from the
common sort of the brethren. And God thereby seals a right upon the party
baptized to His ordinances, that He may use them as His privileges, and
wait for an inward blessing by them. Yet this is but the porch, the shell,
and outside. All that are outwardly received into the visible Church, are
not spiritually ingrafted into the mystical body of Christ. Baptism is
attended upon always by that general grace, but not always by that special."
Archbishop Usher. 1624.
" Let us learn not to confide with Papists in the opus operatum, but in
quire whether we possess all the other things, without which the inward
effects of baptism are not secured." Bishop Davenant. 1627.
"Many ignorant people among us, for want of better teaching, harbour in
their minds such Popish conceits, especially that baptism doth confer grace upon
all by the work done, for they commonly look no higher : and they conceive
a kind of inherent virtue and Christendom, as they call it, necessarily in
fused into children, by having the water cast upon their faces." Archbish<p
Usher. 1624.
" It is a pitiful thing to see the ignorance of the most professing Chris-
tianity, and partaking of the outward seals of it, yet not knowing what they
mean ; not appreciating the spiritual dignity and virtue of them. A confused
fancy they have of some good in them, and this rising to the other extreme
to a superstitious confidence in this simple performance and participation of
them, as if that carried some inseparable virtue with it, which none could
miss of who are sprinkled with the water of baptism and share in the element
of bread and wine in the Lord s Supper." Archbishop Leiyhton. 1680.
" Wicked is that Popish doctrine, that original sin is forgiven by baptism ;
and for all actual offences after baptism, partly by Christ s blood, and partly
162 KNOTS UNTIED.
by our own satisfaction, we attain and get pardon of them." Bishop Babinfj-
ton, Bishop of Exeter. 1594.
" Let us consider how corruptly the Church of Rome teacheth us touching
this sacrament (baptism), and how horribly they have abused it. First, they
teach that baptism doth confer grace and wash away our sins ex opcrc
operato ; that is, even by the very washing only of the water, though there
be no good motion of faith or belief in the heart of him that is baptized. "
Bishop Cooper. 1570.
"The Papists maintain that grace is conferred upon little children in the
sacrament of the New Testament, without faith or any good motive. This is
to attribute a power to sacraments of themselves, and by a virtue of their
own, in the case of little children : which we say is false. For we assert that
grace is not conferred by the sacraments even upon little children from the
work wrought, so that all necessarily have grace that receive the sacraments."
Dr. Whittaker. 1580.
"If there be that cure that they speak of in the baptized, how is it that
there is so little effect or token thereof ? How is it that after baptism there
remaineth so great crookedness and perverseness of nature, which we find
to be no less than men from the beginning have complained of? How is it
that it is so rare and hard a matter to be trained to goodness, and so easy
and ready a matter to become nought? " Bishop Robert Abbot. 1615.
"From those who are baptized in infancy subsequent faith is required;
which if they exhibit not afterward, they retain only the outward sanctifica-
tion of baptism, the inward effect of sanctification they have not." Bishop
Davenant. 1627.
"The true way of judging whether the Spirit of God be in us, is to con
sider our own deeds. Righteousness and holiness are the only certain marks
of regeneration." Bishop Sherlock. 1740.
"As for those who are visibly reclaimed from a notorious wicked course,
in them we likewise frequently see this change gradually made by strong im
pressions made upon their minds, most frequently by the Word of God,
sometimes by His providence, till at length, by the grace of God, they
come to a fixed purpose and resolution of forsaking their sins and turning to
God ; and after many strugglings and conflicts with their lusts, and the
strong bias of their evil habits, this resolution, assisted by the grace of God,
doth effectually prevail, and make a real change both in the temper of their
minds, and course of their lives ; and when this is done, and not before, they
are said to be regenerate." Archbishop Tillotson. 1691.
"The only certain proof of Regeneration is victory." Bishop Wilson.
1697.
VIII.
THE LORD S SUPPER.
THE sacrament of the Lord s Supper is a point in the Christian
religion which requires very careful handling. I approach it
with reverence, fear, and trembling. I cannot forget that I
tread on very delicate ground. There is much connected
with the subject which is alike painful, humbling, and difficult.
It is painful to think that an ordinance appointed by Christ
for our benefit should have been denied by the din and smoke
of theological controversy. It is undeniable that no ordinance
has called forth so much passion and strife, and has become
such a bone of contention among polemical divines. Such is
the corruption of fallen man that the thing which was
" ordained for our peace" has become " an occasion of falling."
It is humbling to remember that men of opposite opinions
have written folios about the Lord s Supper without producing
the slightest effect on the minds of their adversaries. Cart
loads of books about it have been published during the last
three centuries, and poured into the open gulf between the
disputants in vain. Like the " Slough of Despond " in
Pilgrim s Proyress, it is a yawning gulf still. I ask no
stronger proof that the fall of Adam has affected the under
standing as well as the will of man, than the present divided
state of Christendom about the Lord s Supper.
It is difficult to know how to handle such a subject without
exhausting the patience of readers. It is difficult to know
what to say, and what to leave unsaid. The field has been
so thoroughly exhausted by the labours of many masters in
Israel, that it is literally impossible to bring forward anything
that is new. The utmost that I can hope to attain is the con
densation of old arguments. If I can only bring together a
few ancient things, and present them to my readers in a portable
and compact form, I shall be content.
163
164 KNOTS UNTIED.
In the present paper I shall content myself with two points,
and two only.
I. / will show the original intention of the Lord s Supper,
II. / will show the position which the Lord s Supper was
meant to occupy.
One thing, at any rate, is very clear to my mind : it is im
possible to overrate the importance of the subject. I own to a
strong and growing conviction that error about the Lord s
Supper is one of the commonest and most dangerous errors of
the present day. I suspect we have little idea of the extent to
which unsound views of this sacrament prevail, both among
clergy and laity. They are the hidden root of nine-tenths of
the extravagant Kitualism which, like a fog, is overspreading
our Church. Here, if anywhere, all Christian ministers have
need to be very jealous for the Lord God of hosts. Our witness
must be clear, distinct, and unmistakable. Our trumpets must
give no uncertain sound. The Philistines are upon us. The
ark of God is in danger. If we love the truth as it is in Jesus,
if we love the Church of England, we must contend earnestly
for the faith once delivered to the saints in the matter of the
Lord s Supper.
I. In the first place, what ivas the original intention of the
Lord s Supper ?
This question can never receive a better general answer than
that of our well-known Church Catechism. Wanting in sim
plicity, as that famous formulary certainly is, and sadly too full
of hard words and scholastic metaphysical terms, it is worthy of
all honour for its statements about the sacraments. Our Sunday-
school teachers may fail to understand the Catechism, and
complain justly that it needs another Catechism to explain it.
But, after all, there is a logical preciseness and theological accuracy
about its definitions, which every well-read divine must acknow
ledge and appreciate. Rightly used, I hold the Church Catechism
to be a most powerful weapon against semi-Romanism. Fairly
interpreted, it is utterly subversive of the " Ritualistic " system.
The very first question of the Catechism about the Lord s
Supper is as follows: "Why was the sacrament of the Lord s
Supper ordained 1 ?" The answer supplied is this: "For the
THE LORD S SUPPEI;. 165
continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ,
and of the benefits which we receive thereby." This is sound
speech that cannot be condemned. Founded on plain language
of Holy Scripture, it contains the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth. (Luke xxii. 19 ; 1 Cor. xi. 24.)
The Lord Jesus Christ intended the Lord s Supper to be a
continual remembrance* to the Church of His atoning death on
the Cross. The bread, broken, given, and eaten, was intended
to remind Christians of His body given for our sins. The wine,
poured out and drunk, was intended to remind Christians of His
blood shed for our sins.
The Lord Jesus knew what was in man. He knew full well
the darkness, slowness, coldness, hardness, stupidity, pride, self-
conceit, self-righteousness, slothfulness, of human nature in
spiritual things. Therefore He took care that His death for
sinners should not merely be written in the Bible, for then it
might have been locked up in libraries ; or left to the ministry
to proclaim in the pulpit, for then it might soon have been
kept back by false teachers ; but that it should be exhibited in
visible signs and emblems, even in bread and wine at a special
ordinance. The Lord s Supper was a standing provision against
man s forgetfulness. So long as the world stands in its present
order, the thing which is done at the Lord s Table shows forth
the Lord s death till He comes. (1 Cor. xi. 26.)
The Lord Jesus Christ knew full well the unspeakable import-
ante of His own death for sin as the great corner-stone of Scrip
tural religion. He knew that His own satisfaction for sin as our
Substitute, His suffering for sin, the Just for the unjust,
His payment of our mighty debt in His own Person, His
complete redemption of us by His blood, He knew that this
* The doctrine of the Communion Service, let me remind the reader, is in
precise harmony with that of the Catechism. Let us mark the following
expressions :
"To the end that we should always remember the exceeding great love of
our Master and only Saviour Jesus Christ, thus dying for us, and the in
numerable benefits which by His blood-shedding He hath obtained to us : He
hath instituted and ordained holy mysteries as pledges of His love, and for
a continual remembrance of His death, to our great and endless comfort."
"He did institute, and in His holy Gospel command us to continue, a per
petual memory of that His precious death until His coming again."-- " Take
and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee." "Drink this in
remembrance that Christ s blood was shed for thee."
166 KflOTS UNTIED.
was the very root of soul-saving and soul-satisfying Christianity-
Without this He knew His incarnation, miracles, teaching,
example, and ascension could do no good to man; without this
He knew there could be no justification, no reconciliation, no
hope, no peace between God and man. Knowing all this, He
took care that His death, at any rate, should never be forgotten.
He carefully appointed an ordinance, in which, by lively figures,
His sacrifice on the Cross should be kept in perpetual remem
brance.
The Lord Jesus Christ well knew the weakness and infirmity
even of the holiest believers. He knew the absolute necessity
of keeping them in intimate communion with His own vicarious
sacrifice, as the Fountain of their inward and spiritual life.
Therefore, He did not merely leave them promises on which
their memories might feed, arid words which they might call to
mind ; He mercifully provided an ordinance in which true faith
might be quickened by seeing lively emblems of His body and
blood, and in the use of which believers might be strengthened
and refreshed. The strengthening of the faith of God s elect in
Christ s atonement was one great purpose of the Lord s Supper.
I turn from the positive to the negative side of the subject
with real pain and reluctance. But it is plain duty to do so.
Ministers, like physicians, must study disease as well as health,
and exhibit error as well as truth. Let me then try to show
what are not the intentions of the Lord s Supper.
(1) It was never meant to be regarded as a sacrifice. We
were not intended to believe that there is any change in the
elements of bread and wine, or any corporal presence of Christ
in the sacrament. These things can never be honestly and fairly
got out of Scripture. Let the three accounts of the "institution,
in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and the one given
by St. Paul to the Corinthians, be weighed and examined
impartially, and I have no doubt as to the result. They teach
that there is no sacrifice, no altar, no change in the substance
of the elements : that the bread after consecration is still literally
and truly bread, and the wine after consecration is literally
and truly wine. In no part of the New Testament do we find
the Christian minister called a priest ; and in no part do we find
any mention of a sacrifice, except that of prayer, and praise, and
good works. The last literal sacrifice, we are repeatedly told in
THE LOWS SUPPER.
167
the Epistle to the Hebrews, is the once for all finished sacrifice
of Christ on the Cross.
No doubt it may satisfy such controversialists as the late
Cardinal Wiseman to adduce such texts as "This is My body,"
and " This is My blood," as proofs that the Lord s Supper is a
sacrifice. But a man must be easily satisfied if such texts
content him. The quotation of a single isolated phrase is a
mode of arguing that would establish Arianism or Socinianism.
The context of these famous expressions shows clearly that those
who heard the words used, understood them to mean, "This
represents My body," and "This represents My blood." The
analogy of other places proves that " is " and " are " frequently
mean "represent" in Scripture. St. Paul, in writing on the
sacrament, expressly calls the consecrated bread, " bread," and
not the body of Christ, no less than three times. (1 Cor. xi. 26,
27, 28.) Above all, there remains the unanswerable argument,
that if our Lord \yas actually holding His own body in His
hands, when He said of the bread, " This is My body," His body
must have been a diiferent body to that of ordinary men. Of
course if His body was not a body like ours, His real and proper
humanity is at an end. At this rate the blessed and comfort
able doctrine of Christ s entire sympathy with His people, as very
man, would be completely overthrown, and fall to the ground.*
Again, it may please some to regard the sixth chapter of St.
John, where our Lord speaks of " eating His flesh and drinking
His blood," as a proof that there is a literal bodily presence of
Christ in the bread and wine at the Lord s Supper. But there
is an utter absence of conclusive proof that this chapter refers to
the Lord s Supper at all. The man who maintains that it does
refer to the Lord s Supper, will find himself involved in very
awkward consequences. He sentences to everlasting death all
who do not receive the Lord s Supper. He raises to everlasting
life all who do receive it. Enough to say that the great majority
of Protestant commentators altogether deny that the chapter
refers to the Lord s Supper, and that even some Romish com
mentators on this point agree with them.t
* That our Lord s body was not a real body like our own, was the favourite
doctrine of the ancient heretics called " Apollinarians," in the early Church.
f On this point I venture to refer my readers to my own Expository
Thow/hts on St John s Gospel, where they will find a condensed summary
of opinions, in my notes on the sixth chapter.
168 KNOTS UNTIED.
(2) I pass on to another negative view of the subject. The
Lord s Supper was never meant to confer benefit on com
municants ex opere operate, or by virtue of a mere formal
reception of the ordinance.* We were not intended to believe
that it does good to any but those who receive it with faith and
knowledge. It is not a medicine or a charm which works
mechanically, irrespectively of the state of mind in which it is
received. It cannot of itself confer grace, where grace does not
already exist. It does not convert, justify, or convey blessings
to the heart of an unbeliever. It is an ordinance not for the
dead but for the living, not for the faithless but for the
believing, not for the unconverted but the converted, not for
the impenitent sinner but for the saint. I am almost ashamed
to take up time with such trite and well-known statements as
these. The Word of God testifies distinctly that a man may go
to the Lord s Table, and " eat and drink unworthily," may
" eat and drink damnation to himself." (1 Cor. xi. 27, 29.)
To such testimony I shall not add a word.
(3) I will only mention one more point on the negative side
of the subject. The Lord s Supper was not meant to be a
mere social feast, indicating the love that should exist among
believers. We were never intended to regard it in this cold
and tame light. The notion of the author of Ecce Homo,
that " the Christian communion is a club dinner," is not only a
degrading one, but one that cannot be reconciled with the
language of its Founder at the time of institution. " Feeding
on the character of Christ " (I quote this notorious book) is an
idea which may satisfy a Socinian, or any one who rejects the
doctrine of the atonement. But the true Christian who feeds
especially on the vicarious death of Christ, and not His cha
racter, will see that death prominently exhibited in the Lord s
Supper, and find his faith in that death quickened by the use of
it. It was meant to carry his mind back to the sacrifice once
made on Calvary, and not merely to the incarnation ; and no
lower view will ever satisfy a true Christian s heart.
I have now stated the ground that I believe we are meant to
take up about the sacrament of the Lord s Supper. Negatively,
* These three Latin words, be it remembered, mean simply, " out of," or
" by means of, the work done."
THE LORD S SUPPER. 169
it was not intended to be a mere social meeting, nor yet a
sacrifice, nor yet an ordinance conferring grace ex opere
operato. Positively, it was intended to be a " continual remem
brance of the sacrifice of Christ s death," and a strengthener and
refresher of true believers. This ground may seem to some very
simple, so simple that it is below the truth. Be it so : I am not
ashamed of it. Whether men will hear, or whether they will for
bear, I am convinced that this is the only view that is in harmony
with Scripture and the formularies of the Church of England.
I grant most freely that a large and increasing school within
our own Church entirely disagree with the view I have given of
the Lord s Supper. Hundreds of clergy, both in high places and
low, consider that there is not only a real presence of Christ
in the Lord s Supper, which I hold as strongly as they do,
but that there is also a real presence of Christ in the elements
of bread and wine after consecration,* which I entirely deny.
Let us hear how Archdeacon Denison, no mean authority,
states this view. He says, " Christ s body and blood are really
present in the holy Eucharist, under the form of bread and
wine, i.e. present things, though they be present after a
manner ineffable, incomprehensible by man, and not cognizable
by the senses. The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is
therefore not, as I believe it is very generally supposed to be,
the presence of an influence emanating from a thing absent, but
the invisible and supernatural presence of a thing present ; of
His body and His blood present under the forms of bread and
wine." t (Sermon IL, p. 80.) Let us hear him again. " Wor-
* It is extremely difficult to make some people see the immense importance
of strict accuracy in stating terms, in this unhappy controversy about the
Lord s Supper. The point in dispute is not whether there is a "real
presence " of Christ in the Lord s Supper. This we all hold. The point is not
whether Christ s presence is a spiritual presence. Even Harding, the well-
known antagonist of Jewel, admits that Christ s body is present, " not after a
corporal, or carnal, or natural wise, but invisibly, unspeakably, miraculously,
supernaturally, spiritually, divinely, and in a manner by Him known. "-
Harding s^Rqply to Jewel. The true point is, whether Christ s real body and
blood are really present in the elements of bread and wine, as soon as they
are consecrated in the Lord s Supper, and independently of the faith of him
who receives it. Romanists and semi-Romanists say that they are so present.
We say that they are not.
f The antagonism between these sentences of Archdeacon Denison and
Bishop Ridley s views of the same subject, is so singularly strong, that I ask
the reader not to pass on without noticing it. Bishop Ridley, in his Dis-
170 KNOTS UNTIED.
ship is due to the real, though invisible and supernatural,
presence of the body and blood of Christ in the holy Eucharist,
under the forms of bread and wine." (Sermon n., p. 81.) Let
us hear him again. " The act of consecration makes the real
presence. Oh, priests of the Church of God ! to us it is given
to be the channels and agents, whereby the Holy Ghost doth
there make the body and blood of Christ to be really, though
invisibly and supernaturally, present, under the form of bread
and wine in the Lord s Supper ; to iis it is given to give His
body and His blood unto His people. Oh, priests and people of
the Church of God ! to us it is given to take and eat, under the
form of bread and wine in the Lord s Supper, the body and
blood of Christ." (Sermon n., p. 107.)
Now I shall not multiply quotations of this kind. It would
be easy to show you that the doctrine laid down by Archdeacon
Denison is the doctrine of a large and growing section of the
Church of England.* It would be no less easy to show that the
putation at Oxford, says of the Romish doctrine of the Real Presence : " It
destroyeth and taketh away the Institution of the Lord s Supper, which was
commanded only to be used and continued until the Lord Himself should
come. If, therefore, He be now really present in the body of His flesh, then
must the Supper cease : for a remembrance is not of a thing present, but of a
tiling past and absent. And, as one of the fathers saith, A figure is vain
where the thing figured is present. "See Foxe s Martyrs, in loco.
* In a devotional work lately published by the Church Press Company,
entitled " The Little Prayer-book, intended for Beginners in Devotion,
revised and corrected by three Priests," the following passages will be found :
" When you enter the church, before you go to your place, bow reverently
to the holy altar, for it is the throne of Christ, and the most sacred part of
the church." " Bow reverently to the altar, before you leave the altar."
"At the words this is My body, this is My blood, you must believe that the
bread and wine become the real body and blood with the Soul and God-head
of Jesus Christ. Bew down your heart and body in deepest adoration when
the priest says those awful words, and worship your Saviour, there, verily, and
indeed present on His altar."
In a " Catechism on the Office of the Holy Communion, edited by a Com
mittee of Clergymen," will be found the following statement : " The Holy
Communion is a sacrifice, an offering made on an altar to God." " We offer
bread and wine ; these afterwards become the body and blood of Christ."
" The Lord Jesus Christ Himself as our High Priest, and the Priests of His
Church whom He hath appointed here on earth, alone have power to offer this
sacrifice." " The sacrifice is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and is presented as a sin-offering to obtain pardon for our offences."
The body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are really and truly present
on the altar under the forms of the bread and wine, and the priest offers the
sacrifice to God the Father." " We should worship our Lord, present in His
sacrament, as we should do if we could see Him bodily."
THE LORD S SUPPER.
doctrine is substantially one and the same with that of the
Romish Church, and that for refusing this very doctrine our
martyred Reformers laid down their lives. But time would not
allow me to do this. I shall content myself with trying to show
that the doctrine of Archdeacon Denison and his school cannot
be reconciled with the authorized formularies of the Church of
England, and that the simpler and, as some falsely call it, lower
view of the intention of the Lord s Supper, is in entire harmony
with those formularies.
Let me turn first to the Thirty -nine Articles. We have no
right to appeal to any formulary before this. The Church s
Confession of faith is the Church s first standard of doctrine.
The Twenty-eighth Article says as follows :
"The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that
Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but
rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ s death ;
insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith,
receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of
the Body of Christ ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a par
taking of the Blood of Christ.
" Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread
and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy
Writ ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, over-
throweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to
many superstitions.
"The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the
Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the
mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the
Supper is Faith.
" The Sacrament of the Lord s Supper was not by Christ s
ordinance received, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."
I shall make no remark on these words. I only ask plain
Churchmen to put them side by side with High Church state
ments about the Lord s Supper, and to observe the utter con
trariety that exists between them. I appeal to the common
sense of all impartial and unprejudiced Englishmen. Let them
be the judges. If one view is right, the other is wrong. If the
language of the Twenty-eighth Article can be reconciled with
the doctrine of Archdeacon Denison and his school, I can only
say that words have no meaning at all. I shall content myself
172 KNOTS UNTIED.
with quoting the comment of Bishop Beveridge on this Twenty-
eighth Article, and pass on.
He says, " If the bread be not really changed into the body
of Christ, then the body of Christ is not really there present ;
and if it be not really there present, it is impossible that it
should be really taken and received into our bodies, as bread is."
Again, he says, " I cannot see how it can possibly be denied,
that Christ ate of the bread whereof He said, This is My body ;
and if He ate it, and ate it corporally (that is, ate His body as
we eat bread), then He ate Himself, and made one body two,
and then crowded them into one again, putting His body into
His body, even His whole body into part of His body, His
stomach. And so He must be thought not only to have two
bodies, but two bodies one within another ; yea, so as to be
one devoured by another : the absurdity of which, and of like
assertions, he that hath but half an eye may easily discover.
So that it must needs be granted to be in a spiritual manner
that the Sacrament was instituted, and by consequence that it
is in a spiritual manner the sacrament must be received. "-
Beveridge on the Articles. Ed. Oxford, 1846. Pp. 482-486.
The Liturgy of the Church of England on this subject is
entirely in accordance with the Articles. The word " altar "
is not to be found once in our Prayer-book. The idea of a
"sacrifice" is most carefully excluded from our Communion
( )ffice. However much men may twist and distort the words of
the Baptismal Service, they cannot make anything out of the
Communion Service, to prove Romish views. Even the famous
Non-juror, Dr. Brett, was obliged to confess that he "knew
not how to reconcile the Consecration Prayer in the present
established Liturgy with the real presence ; for," says he, " it
makes a plain distinction betwixt the bread and wine and our
Saviour s body and blood, when it says, Grant that we receiv
ing these Thy creatures of bread and wine, may be partakers of
Christ s body and blood. Which manifestly implies the bread
and wine to be distinct and different things from the body and
blood." Bretfs Discourse on discerning the Lord s Body in the
Communion. London, 1720. Pref., pp. 19-21.
But the rubric at the end of the Communion Service makes
it mere waste of time to say anything more on the subject of
the Prayer-book s view of the Lord s Supper. That rubric says,
THE LORD S SUPPER. 173
"Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the Administration
of the Lord s Supper, that the communicants should receive the
same kneeling (which order is well meant, for a signification of
our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of
Christ therein given to all worthy receivers ; and for the avoid
ing of such profanation and disorder in the Holy Communion,
as might otherwise ensue) ; yet, lest the same kneeling should
by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of
malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved, It is
thereby declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or
ought to be done, either unto the sacramental bread or wine
there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ s
natural flesh and blood. For the sacramental bread and wine
remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may
not be adored (for that were idolatry, to be abhorred of all
faithful Christians) ; and the natural body and blood of our
Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not here ; it being against
the truth of Christ s natural body to be at one time in more
places than one." If that rubric does not flatly condemn the
teaching of Archdeacon Denison and his school, about the
presence of Christ in the sacrament, under the forms of bread
and wine, I am very certain that words have no meaning at all.*
The Catechism of the Church of England is in direct accord
ance with the Articles and Liturgy. Though it states distinctly
that "Christ s body and blood are verily and indeed taken and
received by the faithful in the Lord s Supper," it carefully
avoids saying one word to sanction the idea that the body and
blood are locally present in the consecrated elements of bread
and wine. In fact, a spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord s
Supper to every faithful communicant, but no local corporal
* The rubric at the end of the Communion of the Sick is another strong
evidence of the views of those who drew up our Prayer-book in its present
form. It says, " If a man by reason of extremity of sickness, or for want of
warning in due time to the curate, or for lack of company to receive with
him, or by any other just impediment, do not receive the sacrament of
Christ s body and blood, the curate shall instruct him, that if he do truly
repent him of his sins, and steadfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered
death on the Cross for him, and shed His blood for his redemption, earnestly
remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks
therefor, he doth eat and drink the body and blood of our Saviour Christ
profitably to his soul s health, although he do not receive the sacrament with
his mouth."
174 KNOTS UNTIED.
presence in the bread and wine to any communicant, is evidently
the uniform doctrine of the Church of England.
But I will not pass on without quoting Water-land s interpret
ation of the doctrine of the Catechism. He says, " The words
verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful, are rightly
interpreted of a real participation of the benefits purchased by
Christ s death. The body and blood of Christ are taken and
received by the faithful, not corporally, not internally, but
verily and indeed, that is effectually. The sacred symbols are
no bare signs, no untrue figures of a thing absent ; but the force,
the grace, the virtue, and benefit of Christ s body broken and
blood shed, that is of His passion, are really and effectually
present with all them that receive worthily. This is all the
real presence that our Church teaches." Wat&rland s Works
Oxford, 1843. Vol. vi., p. 42.
Once more I say that if Waterland s view of the Catechism
can be reconciled with that of Archdeacon Denison and his
school, words have no meaning at all.
The Homily of the Church of England about the sacrament
is in complete harmony with the Articles, Liturgy, and Cate
chism. It says, "Before all things this we must be sure of
especially, that this Supper be in such wise done and ministered
as our Lord and Saviour did, and commanded to be done as
His holy Apostles used it ; and the good Fathers in the Church
frequented it. For, as that worthy man St. Ambrose saith, he
is unworthy of the Lord that doth celebrate this mystery other
wise than it was delivered by Him. Neither can he be devout
that doth presume otherwise than it was given by the Author.
We ^must then take heed, lest of the memory it be made a
sacrifice, lest of a communion it be made a private eating ; lest
of two parts we have but one ; lest, applying it for the dead,
we lose the fruit that be alive." Again, it says, after pressing
the necessity of knowledge and faith in communicants : " This
is to stick fast to Christ s promise made in His institution : to
make Christ thine own, and to apply His merits unto thyself.
Herein thou needest no other man s help, no other sacrifice or
oblation, no sacrificing priest, no mass, no means established by
man s invention." Again, it says : "It is well known that the
meat we seek for in this Supper is spiritual food, the nourish
ment of our soul, a heavenly refection and not earthly, an
THE LORD S SUPPEK. 1*7 5
invisible meat and not bodily, a ghostly substance and not
carnal. So that to think that without faith we really enjoy the
eating and drinking thereof, or that that is the fruition of it, is
but to dream a gross carnal feeling, basely objecting and binding
ourselves to the elements and creatures. Whereas by the order
of the Council of Nicene, we ought to lift up our minds by
faith, and leaving these inferior and earthly things, there seek
it where the Sun of Righteousness ever shineth. Take then
this lesson, thou that art desirous of this table, of Emissenus,
a godly Father, that when thou goest up to the reverend com
munion to be satisfied with spiritual meat, thou look up with
faith upon the holy body and blood of thy God, thou marvel
with reverence, thou touch it with thy mind, thou receive it
with the hand of thy heart, and thou take it fully with thy
inward man."
Now it would be easy to multiply quotations in support of
the view of the Lord s Supper which I advocate, from leading
divines of the Church of England. But I forbear. Time is
precious in these latter days of hurry, bustle, and excitement.
Quotations are wearisome, and too often are not read. Those
who wish to follow up the subject should study Dean Goode s
unanswerable, but much neglected, book on the Eucharist.
Two quotations only I will give, from two men of no mean
authority, though differing widely on some points.
The first is the well-known Jeremy Taylor. In his book on
The Real Presence (Edit. 1654, pp. 13-15) he says : "We say
that Christ s body is in the sacrament really, but spiritually.
The Roman Catholics say that it is there really, but spiritually.
For so Eellarmine is bold to say that the word may be allowed
in this question. Where now is the difference? Here by
spiritually, they mean spiritual after the manner of a spirit.
We by spiritually, mean present to our spirit only. They say
that Christ s body is truly present there as it was upon the
Cross, but not after the manner of all or anybody, but after that
manner of being as an angel is in a place. That s their spiritu
ally. But we by the real spiritual presence of Christ do under
stand Christ to be present, as the Spirit of God is present, in
the hearts of the faithful by blessing and grace ; and this is all
which we mean beside the tropecal and figurative presence."
The other divine whom 1 will quote is one who was a very
176 KNOTS UNTIED.
giant in theology, and as remarkable for his soundness in the
faith as for his prodigious learning. I mean Archbishop Usher.
In his sermon before the House of Commons, he says: "In
the sacrament of the Lord s Supper, the bread and wine are
not changed in substance from being the same with that which
is served at ordinary tables ; but in respect of the sacred use
whereunto they are consecrated, such a change is made that
now they differ as much from common bread and wine as heaven
from earth. Neither are they to be accounted barely significat
ive, but truly exhibitive also of those heavenly things where
unto they have relation; as being appointed by God to be a
means of conveying the same to us, and putting us in actual
possession thereof. So that in the use of this holy ordinance,
as verily as a man with his bodily hand and mouth receiveth
the earthly creatures of bread and wine, so verily with his
spiritual hand and mouth, if lie have any, doth he receive the
body and blood of Christ. And this is that real and substantial
presence which we affirm to be in the inward part of this sacred
action."
I cannot leave this part of the subject without entering my
indignant protest against the often-repeated sneer that learning,
reasoning, and research are not to be found among the sup
porters of Evangelical Eeligion in the Church of England !
The work of Dean Goode, on the nature of Christ s presence in
the Eucharist, containing 986 pages of masterly argument in
defence of sound Protestant views of the Lord s Supper, has
now been for many years before the public. It stands to
this day unanswered hitherto and unanswerable. Where is the
honesty, where the fairness, of neglecting to refute that book
if it can be refuted, and yet clinging obstinately to views which
it triumphantly subverts? I unhesitatingly commend that
book to the patient and diligent study of all my younger
brethren in the ministry, if they want their minds established
and confirmed about the sacrament of the Lord s Supper. Let
them read it carefully, and I think they will find it impossible
to arrive at any but one conclusion. That conclusion is, that
the Church of England holds that there is no sacrifice in the
Lord s Supper, no oblation, no altar, no corporal presence of
Christ in the bread and wine ; and that the true intention of
the Lord s Supper is just what the Catechism states, and neither
THE LORD S SUPPER. 177
less nor more: "It was ordained for the continual remem
brance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits
that we receive thereby."
II. The second point which I propose to handle in this paper
is so completely bound up with the first, that I shall not dwell
upon it at length. He that can answer the question " What
is the true intention " of the Lord s Supper ? will find no
difficulty in discerning "what is its rightful position in the
Church of Christ"
Like the ark of God in the Old Testament, this blessed
sacrament has a proper position and rank among Christian
ordinances, and, like the ark of God, it may easily be put in
the wrong one. The history of that ark will readily recur to
our minds. Put in the place of God, and treated like an idol,
it did the Israelites no good at all. In the days of Eli, it could
not save them out of the hand of the Philistine. Their armies
were defeated, and the ark itself was taken. Defiled and
dishonoured by being placed in an idol s temple, it was the
cause of God s wrath falling on a whole nation, till the Philis
tines said with one voice, " Send it away." Treated with
carelessness and levity, it brought down God s judgment on the
men of Bethsheniesh, and on Uzza. Treated with reverence
and respect, it brought a blessing on Obed-edom and all his
house. It is even so with the Lord s Supper. Placed in its
right position, it is an ordinance full of blessing. The great
question to be settled is, What is that position 1
(1) The Lord s Supper is not in its right place, when it is
made the first, foremost, principal, and most important thing in
Ctiristian worship. That it is so in many quarters, we all must
know. The well-known "masses" of the Romish Church, the
increasing importance attached to " Holy Communion," as it is
called, by many in our own Church, are plain evidence of what
I mean. The sermon, the mode of conducting prayer, the
reading of "holy Scripture," in many churches are made second
to this one thing, the administration of the Lord s Supper.
We may well ask, " What warrant of Scripture is there for this
extravagant honour ? " but we shall get no answer. There are at
most but five books in the whole canon of the New Testament in
which the Lord s Supper is even mentioned. About grace, faith,
if
1*78 KNOTS UNTIED.
and redemption; about the work of Christ, the work of the
Spirit, and the love of the Father ; about man s ruin, weakness,
and spiritual poverty ; about justification, sanctification, and holy
living; about all these mighty subjects we find the inspired
writers giving us line upon line, and precept upon precept.
About the Lord s Supper, on the contrary, we may observe in
the great bulk of the JS T ew Testament a speaking silence. Even
the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, containing much instruction
about a minister s duties, do not contain a word about it. This
fact alone surely speaks volumes ! To thrust the Lord s Supper
forward, till it towers over and overrides everything else in
religion, is giving it a position for which there is no authority
in God s Word.*
(2) Again, the Lord s Supper is not in its right place, when it
is administered with an extravagant degree of outward ceremony
and veneration. In saying this I should be sorry to be mis
understood. God forbid that I should countenance anything
like carelessness or irreverence in the use of any ordinance of
Christ. By all means let us give honour where honour is due.
But I ask all who read this paper, whether there is not some
thing painfully suspicious about the enormous amount of pomp
and bodily reverence with which the Lord s Supper is now
administered in many of our churches 1 The ostentatious
treatment of the Communion table as an altar, the lights,
ornaments, flowers, millinery, gestures, postures, bowings, cross
ings, incensing, processions, which are connected with the so-
called altar, the mysterious and obsequious veneration with
which the bread and wine are consecrated, given, taken, and
received, what does it all mean 1 j Where is there in all this
* I take occasion to say that I view with strong dislike the modern practice
of substituting the Lord s Supper for a sermon at Episcopal and Archidiaconal
visitations. No doubt it saves Bishops and Archdeacons much trouble. It
delivers them from the invidious responsibility of selecting a preacher. But
the thing has a very suspicious and unsatisfactory appearance. Preaching
the Word, in my judgment, is a far more important ordinance than the
Lord s Supper. The subject is one about which Evangelical Churchmen
would do well to awake and be on their guard. This studied attempt to
thrust in the Lord s Supper on all occasions has a most unfortunate tendency
to make men remember the Popish mass.
f It is truly lamentable to observe how many young men and women, of
whom better things might have been expected, fall away into semi-Komanism
THE LORD S SUPPER. 170
the simplicity of the first institution, as we find it recorded
in the Bible 1 Where is the simplicity which our Protestant
Reformers both preached and practised? Where is the sim
plicity which any plain reader of the English Prayer-book might
justly expect? We may well ask, Where? The true Lord s
Supper is no longer there. The whole thing savours of
Romanism. A plain man can only see in it an attempt to
introduce into our worship the doctrine of sacrifice, the
"blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit" of the mass, the
Popish real presence, and transubstantiation. It is impossible to
avoid feeling that a deadly heresy underlies this pompous
ceremonial, and that we have not to do merely with a childish
love of show and form, but with a deep-laid design to bring
back Popery into the Church of England, and to subvert the
Gospel of Christ. One thing at any rate is very plain to my
mind : the sacrament of the Lord s Supper, administered as it
is now in many places, is not in its rightful position. It is so
disguised, and painted, and daubed, and overlaid, and bloated,
and swollen, and changed by this new treatment, that I can
hardly see in it any Lord s Supper at all.
(3) Again, the Lord s Supper is not in its right place, when
it in pressed on all worshippers indiscriminately, as a means of
grace which all, as a matter of course, ought to use. Once more
I ask that no one will misunderstand me. I feel as strongly as
any one, that to go to church as a worshipper, and yet not be a
communicant, is to be a most inconsistent Christian, and that
to be unfit for the Lord s Table is to be unfit to die. But it is
one thing to teach this, and quite another to urge all men to
receive the sacrament as a matter of course, Avhether they are
qualified to receive it or not. I should be sorry to raise a false
in the present day, under the attraction of a highly ornamental and sensuous
ceremonial. Flowers, crucifixes, processions, banners, incense, gorgeous
vestments, and the like, never fail to draw sucn young persons together, just
as honey attracts flies. I will not insult the common sense of those who find
these things attractive, by asking them whether they really believe they get
any food from them for heart, and conscience, and soul. But I should like
them to consider sei-iously what these things mean. Do they really know
that the doctrines of the mass and transubstantiation are the root of the
whole system? Are they prepared to swallow these awful heresies? I
suspect many are playing with Ritualism without the least idea what it
covers over. They see an attractive bait, but they do not see the hook.
180 KXOTS UNTIED.
accusation. I do not for a moment suppose that any High
Church clergyman recommends, in naked language, wicked
people to come to the Lord s Supper that they may be made
good. But I cannot forget that from many pulpits people are
constantly taught that they are born again, and have grace, by
virtue of their baptism; and that if they want to stir up
the grace within them, and get more religion, they must
use all means of grace, and specially the Lord s Supper ! And
I cannot help fearing that thousands in the present day are
practically substituting attendance at the Lord s Supper for
repentance, faith, and vital union with Christ, and flattering
themselves that the more often they receive the Sacrament, the
more they are justified, and the more fit they are to die. My
own firm conviction is that the Lord s Supper should on no
account be placed before Christ, and that men should always
be taught to come to Christ by faith before they draw near to
the Lord s Table. I believe that this order can never be
inverted without bringing in gross superstition, and doing
immense harm to men s souls. Those parts of Christendom
where " the mass " is made everything, and the Word of God
hardly ever preached, are precisely those parts where there is
the most entire absence of vital Christianity. I wish I could
say there was no fear of our coming to this state of things in
our own land. But when we hear of hundreds crowding the
Lord s Table on Sundays, and then plunging into every dissipa
tion on week-days, there is grave reason for suspecting that the
Lord s Supper is pressed on many congregations in a manner
utterly unwarranted by Scripture.
Does any one ask now what is the rightful position of the
Lord s Supper? I answer that question without any hesitation.
I believe its rightful position, like that of holiness, is between
grace and glory, between justification and heaven, between
faith and paradise, between conversion and the final rest,
between the wicket-gate and the celestial city. It is not Christ \
it is not conversion ; it is not a passport to heaven. It is for
the strengthening and refreshing of those who have come to
Christ already, who know something of conversion, who are
already in the narrow way, and have fled from the city of
destruction.
We cannot read hearts, I am well aware. We must not be
jTHE LORD S SUPPER. 181
too strict and exclusive in our terms of communion, and make
those sad whom God has not made sad. But we must never
shrink from telling the unconverted and the unbelieving that,
in their present condition, they are not fit to come to the
Lord s Table. A faithful clergyman, at any rate, need never be
ashamed of taking up the ground marked out for him in the
Church Catechism. The last question in that well-known for
mulary is as follows : " What is required of them that come to
the Lord s Supper ? " The answer to that question is weighty
and full of meaning. Those who come to the Lord s Supper
must " examine themselves whether they repent them truly of
their former sins, steadfastly purposing to lead a new life,
have a lively faith in God s mercy through Christ, and a thank
ful remembrance of His death, and are in charity with all
men." Does any one feel these things in his own heart? Then
we may boldly tell him that the Lord s Supper is placed before
him by a merciful Saviour, to help him in running the race set
before him. Higher than this we must not place the ordin
ance. A communicant was not expected to be an angel, but a
sinner who feels his sins, and trusts in his Saviour. Lower
than this we have no right to place the ordinance. To encour
age people to come up to the Table without knowledge, faith,
repentance, or grace, is to do them positive harm, promote
superstition, and displease the Master of the feast. He desires
to see at His Table not dead guests, but living ones, not the
dead service of formal eating and drinking, but the spiritual
sacrifice of feeling and loving hearts.
I pause here. I trust I have said enough to make clear the
views I hold of the true intention and rightful position of the
sacrament of the Lord s Supper. If, in expounding these
views, I have said anything that grates on the feelings of any
reader, I can assure him that I am unfeignedly sorry. Xothing
could be further from my desire than to hurt the feelings of a
brother.
But it is my firm conviction that the state of the Church of
England requires great plainness of speech and distinctness
of statement about the sacraments. There is nothing, I am
persuaded, which the times so imperatively demand of Evan
gelical Churchmen, as a bold, manly, and explicit assertion of
the great principles held by our forefathers, and specially about
182 KNOTS UNTIED.
baptism and the Lord s Supper. If we would "strengthen
the things that remain which are ready to die," we must
resolutely go back to the old paths, and maintain old truths
in the old way. We must give up the vain idea that we can
ever make the Cross of Christ acceptable by polishing, and
varnishing, and painting, and gilding it, and sawing off its
corners. We must cease to suppose that we can ever lure men
into being Evangelical by a trimming, temporizing, half-and-
half, milk-and-water mode of exhibiting the doctrines of the
Gospel, or by wearing borrowed plumes, and dabbling with
High Churchism, or by loudly proclaiming that we are not
"party-men," or by laying aside plain Scriptural phrases, and
praising up " earnestness," or by adroitly keeping back truths
that are likely to give offence. The plan is an utter delusion.
It wins no enemy : it disgusts many a true friend. It makes
the worldly bystander sneer, and fills him with scorn. We
may rest assured that the right line and the wisest course for
the Evangelical body to pursue, is to adhere steadily to the old
plan of maintaining the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
imt the truth, as it is in Jesus, and specially the truth about
the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord s Supper. Let
us be courteous, amiable, charitable, affable, considerate for the
feelings of others, by all means, but let no consideration make
us keep back any part of God s truth.
Let me close this paper with a few practical suggestions.
Assuming, for a moment, that we have made up our minds,
what is the intention and rightful position of the Lord s
Supper, let us just consider what the times demand at our
1 lands.
(1) For one thing let us cultivate a godly simplicity in all
our statements about the Lord s Supper, and a godly jealousy
in all our practices about it.
If we are ministers, let us often remind our people that
there is no sacrifice in the Lord s Supper, no real presence
of Christ s body and blood in the bread and wine, no change
of the elements, no grace conferred ex opere opcrato, no
altar at the east end of our churches, no sacrificing priest
hood in the Church of England. Let us tell them these things
again, and again, and again, till our congregations have them
THE LORD S SUPPEK. 183
ingrained into their very minds and memories and souls, and
let us charge them, as they love life, not to forget them.
Whether we are clergymen or laymen, let us beware of
countenancing or tolerating any practices in connection with
the Lord s Supper which either exceed or contradict the rubrics
of our Prayer-book, and imply any belief in a Romish view
of this sacrament. Let us protest in every possible way against
any extravagant veneration of the Communion Table and the
bread and wine, as if Christ s body and blood were in these
elements, or on the Table ; and let us never forget what the
Prayer-book says about " idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful
Christians."
We cannot be too particular on these points. The times
are changed. Things that we might have borne with in past
years as matters of indifference, and comparative trifles in
ceremonial, ought not to be borne with any longer. A few
years ago I would have turned to the east in repeating the
Creed in any parish church, rather than offend a neighbour s
feelings. I can do so no longer, for I see great principles at
stake. Let our protest on all these matters be firm, unflinch
ing, and universal all over the country, and we may do much
good.
(2) For another thing, let us not be shaken or troubled by
the common charge that we are not Churchmen, because we
do not agree with many of our brethren on the subject of the
sacraments. Such charges are easily made, but not so easily
established. I trust my younger brethren especially will treat
them with perfect indifference and unconcern. I know not
which to admire most, the impudence or the ignorance of those
who make them.
Do those who coolly say that Evangelical Churchmen are not
true Churchmen, suppose that we cannot read 1 ? Do they
fancy we cannot understand the meaning of plain English ?
Do they think to persuade us that our doctrinal views are
not to be found in the Articles, the Liturgy, and the Homilies,
and in the writings of all the leading divines of our Church,
up to the days of Charles the First 1 ? Do they fancy, for
example, that we do not know that the Communion Table was
seldom to b e found at the east end of the Church, till the
time of Laud, but generally stood in the chancel, like a table,
184 KNOTS UNTIED.
and that Kidley specially called it " the Lord s Board " 1 * Alas,
I fear they presume on the non-reading propensities of the
day. They know too well that the reading of many Evan
gelical people is seldom carried beyond newspapers and
magazines.
I am bold to say that in the matter of true, honest, conscien
tious membership of the Church of England, the Evangelical
body need fear no comparison with any other section within the
Church s pale. We may safely challenge any amount of fair
investigation and inquiry. Have others signed the Thirty-nine
Articles " ex animo et bond fide " ? so have we. Have others
declared their full assent to the Liturgy? so have we. Do
others use the Liturgy, adding nothing and omitting nothing,
reverently, solemnly, and audibly? so do we. Are others
obedient to Bishops 1 so are we. Do others labour for the
prosperity of the Church of England? so do we. Do others
value the privileges of the Church of England, and deprecate
needless separation ? so do we. Do others honour the Lord s
Supper, and press it on the attention of all believing hearers ?
so do we. But we will not concede that a man must follow
Archbishop Laud, and be half a Romanist, in order to be a
Churchman. We .are true High Churchmen and not Romish
High Churchmen. And the best proof of our Cliurchmanship
is the fact that for every one of our body who has left the
Church of England and gone over to Dissent, we can point to
* It is a fact that the Communion Table in Gloucester Cathedral was
first placed altar-wise against the east end of the chancel by Laud himself,
when he was Dean of Gloucester, in the year 1016. It is also a fact that
Bishop Miles Smith, then Bishop of Gloucester, was so pained and annoyed
by this change, that he declared he would not enter the Cathedral again
till the table was brought back to its former position. He kept his word,
and never went within the walls of the Cathedral, till he was buried there
in 1624.
Let us observe the language used by Bishop Kidley in his injunctions to
the clergy of the See of London. Assigning reasons for the removal of
altars and the substitution of tables, he says: "The use of an altar is to
sacrifice upon ; the use of a table is to serve men to eat iipon. Now when
we come to the Lord s Board, what do we come for? To sacrifice Christ
again, and to crucify Him again, or to feed upon Him that was once only
crucified and offered up for us ? If we come to feed upon Him, spiritually
to eat His body, and spiritually to drink His blood, which is the true use of
the Lord s Supper, then no man can deny that the form of a table is more
meet than the form of an altar." See Foxc s Acts and Mon. Vol. vi.
Seeley s Edition, p. 6.
THE LORD S SUPPER. 185
ten High Churchmen who have left the Church of England and
gone over to Rome.
No I Evangelical Churchmen never need be moved by the
charge that they are not true Churchmen. Ignorant and im
pudent men may make such charges, but none except shallow
and ill-read men will ever believe them. When those who
make them have answered Dean Goode s work on the Eucharist,
as well as his other works on Baptism and the Rule of Faith,
it will be time for us to pay attention to what they say. But
till then we may safely act on the advice given to the Jews by
Hezekiah about Rabshakeh s railing accusations, " Answer
them not."
(3) In the last place, let me express an earnest hope that no
one who reads this paper will ever let himself lie driven out of
the Church of England by the rise of the present tide of
extreme Ritualism, and the seeming decay of the Evangelical
body. I lament that there should be a need for uttering this
warning, but I am sure there is a cause.
I can well understand the feelings which actuate many in
this day. They live perhaps in a parish where the Gospel is
never preached at all, where Romish doctrines and practices
about the Lord s Supper carry all before them, where, in fact,
they stand alone. Week after week, and month after month,
and year after year, they hear nothing but the same dreary
round of phrases about "holy Church, holy baptism, holy
communion, holy priests, holy altars, holy sacrifice," until they
are almost sick of the word "holy," and Sunday becomes a
positive weariness to their souls. And then comes up the
thought, "Why not leave the Church of England altogether?
What good can there be in such a Church as this 1 Why not
become a Dissenter or a Plymouth Brother ? "
Now I desire to offer an affectionate warning to all who are
in this frame of mind. I ask them to consider well what they
do, and to take the advice of the town-clerk of Ephesus, " To do
nothing rashly." I entreat them to call faith and patience into
exercise, and at any rate to wait long before they secede, to pray
much, to read their Bibles much, and to be very sure that they
have done everything that can be done to amend what is wrong.
It is a cheap and easy remedy to secede from a Church when
we see evils round us, but it is not always the wisest one. To
186 KNOTS UNTIED.
C"\ down a house because the chimney smokes, to chop off a
d because we have cut our finger, to forsake a ship because
she has sprung a leak and makes a little water, all this we
know is childish impatience. But is it a wise man s act to
forsake a Church because things in our own parish, and under
our own minister in that Church, are wrong 1 I answer decidedly
and unhesitatingly, No !
It is not so sure as it seems that we mend matters by leaving
the Church of England. Every man knows the faults of his
own house, but he never knows the faults of another till he
moves into it, and then perhaps he finds he is worse off than he
was before his move. There are often smoky chimneys, and
bad drains, and draughts, and doors that will not shut, and
windows that will not open, in No. 2 as well as in No. 1. All
is not perfect among Dissenters and Plymouth Brethren. We
may find to our cost, if we join them in disgust with the Church
of England, that we have only changed one sort of evil for
another, and that the chimney smokes in chapel as well as in
church.
It is very certain that a sensible and well-instructed layman
can do an immense deal of good to the Church of England,
can check much evil and promote Christ s truth, if he will only
hold his ground and use all lawful means. Public opinion is
very powerful. Exposure of extreme mal-practice has a great
effect. Bishops cannot altogether ignore appeals from the laity.
By much importunity even the most cautious occupants of the
Episcopal bench may be roused to action. The press is open to
every man. In short, there is much to be done, though, like
anything else that is good, it may give much trouble. And as
for a man s own soul, he must be in a strange position if he
cannot hear the Gospel in some Church near him. At the
worst he has the Bible, the throne of grace, and the Lord Jesus
Christ always near him at his own home.
I say these things as one who is called a Low Churchman,
and as one who feels a righteous indignation at the Romanizing
proceedings of many clergymen in our own day. I mourn over
the danger done to the Church of England by the Ritualism of
this day. I mourn over the many driven in disgust out of the
pale of our Zion. But Low Churchman as I am called, I am
a Churchman, and I am anxious that no cme should be goaded
THE LORD S SUPPER. 187
into doing rash and hasty things by the proceedings to which I
have alluded. So long as we have truth, liberty, and an un
altered Confession of faith in the Church of England, so long
I am convinced that the way of patience is much better than
the way of secession.
When the Thirty-nine Articles are altered, when the Prayer-
book is revised on Romish principles and filled with Popery,
when the Bible is withdrawn from the reading desk, when the
pulpit is shut against the Gospel, when the mass is formally
restored in every parish church by Act of Parliament, when,
in fact, our present order of things in the Church of England is
altered by statute, and Queen, Lords, and Commons command
that our parish churches shall be given over to processions,
incense, crosses, images, banners, flowers, gorgeous vestments,
idolatrous veneration of the sacrament of the Lord s Supper,
mumbled prayers, gabbled-over apocryphal lessons, short, dry,
sapless sermons, histrionic gestures and postures, bowings,
crossings, and the like, when these things come to pass by law
and rule, then it will be time for us all to leave the Church
of England. Then we may arise and say with one voice, " Let
us depart, for God is not here."
But till that time, and God forbid it should ever come : till
that time, and when it does come, there will be a good many
seceders : till that time let us stand fast, and fight for the truth.
Let us not desert our post to save trouble, and move out to
please our adversaries, and spike our guns to avoid a battle.
Xo ! in the name of God, let us fight on, even if we are like the
300 at Thermopylae, few with us, many against us, and traitors
on every side. Let us fight on, and contend earnestly for the
faith once delivered to the saints.
The good ship of the Church of England may have some
rotten planks about her. The crew may, many of them, be
useless and mutinous, and not trustworthy. But there are still
some faithful ones among them. There is still hope for the
good old craft. The Great Pilot has not yet left her. Let us
therefore stick by the ship.
The following quotations may be interesting to some readers.
(1) Archbishop Cranmer, in the Preface to his Answer to Gardiner,
says :
188 KNOTS UNTIED.
They (the Romanists) say that Christ is corporally under or in the form
of bread and wine ; we say that Christ is not there, neither corporally nor
spiritually. But in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine
He is spiritually, and corporally He is in heaven. I mean not that Christ is
spiritually, either in the table, or in the bread and wine that be set on the
table, but I mean that He is present in the ministration and receiving of that
Holy Supper, according to His own institution and ordinance. See Goodc
on the Eucharist, vol. ii., p. 772.
(2) Bishop Ridley, in his Disputation at Oxford, says :
"The circumstances of the Scripture, the analogy and proportion of the
sacraments, and the testimony of the faithful Fathers, ought to rule us in
taking the meaning of the Holy Scripture touching the sacraments.
But the words of the Lord s Supper, the circumstances of the Scripture
the analogy of the sacraments, and the sayings of the Fathers, do most
effectually and plainly prove a figurative speech in the words of the Lord s
Supper.
"Therefore a figurative sense and meaning is specially to be received in
these words, This is My body. " See Goode on the Eucharist, vol. ii., p. 76<>.
(3) Bishop Hooper, in his Brief and Clear Confession of the Christ iun
Faith, says :
" I believe that all this sacrament consisteth in the use thereof so that
without the right use the bread and wine in nothing differ from other common
bread and wine that is commonly used : and, therefore, I do not believe that
the body of Christ can be contained, hid, or inclosed in the bread under the
bread, or with the bread, neither the blood in the wine, under the wine or
with the wine. But I believe and confess the only body of Christ to be in
heaven, on the right hand of the Father ; and that always, and as often as
we use this bread and wine according to this ordinance and institution of
Christ, we do verily and indeed receive His body and blood "Hoonfr^
Works. Parker Society s Edition, vol. ii., p. 48.
(4) Bishop Jewel says :
"Let us examine what difference there is between the body of Christ and
the sacrament of His body.
"The difference is this: a sacrament is a figure or token; the body of
Christ is figured or tokened. The sacramental bread is bread, it is not the
body of Christ ; the body of Christ is flesh, it is not bread. The bread is
beneath ; the body is above. The bread is on the table ; the body is in
heaven. The bread is m the mouth ; the body is in the heart. The bread
fcedeth the body ; the body feedeth the soul. The bread shall come to
nothing ; the body is immortal, and shall not perish. The bread is vile the
body of Christ is glorious. Such a difference is there between the bread
which is a sacrament of the body, and the body of Christ itself The sacra
ment is eaten as well of the wicked as of the faithful. The* body is only
eaten of the faithful. The sacrament may be eaten unto judgment the
body cannot be eaten but unto salvation. Without the sacrament we may
be saved; but without the body of Christ we have no salvation : we cannot
e saved. Jewel on the Sacrament. Parker Society s Edition, vol. iv., p. 1121.
(5) Richard Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical Polity, says :
"The real presence of Christ s most blessed body and blood is not to be
sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament.
And with this the very order of our Saviour s words aoreeth First
take and eat; then, this is My body which is broken for you First
THE LORDS SUITEK. 189
drink ye all of this ; then followeth, this is My blood of the New Testa
ment, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. I see not which way
it should be gathered by the words of Christ, when and where the bread is
His body, or the wine His blood, but only in the very heart and soul of him
which receiveth them. As for the sacraments, they really exhibit, but for
aught we can gather out of that which is written of them, they are not really
nor do really contain in themselves that grace which with them or by them
it pleaseth God to bestow. "Hooker, Eccl. Pol., book v., p. (37.
(6) Waterland says :
"The Fathers^ well understood that to make Christ s natural body the real
sacrifice of the Eucharist, would not only be absurd in reason but highly pre
sumptuous and profane : and that to make the outward symbols a proper
sacrifice, a material sacrifice, would be entirely contrary to Gospel principles,
degrading the Christian sacrifice into a Jewish one, yea, and making it much
lower and meaner than the Jewish one, both in value and dignity. The right
way, therefore, was to make the sacrifice spiritual, and it could be no other
upon Gospel principles." Works, vol. iv., p. 762.
" No one has any authority or right to offer Christ as a sacrifice, whether
really or symbolically, but Christ Himself ; such a sacrifice is His sacrifice,
not ours, offered for us, not by us, to God the Father. " Works, vol iv
p. 753.
IX.
THE KEAL PRESENCE.
" If Thy presence yo not with me, carry us not up hence."-
EXOD. xxxiii. 15.
THERE is a word in the text that heads this page which
demands the attention of all English Christians in this day.
That word is "presence." There is a religious subject bound
up with that word, on which it is most important to have clear,
distinct, and Scriptural views. That subject is the "presence
of God," and specially the " presence of our Lord Jesus Christ "
with Christian people. What is that presence 1 Where is that
presence ? What is the nature of that presence 1 To these
questions I propose to supply answers.
I. I shall consider, "first, the general doctrine of God s
presence in the world.
II. I shall consider, secondly, the special doctrine of Christ s
real spiritual presence.
III. I shall consider, thirdly, the special doctrine of Christ s
real bodi/y presence.
The whole subject deserves serious thought. If we suppose
that this is a mere question of controversy, which only concerns
theological partisans, we have yet much to learn. It is a
subject which lies at the very roots of saving religion. It is a
subject which is inseparably tied up with one of the most
precious articles of the Christian faith. It is a subject about
which it is most dangerous to be wrong. An error here may
first lead a man to the Church of Rome, and then land him
finally in the gulf of infidelity. Surely it is worth while to
examine carefully the doctrine of the " presence " of God and of
His Christ,
190
THE REAL PRESENCE. 191
I. The first subject we have to consider, is the general
doctrine of God s presence in the world.
The teaching of the Bible on. this point is clear, plain, and
unmistakable. God is everywhere. There is no place in
heaven or earth where He is not. There is no place in air or
land or sea, no place above ground or under ground, no place in
town or country, no place in Europe, Asia, Africa, or America,
where God is not always present. Enter into your closet and
lock the door : God is there. Climb to the top of the highest
mountain, where not even an insect moves: God is there. Sail
to the most remote island in the Pacific Ocean, where the foot
of man never trod : God is there. He is always near us,
seeing, hearing, observing, knowing every action, and deed, and
word, and whisper, and look, and thought, and motive, and
secret of every one of us, and everywhere.
What saith the Scripture 1 It is written in Job, " His eyes
are upon the ways of man, and He seeth all his goings. There
is no darkness, nor shadow of death, where the workers of
iniquity may hide themselves." (Job xxxiv. 21.) It is written
in Proverbs, " The eyes of the Lord are in every place, behold
ing the evil and the good." (Prov. xv. 3.) It is written in
Jeremiah, " Thine eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons
of men : to give every one according to the fruit of his doings.
(Jer. xxxii. 19.) It is written in the Psalms, "Thou knowest
my down-sitting and mine up-rising : Thou understandest my
thought afar off. Thou compassest my path, and my lying
down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a
word in my tongue, but, lo, Lord, Thou knowest it altogether.
Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee
from Thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art
there : if I make my bed in hell, behold, Thou art there. If I
take the wings of the morning, and dwell in .the uttermost parts
of the sea ; even there shall Thy hand lead me, and Thy right
hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover
me ; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the dark
ness hideth not from Thee ; but the night shineth as the day :
the darkness and the light are both alike to Thee." (Psalm
cxxxix. 2-12.)
Such language as this confounds and overwhelms us. The
doctrine before us is one which we cannot fully understand.
192 KNOTS UNTIED.
Precisely so. David said the same thing about it almost three
thousand years ago. " Such knowledge is too wonderful for
me : it is high, I cannot attain unto it." (Psalni cxxxix. 6.)
But it does not follow that the doctrine is not true, because we
cannot understand it. It is the weakness of our poor minds
and intellects that we must blame, and not the doctrine.
There are scores of things in the world around us, which few
can understand or. explain, yet no sensible man refuses to believe.
How this earth is ever rolling round the sun with enormous
swiftness, while we feel no motion, how the moon affects the
tides, and makes them rise and fall twice every twenty-four
hours, how millions of perfectly organized living creatures
exist in every pint of pond-water, which our naked eye cannot
see, all these are things well known to men of science, while
most of us could not explain them for our lives. And shall we,
in the face of such facts, presume to doubt that God is every
where present, for no better reason than this, that we cannot
understand it 1 Let us never dare to say so again.
How many things there are about God Himself which we
cannot possibly understand, and yet we must believe them,
unless so senseless as to be atheists ! Who can explain the
eternity of God, the infinite power and wisdom of God, or the
works of God in creation and providence ? Who can compre
hend a Being who is a Spirit, without body, parts, or passions 1
How can a material creature, who can only be in one place at
one time, take in the idea of an immaterial Being, who existed
before creation, who formed this world by His word out of
.nothing, and who can be everywhere and see everything at one
and the same time 1 Where, in a word, is there a single
attribute of God that mortal man can thoroughly comprehend ?
Where, then, is the common sense or wisdom of refusing to
believe the doctrine of God being present everywhere, merely
because our minds cannot take it in ? Well says the Book of
Job, "Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find
out the Almighty unto perfection 1 It is high as heaven ; what
canst thou do ? deeper than hell ; what canst thou know ? "
(Job xi. 7, 8.)
Let us have high and honourable thoughts of the God with
whom we have to do while we live, and before whose bar we
must stand when we die. Let us seek to have just notions of
THE REAL PRESENCE. 193
His power, His wisdom, His eternity, His holiness, His perfect
knowledge, His " presence " everywhere. One half the sin
committed by mankind arises from wrong views of their Maker
and Judge. Men are reckless and wicked, because they do not
think that God sees them. They do things they would never
do if they really believed they were under the eyes of the
Almighty. It is written, " Thou thoughtest that I was altogether
such an one as thyself." (Psalm 1. 21.) It is written again,
"They say the Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of
Jacob regard it. Understand, ye brutish among the people :
and ye fools, when will ye be wise 1 He that planted the ear,
shall He not hear? He that formed the eye, shall He -not
see?" (Psalm xciv. 7-9.) ISTo wonder that holy Job said in
his best moments, "When I consider, I am afraid of Him."
(Job xxiii. 15.)
" What is your God like 1 " said a sneering infidel one day to
a poor Christian. " What is this God of yours like : this God
about whom you make such ado ? Is He great or is He small ?"
" My God," was the wise reply, " is a great and a small God at
the same time : so great that the heaven of heavens cannot
contain Him, and yet so small that He can dwell in the heart
of a poor sinner like me." "Where is your God, my boy?"
said another infidel to a child whom he saw coming out of a
school where the Bible was taught. " Where is your God
about whom you have been reading ? Show Him to me, and I
will give you an orange." " Show me where He is not," was
the answer, " and I will give you two. My God is everywhere."
Well is it said in a certain place, " God hath chosen the
weak things of the world to confound the things that are
mighty." "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings Thou
hast perfected praise," (2 Cor. i. 27 ; Matt. xxi. 16.)
However hard to understand this doctrine may be, it is one
which is most useful and wholesome for our souls. To keep
continually in mind that God is always present with us, to live
always as in God s sight, to act and speak and think as under
His eye, all this is eminently calculated to have a good effect
upon our souls. Wide, and deep, and searching, and piercing
is the influence of that one thought, " Thou God seest me."
(a) The thought of God s presence is a loud call to humility.
How much that is evil and defective must the All-seeing eye see
N
194 KNOTS UNTIED.
in every one of us ! How small a part of our character is
really known by man ! "Man looketh on the outward appear
ance, but the Lord looketh on the heart." (1 Sam. xvi. 7.)
Man does not always see us, but the Lord is always looking
at us, morning, noon, and night. "Who has not need to say,
" God be merciful to me a sinner " 1
(b) The thought of God s presence is a crushing proof of our
need of Jesus Christ. What hope of salvation could we have
if there was not a Mediator between God and man ? Before
the eye of an ever-present God, our best righteousness is filthy
rags, and our best doings are full of imperfection. Where
should we be if there was not a Fountain open for all sin, even
the blood of Christ ? Without Christ, the prospect of death,
judgment, and eternity would drive us to despair.
(c) The thought of God s presence teaches the folly of hypocrisy
in religion. What can be more silly and childish than to wear
a mere cloak of Christianity while we inwardly cleave to sin,
when God is ever looking at us and sees us through and
through? It is easy to deceive ministers and fellow-Chris
tians, because they often see us only upon Sundays. But
God sees us morning, noon, and night, and cannot be
deceived. Oh, whatever we are in religion, let us be real
and true !
(d) The thought of God s presence is a check and curb on the
inclination to sin. The recollection that there is One always
near us and observing us, who will one day have a reckoning
with all mankind, may well keep us back from evil. Happy
are those sons and daughters who, when they leave the family
home, and launch forth into the world, carry with them the
abiding remembrance of God s eye. " My father and mother
do not see me, but God does." This was the feeling that
preserved Joseph when tempted in a foreign land: "How
can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God 1 " (Gen.
xxxix. 9.)
(e) The thought of God s presence is a spur to the pursuit of
true holiness. The highest standard of sanctincation is to
"walk with God" as Enoch did, and to "walk before God"
as Abraham did. Where is the man who would not strive to
live so as to please God, if he realized that God was always
standing at his right hand 1 To get away from God is the
THE REAL PRESENCE.
secret aim of the sinner ; to get nearer to God is the longing
desire of the saint. The real servants of the Lord are " a
people near unto Him." (Psalm cxlviii. 14.)
(/) The thought of God s presence is a comfort in time of public
trouble. When Avar and famine and pestilence break in upon
a land, when the nations are rent and torn by inward divisions,
and all order seems in peril, it is cheering to reflect that God
sees and knows and is close at hand, that the King of kings
is near and not asleep. He that saw the Spanish Armada sail
to invade England, and scattered it with the breath of His
mouth, He that looked on when the schemers of the Gun
powder Plot were planning the destruction of Parliament, this
God .is not changed.
(g) The thought of God s presence is a strong consolation
in private trial. We may be driven from home and native
land, and placed at the other side of the world ; we may be
bereaved of wife and children and friends, and left alone in our
family, like the last tree in a forest : but we can never go to
any place where God is not, and under no circumstances can we
be left entirely alone.
Such thoughts as these are useful and profitable for us all.
That man must be in a poor state of soul who does not feel
them to be so. Let it be a settled principle in our religion
never to forget that in every condition and place we are under
the eye of God. It need not frighten us if we are true
believers. The sins of all believers are cast behind God s
back, and even the all-seeing God sees no spot in them. It
ought to cheer us, if our Christianity is genuine and sincere,
We can then appeal to God with confidence, like David, and
say, " Search me, God, and know my heart : try me, and
know my thoughts : and see if there be any wicked way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting." (Psalm cxxxix. 23, 24.)
Great is the mystery of God s presence everywhere ; but the
true man of God can look at it without fear.
II. The second thing which I propose to consider, is the real
spiritual presence of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In considering this branch of our subject, we must carefully
remember that we are speaking of One who is God and man
in one Person. We are speaking of One who in infinite love
196 KNOTS UNTIED.
to our souls, took man s nature, and was born of the Virgin
Mary, was crucified, dead, and buried, to be a sacrifice for sins,
and yet never ceased for a moment to be very God. The
peculiar " presence " of this blessed Person, our Lord Jesus
Christ, with His Church, is the point which I want to unfold
in this part of my paper. I want to show that He is really
and truly present with His believing people, spiritually or after
the manner of a spirit, and that His presence is one of the grand
privileges of a true Christian. What then is the real spiritual
" presence " of Christ, and wherein does it consist ? Let us see.
(a) There is a real spiritual presence of Christ with that
Church which is His mystical body, the blessed company of
all faithful people. This is the meaning of that parting saying
of our Lord to His Apostles, " I am with you alway, even unto
the end of the world." (Matt, xxviii. 20.) To the visible
Church of Christ that saying did not strictly belong. Rent by
divisions, denied by heresies, disgraced by superstitions and
corruptions, the visible Church has often given mournful proof
that Christ does not always dwell in it. Many of its branches
in the course of years, like the Churches of Asia, have decayed
and passed away. It is the Holy Catholic Church, composed
of God s elect, the Church of which every member is truly
sanctified, the Church of believing and penitent men and
women, this is the Church to which alone, strictly speaking,
the promise belongs. This is the Church in which there is
always a real spiritual " presence " of Christ.
There is not a visible Church on earth, however ancient and
well ordered, which is secure against falling away. Scripture
and history alike testify that, like the Jewish Church, it may
become corrupt, and depart from the faith, and departing from
the faith, may die. And why is this 3 Simply because Christ
has never promised to any visible Church that He will be
with it always, even unto the end of the world. The word
that He inspired St. Paul to write to the Roman Church is
the same word that He sends to every visible Church through
out the world, whether Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Congrega
tional : " Be not high-minded, but fear : continue in God s good
ness : otherwise thou also slialt be cut off." * (Rom. xi. 20-22.)
* " Whatsoever we read in Scripture concerning the endless love and the
saving mercy which God showeth towards His Church, the only proper
THE REAL PRESENCE. 197
On the other hand, the perpetual presence of Christ with
that Holy Catholic Church, which is His body, is the great
secret of its continuance and security. It lives on, and cannot
die, because Jesus Christ is in the midst of it. It is a ship
tossed with storm and tempest; but it cannot sink, because
Christ is on board. Its members may be persecuted, oppressed,
imprisoned, robbed, beaten, beheaded, or burned ; but His true
Church is never extinguished. It lives on through fire and
water. When crushed in one land, it springs up in another.
The Pharaohs, the Herods, the Neros, the Julians, the bloody
Marys, the Charles the Ninths, have laboured in vain to destroy
this Church. They slay their thousands, and then go to their
own place. The true Church outlives them all. It is a bush
that is often burning, and yet is never consumed. And what
is the reason of all this ? It is the perpetual " presence " of
Jesus Christ.
(b) There is a real spiritual "presence" of Christ in the
heart of every true believer. This is what St. Paul meant
when he speaks of "Christ dwelling in the heart by faith."
(Eph. iii. 17.) This is what our Lord meant when He says
of the man that loves Him and keeps His Word, " We will
come unto him, and make our abode with him." (John xiv.
23.) In every believer, whether high or low, or rich or poor,
or young or old, or feeble or strong, the Lord Jesus dwells, and
keeps up His work of grace by the power of the Holy Ghost.
As He dwells in the whole Church, which is His body, keep
ing, guarding, preserving, and sanctifying it, so does He con
tinually dwell in every member of that body, in the least as
well as in the greatest. This " presence " is the secret of all
that peace, and hope, and joy, and comfort, which believers
feel. All spring from their having a Divine tenant within
their hearts. This " presence " is the secret of their continuance
subject thereof is this Church which is the mystical body of Christ. Con
cerning this flock it is that our Lord and Saviour hath promised, I give
unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck
them out of My hand. " Hooker, EccL Polity, book iii., ch. i., p. 2.
These are wise words, and words that all Hooker s professed admirers
would do well to ponder and digest. Few things are so mischievous as the
common habit of applying to such mixed and corrupt bodies as visible
Churches those blessed promises of perpetuity and preservation which belong
to none but the company of true believers.
198 KNOTS UNTIED.
in the faith, and perseverance unto the end. In themselves
they are weak and unstable as water. But they have within
them One who is " able to save to the uttermost," and will not
allow His work to be overthrown. Not one bone of Christ s
mystical body shall ever be broken. Not one lamb of Christ s
flock shall ever be plucked out of His hand. The house in
which Christ is pleased to dwell, though it be but a cottage,
is one which the devil shall never break into and make his
own.
(c) There is a real spiritual " presence " of Christ wherever
His believing people meet together in His name. This is the
plain meaning of that famous saying, " Wherever two or three
are gathered together in My name, there am I in thejnidst of
them." (Matt, xviii. 20.) The smallest gathering of true
Christians for the purposes of prayer or praise, or holy confer
ence, or reading God s Word, is sanctified by the best of company.
The great or rich or noble may not be there, but the King of
kings Himself is present, and angels look on with reverence.
The grandest buildings that men have reared for religious uses
are often no better than whitened sepulchres, destitute of any
holy influence, because given up to superstitious ceremonies,
and rilled to no purpose with crowds of formal worshippers,
who come unfeeling, and go unfeeling away. No worship is of
any use to souls at which Christ is not present. Incense,
banners, pictures, flowers, crucifixes, and long processions of
richly-dressed ecclesiastics are a poor substitute for the great
High Priest Himself. The meanest room where a few penitent
believers assemble in the name of Jesus is a consecrated and
most holy place in the sight of God. They that worship God
in spirit and truth never draw near to Him in vain. Often they
go home from such meetings warmed, cheered, stablished,
strengthened, comforted, and refreshed. And what is the
secret of their feelings ? They have had with them the great
Master of assemblies, even Christ Himself.
(d) There is a real spiritual " presence " of Christ with the
hearts of all true-hearted communicants in the Lord s Supper.
Rejecting as I do, with all my heart, the baseless notion of any
bod ily presence of Christ on the Lord s Table, I can never doubt
that the great ordinance appointed by Christ has a special and
peculiar blessing attached to it. That blessing, I believe, con-
THE EEAL PRESENCE. 199
sists in a special and peculiar presence of Christ, vouchsafed to
the heart of every believing communicant. That truth appears
to me to lie under those wonderful words of institution, " Take,
eat: this is My body." "Drink ye all of this: this is My
blood." Those words were never meant to teach that the bread
in the Lord s Supper was literally Christ s body, or the Avine
literally Christ s blood. But our Lord did mean to teach that
every right-hearted believer, who ate that bread and drank that
wine in remembrance of Christ, would in so doing find a special
presence of Christ in his heart, and a special revelation of
Christ s sacrifice of His own body and blood to his soul. In a
word, there is a special spiritual " presence " of Christ in the
Lord s Supper, which they only know who are faithful com
municants, and which they who are not communicants miss
altogether.
After all, the experience of all the best servants of Christ is
the best proof that there is a special blessing attached to the
Lord s Supper. You will rarely find a true believer who will
not say that he reckons this ordinance one of his greatest helps
and highest privileges. He will tell you that if he was deprived
of it, he would find the loss of it a great drawback to his soul.
He will tell you that in eating that bread, and drinking that
cup, he realizes something of Christ dwelling in him ; and finds
his repentance deepened, his faith increased, his knowledge en
larged, his graces strengthened. Eating the bread with faith,
he feels closer communion with the body of Christ. Drinking
the wine with faith, he feels closer communion with the blood
of Christ. He sees more clearly what Christ is to him, and
what he is to Christ. He understands more thoroughly what
it is to be one with Christ and Christ with him. He feels the
roots of his spiritual life insensibly watered, and the work of
grace within him insensibly built up and carried forward. He
cannot explain or define it. It is a matter of experience, which
no one knows but he who feels it. And the true explanation
of the whole matter is this, there is a special and spiritual
" presence " of Christ in the ordinance of the Lord s Supper.
Jesus meets those who draw near to His Table with a true
heart, in a special and peculiar way.
(?) Last, but not least, there is a real spiritual " presence "
of Christ vouchsafed to believers in special times of trouble and
200 KNOTS UNTIED.
difficulty. This is the presence of which St. Paul received
assurance on more than one occasion. At Corinth, for instance,
it is written, "Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a
vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace : for I
am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee."
(Acts xviii. 9, 10.) At Jerusalem, again, when the apostle was
in danger of his life, it is written, " The night following the
Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul ; for as
thou hast testified of Me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear
witness also in Rome." (Acts xxiii. 11.) Again, in the last
Epistle St. Paul wrote, we find him saying, "At my first answer
no man stood with me, but all men forsook me : I pray God
that it may not be laid to their charge. Notwithstanding the
Lord stood with me and strengthened me." (2 Tim. iv. 16, 17.)
This is the account of the singular and miraculous courage
which many of God s children have occasionally shown under
circumstances of unusual trial, in every age of the Church.
When the three children were cast into the fiery furnace,
and preferred the risk of death to idolatry, we are told that
Nebuchadnezzar exclaimed, " Lo, I see four men loose, walking
in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt ; and the form of
the fourth is like the Son of God." (Dan. iii. 25.) When
Stephen was beset by bloody-minded enemies on the very point
of stoning him, we read that he said, " Behold, I see heaven
opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of
God." (Acts vii. 56.) Nor ought we to doubt that this special
presence was the secret of the fearlessness with which many
early Christian martyrs met their deaths, and of the marvellous
courage which the Marian martyrs, such as Bradford, Latimer,
and Rogers, displayed at the stake. A peculiar sense of Christ
being with them is the right explanation of all these cases.
These men died as they did because Christ was with them.
Nor ought any believer to fear that the same helping presence
will be with him, whenever his own time of special need
arrives. Many are over-careful about what they shall do in
their last sickness, and on the bed of death. Many disquiet
themselves with anxious thoughts as to what they would do if
husband or wife died, or if they were suddenly turned out of
house and home. Let us believe that when the need comes the
help will come also. Let us not carry our crosses before they
THE REAL PRESENCE. 201
are laid upon us. He that said to Moses, " Certainly I will be
with thee," will never fail any believer who cries to Him.
When the hour of special storm comes, the Lord who walks
upon the waters will come and say, " Peace : be still." There
are thousands of doubting saints continually crossing the river,
who go down to the water in fear and trembling, and yet are
able at last to say with David, " Though I walk through the
valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil ; for Thou art
with me." (Psa. xxiii. 4.)
This branch of our subject deserves to be pondered well.
This spiritual presence of Christ is a real and true thing, though
a thing which the children of this world neither know nor
understand. It is precisely one of those matters of which St.
Paul writes, " The natural man receiveth not the things of the
Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him." (1 Cor.
ii. 14.) But for all that, I repeat emphatically, the spiritual
presence of Christ, His presence after the manner of a Spirit
with the spirits of His own people, is a thing real and true.
Let us not doubt it. Let us hold it fast. Let us seek to feel
it more and more. The man who feels nothing whatever of it
in his own heart s experience, may depend on it that he is not
yet in a right state of soul.
III. The last point which I propose to consider, is the real
bodily presence of our Lord Jesus Clirist. Where is it 1 What
ought we to think about it 1 What ought we to reject, and
what ought we to hold fast ?
This is a branch of my subject on which it is most important
to have clear and well-defined views. There are rocks around
it on which many are making shipwreck. No doubt there are
deep things and difficulties connected with it. But this must
not prevent our examining it as far as possible by the light of
Scripture. Whatever the Bible teaches plainly about Christ s
bodily presence, it is our duty to hold and believe. To shrink
from holding it because we cannot reconcile it with some human
tradition, some minister s teaching, or some early prejudice
imbibed in youth, is presumption, and not humility. To the
law and to the testimony ! What says the Scripture about
Christ s bodily presence 1 Let us examine the matter step by
step.
202 KNOTS UNTIED.
(a) There was a bodily presence of our Lord Jesus Christ
during the time that He was upon earth at His first
advent. For thirty-three years, at least, between His birth and
His ascension, He was present in a body in this world. In
infinite mercy to our souls the eternal Son of God was pleased
to take our nature on Him, and to be miraculously born of a
woman, with a body just like our own. He was made like unto
us in all things, sin only excepted. Like us He grew from
infancy to boyhood, and from boyhood to youth, and from youth
to manhood. Like us He ate, and drank, and slept, and
hungered, and thirsted, and wept, and felt fatigue and pain.
He had a body which was subject to all the conditions of a
material body. While, as God, He was in heaven and earth at
the same time ; as man, His body was only in one place at one
time. When He was in Galilee He was not in Judaea, and
when He was in Capernaum He was not in Jerusalem. In a
real, true human body He lived ; in a real, true human body
He kept the law, and fulfilled all righteousness ; and in a real,
true human body He bore our sins on the Cross, and made satis
faction for us by His atoning blood. He that died for us on
Calvary was perfect man, while at the same time He was perfect
God. This was the first real bodily presence of Jesus Christ.
The truth before us is full of unspeakable comfort to all who
have an awakened conscience, and know the value of their souls.
It is a heart-cheering thought that the "One Mediator between
God and man is the man Jesus Christ : " real Man, and so able,
to be touched with the feeling of our infirmities ; Almighty
(rod, and so able to save to the uttermost all who come to the
Father by Him. The Saviour in whom the labouring and
heavy-laden are invited to trust, is One who had a real body
when He was working out our redemption on earth. It was no
angel, nor spirit, nor ghost, that stood in our place and became
our Substitute, that finished the work of redemption, and did
what Adam failed to do. Xo : it was One who was real man !
" By man came death, and by man came also the resurrection of
the dead." (1 Cor. xv. 21.) The battle was fought for us, and
the victory was won by the eternal Word made flesh, by the
real bodily presence among us of Jesus Christ. For ever let us
praise God that Christ did not remain in heaven, but came into
the world and was made flesh to save sinners ; that in the body,
THE REAL PRESENCE. 203
He was born for us, lived for us, died for us, and rose again.
Whether men know it or not, OUT whole hope of eternal life
hinges on the simple fact, that eighteen hundred years ago there
was a real bodily presence of the Son of God for us on the earth.
(b) Let us now go a step further. There is a real bodily
presence of Jesus Christ in heaven at the right hand of God.
This is a deep and mysterious subject, beyond question. What
God the Father is, and where He dwells, what the nature of
His dwelling-place who is a Spirit, these are high things which
we have no minds to take in. But where the "Bible speaks
plainly it is our duty and our wisdom to believe. When our
Lord rose again from the dead, He rose with a real human
body, a body which could not be in two places at once, a
body of which the angels said, " He is not here, but is risen."
(Luke xxiv. 6.) In that body, having finished His redeeming
work on earth, He ascended visibly into heaven. He took His
body with Him, and did not leave it behind, like Elijah s
mantle. It was not laid in the grave at last, and did not
become dust and ashes in some Syrian village, like the bodies of
saints and martyrs. The same body Avhich walked in the streets
of Capernaum, and sat in the house of Mary and Martha, and
was crucified on Golgotha, and was laid in Joseph s tomb, that
same body, after the resurrection glorified undoubtedly, but
still real and material, was taken up into heaven, and is there
at this very moment. To use the inspired words of the Acts,
" While they beheld, He was taken up, and a cloud received
Him out of their sight." (Acts i. 11.) To use the words of St.
Luke s Gospel, " While He blessed them, He was parted from
them, and carried up into heaven." (Luke xxiv. 51.) To use
the words of St. Mark, " After the Lord had spoken to them,
He was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of
God." (Mark xvi. 19.) The Fourth Article of the Church of
England states the whole matter fully and accurately : " Christ
did truly rise again from death, and took again His body, with
flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of
man s nature : wherewith He ascended into heaven, and there
sitteth, until He return to judge all- men at the last day." And
thus, to come round to the point with which we started, there is
in heaven a real bodily presence of Jesus Christ.
The doctrine before us is singularly rich in comfort and con-
204 KNOTS UNTIED.
solation to all true Christians. That divine Saviour in heaven,
on whom the Gospel tells us to cast the burden of our sinful
souls, is not a Being who is Spirit only, but a Being who is
man as well as God. He is One who has taken up to heaven a
body like our own ; and in that body sits at the right hand of
God, to be our Priest and our Advocate, our Representative
and our Friend. He can be touched with the feeling of our
infirmities, because He has suffered Himself in the body being
tempted. He knows by experience all that the body is liable
to from pain, and weariness, and hunger, and thirst, and work ;
and has taken to heaven that very body which endured the
contradiction of sinners and was nailed to the tree. Who can
doubt that that body in heaven is a continual plea for believers,
and renders them ever acceptable in the Father s sight ? It is
a perpetual remembrance of the perfect propitiation made for
us upon the Cross. God will not forget that our debts are paid
for, so long as the body which paid for them with life-blood is
in heaven before His eyes. Who can doubt that when we pour
out our petitions and prayers before the throne of grace, we
put them in the hand of One whose sympathy passes know
ledge 1 None can feel for poor believers wrestling here in the
body, like Him who in the body sits pleading for them in
heaven. For ever let us bless God that there is a real bodily
presence of Christ in heaven.
(c) Let us now go a step further. There is no real bodily
presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord s Supper or in
the consecrated elements of bread and wine.
This is a point which it is peculiarly painful to discuss,
because it has long divided Christians into two parties, and
defiled a very solemn subject with sharp controversy. Never
theless, it is one which cannot possibly be avoided in handling
the question we are considering. Moreover, it is a point of
vast importance, and demands very plain speaking. Those
amiable and well-meaning persons who imagine that it signifies
little what opinion people hold about Christ s presence in the
Lord s Supper, that it is a matter of indifference, and that
it all comes to the same thing at last, are totally and entirely
mistaken. They have yet to learn that an unscriptural view of
the subject may land them at length in a very dangerous heresy.
Let us search and see.
THE REAL PRESENCE. 205
My reason for saying that there is no bodily presence of
Christ in the Lord s Supper or in the consecrated bread and
wine, is simply this : there is no such presence taught anywhere
in holy Scripture. It is a presence that can never be honestly
and fairly got out of the Bible. Let the three accounts of the
institution of the Lord s Supper, in the Gospels of St. Matthew,
St. Mark, and St. Luke, and the one given by St. Paul to the
Corinthians, be weighed and examined impartially, and I have
no doubt as to the result. They teach that the Lord Jesus, in
the same night that He was betrayed, took bread and gave it to
His disciples, saying, " Take, eat : this is My body ; " and also
took the cup of wine, and gave it to them, saying, " Drink ye
all of this: this is My blood." But there is nothing in the
simple narrative, or in the verses which follow it, which shows
that the disciples thought their Master s body and blood were
really present in the bread and wine which they received.
There is not a word in the Epistles to show that after our
Lord s ascension into heaven the Christians believed that His
body and blood were present in an ordinance celebrated on
earth, or that the bread in the Lord s Supper, after consecration,
was not truly and literally bread, and the wine truly and liter
ally wine.
Some persons, I am aware, suppose that such texts as " This
is My body," and "This is My blood," are proofs that Christ s
body and blood, in some mysterious manner, are locally present
in the bread and wine at the Lord s Supper, after their conse
cration. But a man must be easily satisfied if such texts con
tent him. The quotation of a single isolated phrase is a mode
of arguing which would establish Arianism or Socinianism. The
context of these famous expressions shows clearly that those
who heard the words used, and were accustomed to our Lord s
mode of speaking, understood them to mean, "This represents
My body," and " This represents My blood."
The comparison of other places proves that there is nothing
unfair in this interpretation. It is certain that the words " is "
and "arc" frequently mean "represent" in Scripture. The
disciples no doubt remembered their Master saying such things
as " The field is the world, the good seed are the children of
the kingdom." (Matt. xiii. 38.) St. Paul, in writing on the
sacrament, confirms this interpretation by expressly calling the
206 KNOTS UNTIED.
consecrated bread, " bread," and not the body of Christ, no less
than three times. (1 Cor. xi. 26-28.)
Some persons, again, regard the sixth chapter of St. John,
where our Lord speaks of " eating His flesh and drinking His
blood," as a proof that there is a literal bodily presence of
Christ in the bread and wine at the Lord s Supper. But there
is an utter absence of conclusive proof that this chapter refers
to the Lord s Supper at all ! The Lord s Supper had not been
instituted, and did not exist, till at least a year after these
words were spoken. Enough to say that the great majority of
Protestant commentators altogether deny that the chapter refers
to the Lord s Supper, and that even some Romish commentators
on this point agree with them. The eating and drinking here
spoken of are the eating and drinking of faith, and not a bodily
action.
Some people fancy that St. Paul s words to the Corinthians,
" The bread that we eat, is it not the communion of the body
of Christ?" (1 Cor. x. 16) are enough to prove a bodily presence
of Christ in the Lord s Supper. But unfortunately for their
argument, St. Paul does not say, "The bread is the body," but
the " communion of the body." And the obvious sense of the
words is this, "The bread that a worthy communicant eats in
the Lord s Supper, is a means whereby his soul holds com
munion with the body of Christ." Xor do I believe that more
than this can be got out of the words.
Above all, there remains the unanswerable argument that if
our Lord was actually holding His own body in His hands,
when He said of the bread, "This is My body," His body must
have been a different body to that of ordinary men. Of course
if His body was not a body like ours, His real and proper
"humanity " is at an end. At this rate the blessed and com
fortable doctrine of Christ s entire sympathy with His people,
arising from the fact that He is really and truly man, would be
completely overthrown and fall to the ground.
.Finally, if the body with which our blessed Lord ascended
up into heaven can be in heaven, and on earth, and on ten
thousand communion tables at one and the same time, it cannot
be a real human body at all. Yet that He did ascend with a
real Human body, although a glorified body, is one of the prime
articles of the Christian faith, and one that we ought never to
THE REAL PRESENCE. 207
let go ! Once admit that a body can be present in two
places at once, and you cannot prove that it is a body at
all. Once admit that Christ s body can be present at God s
right hand and on a communion table at the same moment,
and it cannot be the body which was born of the Virgin
Mary and crucified upon the Cross. From such a conclusion
we may well draw back with horror and dismay. Well
says the Prayer-book of the Church of England: "The
sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural
substances, and therefore may not be adored (for that were
idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians) ; and the
natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven,
and not here; it being against the truth of Christ s natural
body to be at one time in more places than one." This is
sound speech that cannot be condemned. Well would it be
for the Church of England if all Churchmen would read, mark,
learn, and inwardly digest what the Prayer-book teaches about
Christ s presence in the Lord s Supper.
If we love our souls and desire their prosperity, let us be very
jealous over our doctrine about the Lord s Supper. Let us
stand fast on the simple teaching of Scripture, and let no one
drive us from it under the pretence of increased reverence for
the ordinance of Christ. Let us take heed, lest under confused
and mystical notions of some inexplicable presence of Christ s
body and blood under the form of bread and wine, we find
ourselves unawares heretics about Christ s human nature. Xext
to the doctrine that Christ is not God, but only man, there is
nothing more dangerous than the doctrine that Christ is not
man, but only God. If we would not fall into that pit, we
must hold firmly that there can be no literal presence of Christ s
body in the Lord s Supper ; because His body is in heaven, and
not 011 earth, though as God He is everywhere.*
(d) Let us now go one step further, and bring our whole-
subject to a conclusion. There will be a real bodily presence
* The following sentence from Hooker, on the subject of Christ s body,
deserves special attention :
" It behoveth us to take great heed, lest while we go about to maintain the
glorious deity of Him which is man, we leave Him not the true bodily sub
stance of a man. According to Augustine s opinion, that majestical body
which we make to be everywhere present, doth thereby cease to have the
substance of a true body." Hooker, Eccles. Polity, book v., ch. 55.
208 KNOTS UNTIED.
of Christ when He comes again the second time to judge the
world. This is a point about which the Bible speaks so plainly
that there is no room left for dispute or doubt. When our
Lord had ascended up before the eyes of His disciples, the
angels said to them, " This same Jesus which is taken up from
you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen
Him go into heaven." (Acts i. 11.) There can be no mistake
about the meaning of these words. Visibly and bodily our
Lord left the world, and visibly and bodily He will return in
the day which is emphatically called the day of " His appear
ing." (1 Peter i. 7.)
The world has not yet done with Christ. Myriads talk and
think of Him as of One who did His work in the world and
passed on to His own place, like some statesman or philosopher,
leaving nothing but His memory behind Him. The world will
be fearfully undeceived one day. That same Jesus who came
eighteen centuries ago in lowliness and poverty, to be despised
and crucified, shall come again one day in power and glory, to
raise the dead and change the living, and to reward every man
according to his works. The wicked shall see that Saviour
whom they despised, but too late, and shall call on the rocks to
fall on them and hide them from the face of the Lamb. Those
solemn words which Jesus addressed to the High Priest the
night before His crucifixion shall at length be fulfilled : "Ye
shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power,
and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Matt. xxvi. 64.) The
godly shall see the Saviour whom they have read of, heard of,
and believed, and find, like the Queen of Sheba, that the half
of His goodness had not been known. They shall find that
sight is far better than faith, and that in Christ s actual
presence is fulness of joy.
This is the real bodily presence of Christ, for which every
true-hearted Christian ought daily to long and pray. Happy
are those who make it an article of their faith, and live in the
constant expectation of a second personal advent of Christ.
Then, and then only, will the devil be bound, the curse be
taken off the earth, the world be restored to its original purity,
sickness and death be taken away, tears be wiped from all
eyes, and the redemption of the saint, in body as well as soul,
be completed. " It doth not yet appear what we shall be ; but
THE REAL PRESENCE. 209
we know that when He shall appear we shall be like Him, for
we shall see Him as He is." (1 John iii. 2.) The highest
style of Christian is the man who desires the real presence of
his Master, and " loves His appearing." (2 Tim. iv. 8.)
I have now unfolded, as far as I can in a short paper, the
truth about the presence of God and His Christ. I have shown
(1) the general doctrine of God s presence everywhere ; (2) the
Scriptural doctrine of Christ s real, spiritual presence ; (3) the
Scriptural doctrine of Christ s real, bodily presence. I now
leave the whole subject with a parting word of application, and
commend it to serious attention. In an age of hurry and bustle
about secular things, in an age of wretched strife and con
troversy about religion, I entreat men not to neglect the great
truths which this paper contains.
(1) What do we know of Christ ourselves? We have heard
of Him thousands of times. We call ourselves Christians. But
what do we know of Christ experimentally, as our own per
sonal Saviour, our own Priest, our own Friend, the Healer of
our conscience, the Comfort of our heart, the Pardoner of our
sins, the Foundation of our hope, the Confidence of our souls 1
How is it ?
(2) Let us not rest till we feel Christ " present " in our own
hearts, and know what it is to be one with Christ and Christ
with us. This is real religion. To live in the habit of looking
backward to Christ on the Cross, upward to Christ at God s
right hand, and forward to Christ coming again, this is the
only Christianity which gives comfort in life and good hope in
death. Let us remember this.
(3) Let us beware of holding erroneous views about the
Lord s Supper, and especially about the real nature of Christ s
" presence " in it. Let us not so mistake that blessed ordinance,
which was meant to be our soul s meat, as to turn it into our
soul s poison. There is no sacrifice in the Lord s Supper, no
sacrificing priest, no altar, no bodily "presence" of Christ in
the bread and wine. These things are not in the Bible, and
are dangerous inventions of man, leading on to superstition.
Let us take care.
(4) Let us keep continually before our minds the second
advent of Christ, and that real " presence " which is yet to
210 KNOTS UNTIED.
come. Let our loins be girded, and our lamps burning, and
ourselves like men daily waiting for their Master s return.
Then, and then only, shall we have all the desires of our souls
satisfied. Till then the less we expect from this world the
better. Let our daily cry be, " Come, Lord Jesus."
NOTE.
Controversy about the Lord s Supper and the real presence of Christ, we
all know, is at this moment one of the chief causes of division and dis
turbance in the Church of England. At such a crisis, it may not be unin
teresting to some readers to hear the opinions of some of our well-known
English divines about the points in dispute, in addition to those which I have
already given, at the end of the paper on the "Lord s Supper."
I will give four quotations from four men of no mean authority, and ask
the reader to consider them.
(1) "VVaterland says,
" The words of the Church Catechism, verily and indeed taken and received
by the faithful, are rightly interpreted of a real participation of the benefits
purchased by Christ s death. The body and blood of Christ are taken and
received by the faithful, not corporally, not internally, but verily and indeed,
that is effectually. The sacred symbols are no bai-e signs, no untrue figures of a
thing absent ; but the force, the grace, the virtue, and benefit of Christ s
body broken and blood shed, that is, of His passion, are really and effectually
present with all them that receive worthily. This is all the real presence that
our Church teaches." Waterland s Works. Oxford, 1843. Vol. vi., p. 42.
(2) Dean Aldrich, of Christ Church, says,
"The Church of England has wisely forborne to use the term of Real
Presence in all the books that are set forth by her authority. We neither
find it recommended in the Liturgy, nor the Articles, nor the Homilies, nor
the Church s Catechism, nor Nowell s. For although it be seen in the
Liturgy, and once more in the Articles of 1552, it is mentioned in both
places as a phrase of the Papists, and rejected for the abuse of it. So that if
any Church of England man use it, he does more than the Church directs him.
If any reject it, he has the Church s example to warrant him ; and it would
very much contribute to the peace of Christendom if all men would write after
so excellent a copy." Dean Aldrich s Reply to Tivo Discourses. Oxford,
1682. 4to, pp. 13-18.
(3) Henry Philpotts, Bishop of Exeter, in his letter to Charles Butler,
says,
" The Church of Rome holds that the body and blood of Christ are pre
sent under the accidents of bread and wine ; the Church of England holds
that their real presence is in the soul of the communicant at the sacrament of
the Lord s Supper.
" She holds, that after the consecration of the bread and wine they are
changed not in their nature but in their use ; that instead of nourishing our
bodies only, they now are instruments by which, when worthily received,
God gives to our souls the body and blood of Christ to nourish and sustain
them : that this is not a fictitious, or imaginary exhibition of our crucified
Redeemer to us, but a real though spiritual one, more real, indeed, because
THE REAL PRESENCE. 211
more effectual, than the carnal exhibition and manclucation of Him could be
(for the flesh profiteth nothing).
" In the same manner, then, as our Lord Himself said, I am the true bread
that came down from heaven (not meaning thereby that He was a lump of
baked dough or manna, but the true means of sustaining the true life of man,
which is spiritual, not corporeal), so in the sacrament, to the worthy receiver
of the consecrated elements, though in their nature mere bread and wine, are
yet given, truly, really, and effectively, the crucified body and blood of Christ ;
that body and blood which were the instruments of man s redemption, and
upon which our spiritual life and strength solely depend. It is in this sense
that the crucified Jesus is present in the sacrament of His Supper, not in,
nor with, the bread and wine, nor under their accidents, but in the souls of
communicants ; not carnally, but effectually and faithfully, and therefore
most really." PhilpotCs Letter to Butler. 8vo Edition. 1825. Pp. 235, 23G.
(4) Archbishop Longley says, in his last Charge, printed and published after
his death in 1868 :
" The doctrine of the Real Presence is, in one sense, the doctrine of the
Church of England. She asserts that the body and blood of Christ are verily
and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord s Supper. And
she asserts equally that such presence is not material or corporal, but that
Christ s body is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly
and spiritual manner. (Article xxviii.) Christ s presence is effectual for all
those intents and purposes for which His body was broken and His blood
shed. As to a presence elsewhere than in the heart of a believer, the Church of
England is silent, and the words of Hooker therefore represent her views :
The real presence of Christ s most blessed body and blood is not to be
sought in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament. "
I will now conclude the whole subject with the following remarkable
quotation, which I commend to the special attention of all my readers. It
is taken from the recent elaborate judgment delivered by the Judicial Com
mittee of the Privy Council, the highest Court of the realm, in the famous
case of Sheppard v. Bennett :
"Any presence of Christ in the Holy Communion, which is not a a presence
to the soul of the faithful receiver, the Church of England does not by her
Articles and Formularies affirm, or require her ministers to accept." This
cannot be stated too plainly.
X.
THE CHURCH.
THERE is perhaps no subject in religion which is so much
misunderstood as the subject of the "Church." There is
certainly no misunderstanding which has done more harm to
professing Christians than the misunderstanding of this subject.
There are few words in the New Testament which are used
in such a variety of meanings, as the word " Church." It is
a word which we hear constantly, and yet we cannot help
observing that different people use it in different senses. The
English politician in our days talks of "the Church." What
does he mean 1 You will generally find he means the Episcopal
Church established in his own country. The Roman Catholic
talks of " the Church." What does he mean ? He means the
Church of Rome, and tells you that there is no other Church in
the world except his own. The Dissenter talks of "the
Church." What does he mean 1 He means the communicants
of that chapel of which he is a member. The members of the
Church of England talk of "the Church." What do they
mean? One means the building in which he worships on a
Sunday. Another means the clergy, and when any one is
ordained, tells you that he has gone into the Church ! A third
has some vague notions about what he is pleased to call apos
tolical succession, and hints mysteriously that the Church is
made up of Christians who are governed by Bishops, and of
none beside. There is no denying these things. They are all
* There seem to be four meanings of the word Church in the New Testa
ment. (1) It is applied to the whole body of the elect. (Heb. xii. 23.) ? (2)
It is applied to the baptized Christians of a particular place or district.
(Acts viii. 1.) (3) It is applied to a small number of professing Christians, in
a particular family. (Rom. xvi. 5.) (4) It is applied to the whole body of
baptized people throughout the world, both good and bad. (1 Cor. xii. 28.)
In the fourth sense the word is used very seldom indeed. The first and
second senses are the most common.
212
THE CHURCH. 213
patent and notorious facts. And they all help to explain the
assertion with which I started, that there are few subjects so
much misunderstood as that of the " Church."
I believe that to have clear ideas about the Church is of the
first importance in the present day. I believe that mistakes on
this point are one grand cause of the religious delusions into
which so many fall. I wish to direct attention to that great
primary meaning in which the word " Church " is used in the
Xew Testament, and to clear the subject of that misty vague
ness by which it is surrounded in so many minds. It was a
most true saying of Bishop Jewel the Reformer, ^ There never
was anything yet so absurd or so wicked, but it might seem east/
to be covered and defended by the naim of the Church"*
(Jewel s ApoL, sec. xx.)
I. Let me then show, first of all, what is that one true
Church, out of which no man can be saved.
II. Let me explain, in the second place, what is the position
and value of all visible professing Churches.
III. And let me, in the third place, draw from the subject
some practical counsels and cautions for the times in
which we live.
I. First of all, let me show that one true Cliurch out of which
no man can be saved.
There is a Church outside of which there is no salvation,
a Church to which a man must belong, or be lost eternally. I
lay this down without hesitation or reserve. I say it as strongly
and as confidently as the strongest advocate of the Church of
Rome. But what is this Church? Where is this Church?
What are the marks by which this Church may be known?
This is the grand question.
The one true Church is well described in the Communion
Service of the Church of England, as " the mystical body of
Christ, which is the blessed company of all faithful people." It
is composed of all believers in the Lord Jesus. It is made up
* " The adversaries of the truth clef end. many a false error under the name
of the holy Church.
"Beware of deceit, when thou henrest the name of the Church. The
verity is then assaulted. They call the Church of the devil the holy Church
many times." Bishop Hooper. 1547. Parker Edit., pp. &&gt;, 84.
214 KNOTS UNTIED.
of all God s elect, of all converted men and women, of all
true Christians. In whatsoever we can discern the election of
God the Father, the sprinkling of the blood of God the Son,
the sanctifying work of God the Spirit, in that person we see a
member of Christ s true Church.*
It is a Church of which all the members have the same
marks. They are all born again of the Spirit. They all possess
"repentance towards God, faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ,"
and holiness of life and conversation. They all hate sin, and
they all love Christ. They worship differently, and after
various fashions. Some worship with a form of prayer, and
some with none. Some worship kneeling, and some standing.
But they all worship with one heart. They are all led by one
Spirit. They all build upon one foundation. They all draw
* " The Church is the body of Christ. It is the whole number and society
of the faithful, whom God through Christ hath before the beginning of time
appointed to everlasting life." Dean NoivelVs Catechism, sanctioned by
Convocation. 1572.
"That Church which is Christ s body, and of which Christ is the head,
standeth only of living stones, and true Christians, not only outwardly in
name and title, but inwardly in heart and in truth." Bishop Ridley. 1556.
Parker Edit., p. 126.
"Unto this Church pertain so many as from the beginning of the world
until this time have unfeignedly believed in Christ, or shall believe unto the
very end of the world. Against this Church the gates of hell shall not
prevail." Thomas Becon, chaplain to Archbishop Cranmer, 1550. Parker
Edit., vol. i., p. 294.
" The Holy Catholic Church is nothing else but a company of saints. To
this Church pertain all they that since the beginning of the world have been
saved, and that shall be saved unto the end thereof." Bishop Coverdale.
1550. Parker Edit., p. 461.
"The Catholic Church which is called the body of Christ, consists of such
as are truly sanctified and iinited to Christ by an internal alliance, so that no
wicked person, or unbeliever, is a member of this body, solely by the external
profession of faith and participation of the sacraments." Bishop Davcnant
on Coloss., vol. i., p. 18. 1627. ">i :
" They who are indeed holy and obedient to Christ s laws of faith and
manners, these are truly and perfectly the Church. These are the Church
of God in the eyes and heart of God. For the Church of God is the body of
Christ. But the mere profession of Christianity makes no man a member of
Christ, nothing but a new creature, nothing but a faith working by love,
and keeping the commandments of God." Bishop Jeremy Taylor s Dissuasive
from Popery, part ii., book i., sec. 1. 1660.
" That Church which is Christ s mystical body consisteth of none but only
true Israelites, true sons of Abraham, true servants and saints of God."
Hooker, Eccles. Polity, book in., sec. 1. 1600.
THE CHURCH. 215
their religion from one single book. They are all joined to one
great centre, that is Jesus Christ. They all, even now, can say
with one heart, " Hallelujah ! " and they all can respond with
one heart and voice, "Amen and amen."
It is a Church which is dependent upon no ministers upon
earth, however much it values those who preach the Gospel to
its members. The life of its members does not hang on Church-
membership and baptism and the Lord s Supper, although they
highly value these things, when they are to be had. But it
has only one Great Head, one Shepherd, one chief Bishop,
and that is Jesus Christ. He alone, by His Spirit, admits the
members of this Church, though ministers may show the door.
Till He opens the door, no man on earth can open it, neither
bishops, nor presbyters, nor convocations, nor synods. Once
let a man repent and believe the Gospel, and that moment he
becomes a member of this Church. Like the penitent thief, he
may have no opportunity of being baptized. But he has that
which is far better than any water-baptism, the baptism of
the Spirit. He may not be able to receive the bread and wine
in the Lord s Supper, but he eats Christ s body and drinks
Christ s blood by faith every day he lives, and no minister
on earth can prevent him. He may be excommunicated by
ordained men, and cut off from the outward ordinances of the
professing Church, but all the ordained men in the world
cannot shut him out of the true Church.*
It is a Church whose existence does not depend on forms,
ceremonies, cathedrals, churches, chapels, pulpits, fonts, vest
ments, organs, endowments, money, kings, governments, magis
trates, or any favour whatsoever from the hand of man. It
has often lived on and continued when all these things have
been taken from it. It has often been driven into the wilder
ness, or into dens and caves of the earth, by those who ought
to have been its friends. But its existence depends on nothing
but the presence of Christ and His Spirit, and so long as they
are with it the Church cannot die.
* " A man may be a true and visible member of the Holy Catholic Clmrch,
and yet be no actual member of any visible Church."
"Many there be, or maybe in most ages, which are no members of the
visible Church, and yet better members of the true Church than the members
of the Church visible for the present are." Jackson on the Church. 1070,
216 KNOTS UNTIED.
This is the Church to which the titles of present honour and
privilege, .and the promises of future glory especially belong.*
This is the body of Christ. This is the bride. This is the
Lamb s wife. This is the flock of Christ. This is the house
hold of faith and family of God. This is God s building, God s
foundation, and the temple of the Holy Ghost. This is the
Church of the first-born, whose names are written in heaven.
This is the royal priesthood, the chosen generation, the peculiar
people, the purchased possession, the habitation of God, the
light of the world, the salt and the wheat of the earth. This
is the " holy Catholic Church " of the Apostles Creed. This is
the " One Catholic and Apostolic Church " of the Nicene Creed.
This is that Church to which the Lord Jesus promises "the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it," and to which He says,
" I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."
(Matt. xvi. 18 ; xxviii. 20.)
* " Whatsover we read in Scripture concerning the endless love and saving
mercy which God showeth towards His Church, the only proper subject
thereof is this Church, which we properly term the mystical body of Christ."
Hooker, Ecdes. Pol., book iii., sec. 1. 1600.
" If any will agree to call the universality of professors by the title of the
Church, they may if they will. Any word by consent may signify anything.
But if by a Church we mean that society which is really joined to Christ,
which hath received the Holy Ghost, which is heir of the promises and of the
good things of God, which is the body of which Christ is the head, then the
invisible part of the visible Church, that is the true servants of Christ, only
are the Church." Bishop Jeremy Taylor s Dissuasive from Popery. 1660.
" The Catholic Church in the prime sense consists only of such men as are
actual and indissoluble members of Christ s mystical body, or of such as have
the Catholic faith not only sown in their brains and understandings, but
thoroughly rooted in their hearts. All the glorious prerogatives, titles, or
promises, annexed to the Church in Scripture, are in the first place and prin
cipally meant of Christ s live and mystical body." Jackson on the Church.
1670.
"What is meant in the Creed by the Catholic Church? That whole
universal company of the elect, that ever were, are, or shall be gathered
together in one body, knit together in one faith, under one head, Jesus
Christ." Archbishop Usher. 1650.
"In the Creed we do believe in the Church, but not in this or that Church,
but the Catholic Church, which is no particular assembly of men, much less
the Roman synagogue, tied to any one place, but the body of the elect which
hath existed from the beginning of the world, and shall exist unto the end."
Whittaker s Disputations. 1610. Parker Edit. Vol. i., p. 199.
"The Holy Catholic Church, a number that serve God here, and enjoy
Him in eternity. Universal, diffused through the various ages, places, and
nations of the world. Holy, washed in the blood of Christ, and sanctified by
His Spirit." Archbishop Leiyhton on the Creed. 1680.
THE CHURCH. 217
This is the only Church which possesses true unity. Its
members are entirely agreed on all the weightier matters of
religion, for they are all taught by one Spirit. About God, and
Christ, and the Spirit, and sin, and their own hearts, and faith,
and repentance, and the necessity of holiness, and the value of
the Bible, and the importance of prayer, and the resurrection,
and judgment to come, about all these points they see eye to
eye. Take three or four of them, strangers to one another,
from the remotest corners of the earth. Examine them separ
ately on these points. You will find them all of one mind.*
This is the only Church which possesses true sanctity. Its
members are all holy. They are not merely holy by profession,
holy in name, and holy in the judgment of charity. They are
all holy in act, and deed, and reality, and life, and truth.
They are all more or less conformed to the image of Jesus
Christ. They are all more or less like their great Head. Ko
unholy man belongs to this Church, f
This is the only Church which is truly Catholic. It is not
the Church of any one nation or people. Its members are to
be found in every part of the world where the Gospel is
received and believed. It is not confined within the limits of
any one country, nor pent up within the pale of any particular
forms or outward government. In it there is no difference
between Jew and Greek, black man and white, Episcopalian
and Presbyterian ; but faith in Christ is all Its members
will be gathered from north, and south, and east, and west, in
the last day; and will be of every name, and denomination,
and kindred, and people, and tongue, but all one in Christ
Jesus.
This is the only Church which is truly Apostolic. It is built
on the foundation laid by the Apostles, and holds the doctrines
* "To the mystical and invisible Church belongs peculiarly that unity
which is often attributed unto the Church." " This is the society of those
for whom Christ did pray that they might be one." Barrow on the Unitu of
the Church. 1670.
t " To this Holy Catholic Church, which forms the mystical body of Christ,
we deny that the ungodly, hypocrites, or any belong, who are not partakers
of spiritual life, and are void of inward faith, charity, and holiness. The
most learned Augustine has denied it as well, giving it as his opinion that all
such should be ranked among the members of Antichrist." Bishop Dave-
nanfs Determinations. 1634. Vol. ii., p. 475.
218 KNOTS UNTIED.
which they preached. The two grand objects at which its
members aim, are apostolic faith and apostolic practice; and
they consider the man who talks of following the Apostles
without possessing these two things, to be no better than sound
ing brass and a tinkling cymbal.*
This is the only Church which is certain to endure unto the
end. Nothing can altogether overthrow and destroy it. Its
members may be persecuted, oppressed, imprisoned, beaten,
beheaded, burned. But the true Church is never altogether
extinguished. It rises again from its afflictions. It lives on
through fire and water. When crushed in one land, it springs
up in another. The Pharaohs, the Herods, the Neros, the
Julians, the Diocletians, the bloody Marys, the Charles the
Ninths have laboured in vain to put down this Church. They
slay their thousands, and then pass away and go to their own
place. The true Church out-lives them all, and sees them
buried each in his turn. It is an anvil that has broken many
a hammer in this world, and will break many a hammer still.
It is a bush which is often burning, and yet is not consumed.f
This is the only Church of which no one member can perish.
Once enrolled in the lists of this Church, sinners are safe for
eternity. They are never cast away. The election of God the
Father, the continual intercession of God the Son, the daily
renewing and sanctifying power of God the Holy Ghost, surround
and fence them in like a garden enclosed. Not one bone of
Christ s mystical body shall ever be broken. Not one lamb of
Christ s flock shall ever be plucked out of His hand. J
* "They are the successors of the Apostles that succeed in virtue, holiness,
truth, and so forth ; not they that sit upon the same stool." Bishop Baking-
ton. 1615. Folio edition, p. 307.
t " The Holy Catholic Church is built upon a rock, so that not even the
gates of hell can prevail against it. This is the privilege of the elect and
believers. All the ungodly and hypocrites are built upon the sand, are over
come by Satan, and are sunk at last into hell. How then can they form a
part of the mystical body of Christ, which admits not condemned members?"
Bishop Davcnant s Determinations. 1634. Vol. ii., p. 478.
" The preservation of the Church is a continuing miracle. It resembles
Daniel s safety among the hungry lions, but prolonged from one age to
another. The ship wherein Christ is may be weather-beaten, but shall not
perish." Archbishop Leighton on the Creed. 1680.
J " Of all such as are effectually called, or authentically admitted into
this society, none will revolt again to the Synagogue of Satan or to the
world." Jackson on the Church. 1670.
THE CHURCH. 219
This is the Church which does the work of Christ upon earth
ts members arc a little flock, and few in number compared
with the children of the world: -one or two here, and two or
three there a few in this parish, and a few in that. But
these are they who shake the universe. These are they who
change the fortunes of kingdoms by their prayers. These
are they who are the active workers for spreading the knowledge
of pure religion and undefiled. These are the life-blood ofa
country, the shield, the defence, the stay and the support of
any nation to which they belong.
This is the Church which shall be truly glorious at the end
h S fv n? y v 6n aU Garthly Slry is passed away, then
shall this Church be presented without spot, before God the
ather s throne. Thrones, principalities, and powers upon
earth shall come to nothing. Dignities and offices and endow
ments shall all pass away. But the Church of the first-born
shall shine as the stars at the last, and be presented with iov
before the leather s throne, in the day of Christ s appearing.
When the Lord s jewels are made up, and the manifestation of
the sons of God takes place, Episcopacy, and Presbyterianism,
and Congregationalism will not be mentioned. One Church
only will be named, and that is the Church of the elect
J 5 1S ^ he Church for which a tme minister of the Lord Jan*
f fill ft a P** hi *fly lab - What is it to a true minister
to fill the building in which he preaches ? What is it to him to
see communicants come up more and more to his table ? What
is it to him to see his party grow ? It is all nothing, unless he
can see men and women born again, "-unless he can see souls
converted and brought to Christ, unless he can see here one
and there another, "coming out from the world," takino- up
the cross and following Christ," and thus increasing the mini
bers of the one true Church.
This is the Church to which a man must belong, if he would
be saved Till we belong to this, we are nothing better than
lost souls. We may have the form, the husk, the skin, and the
shell of religion, but we have not got the substance and the
llTO V 1Q I TTT/-V n-i^r^-TT 1^ it
-,-f -V i - - >i/ ^ut L jstance ana me
He. Yes! we may have countless outward privileges we
may enjoy great light and knowledge and opportunities --but
if we do not belong to the body of Christ, our light, and know
ledge, and privileges, and opportunities, will not save our souls
220 KNOTS UNTIED.
Alas, for the ignorance that prevails on this point ! Men fancy
if they join this Church or that Church, and become com
municants, and go through certain forms, that all must be right
with their souls. It is an utter delusion : it is a gross mistake.
All were not Israel who were called Israel, and all are not
members of Christ s body who profess themselves Christians.
Never let us forget that we may be staunch Episcopalians, or
Presbyterians, or Independents, or Baptists, or Wesley an s, or
Plymouth Brethren, and yet not belong to the true Church.
And if we do not, it will be better at last if we had never been
born. *
II. Let me pass on now to the second point I proposed to
speak of. Let me explain the position and value of all visible
professing Churches.
No careful reader of the Bible can fail to observe that many
separate Churches are mentioned in the New Testament. At
Corinth, at Ephesus, at Thessalonica, at Antioch, at Smyrna,
at Sardis, at Laodicea, and several other places ; at each we find
a distinct body of professing Christians, a body of people
baptized in Christ s name, and professing the faith of Christ s
Gospel. And these bodies of people we find spoken of as " the
Churches " of the places which are named. Thus St. Paul says
to the Corinthians, " But we have no such custom, neither the
Churches of Christ." (1 Cor. xi. 16.) So also we read of the
Churches of Judea, the Churches of Syria, the Churches of
Galatia, the Churches of Asia, the Churches of Macedonia. In
each case the expression means the bodies of baptized Christians
in the countries mentioned.
Now, we have but little information given us in the New
Testament about these Churches ; but that little is very clear
and plain, so far as it goes.
We know, for one thing, that these Churches were all mixed
bodies. They consisted not only of converted persons, but of
* "We insist that Christians do certainly become members of particular
Churches, such as the Roman, Anglican, or Gallican, by outward profession;
yet do not become true members of the Holy Catholic Church, which we
believe, unless they are sanctified by the inward gift of grace, and are united
to Christ the Head, by the bond of the spirit." Bishop Davenant s Deter
minations. 1034. Vol. ii., p. 474.
THE CHURCH. 221
many unconverted persons also. They contained not only
believers, but members who fell into gross errors and mistakes,
both of faith and practice. This is clear from the account we
have of the Churches at Corinth, at Ephesus, and at Sardis.
Of Sardis the Lord Jesus Himself says, that there were " a few,"
a few only, in it, who had not "defiled their garments."
(Rev. iii. 4.)
We know, moreover, that even in the Apostles times
Churches received plain warnings, that they might perish and
pass away altogether. To the Church at Rome the threat was
held out that it should be " cut off; " to the Church at Ephesus,
that its " candlestick should be taken away;" to the Church
at Laodicea, that it should be utterly rejected. (Rom. xi. 22 ;
Rev. ii. 5, and iii. 16.)
We know, moreover, that in all these Churches there was
public worship, preaching, reading of the Scriptures, prayer,
praise, discipline, order, government, the ministry, and the
sacraments. What kind of governments some Churches had it
is impossible to say positively. We read of officers who were
called angels, of bishops, of deacons, of elders, of pastors, of
teachers, of evangelists, of prophets, of helps, of governments.
(1 Cor. xii. 28; Ephes. iv. 11 ; Phil. i. 1 ; 1 Tim. iii. ; Rev. i.
20.) All these are mentioned. But the particulars about most
of these officers are kept from us by the Spirit of God. As to
the standard of doctrine and practice in the Churches, we have
the fullest and most distinct information. On these points the
language of the New Testament is clear and unmistakable. But
as to government and outward ceremonies, the information
given to us is strikingly small. The contrast between the
Church of the Old Testament and the Churches of the New,
in this respect, is very great. In the one, we find little, com
paratively, about doctrine, but much about forms and ordinances.
In the other, we have much about doctrine, and little about
forms. In the Old Testament Church the minutest directions
were given for the performance of every part of the ceremonies
of religion. In the New Testament Churches we find the cere
monies expressly abolished, as no longer needed after Christ s
death, and nothing hardly, except a few general principles,
supplying their place. The New Testament Churches have got
no book of Leviticus. Their two chief principles seem to be,
222 KNOTS UNTIED.
" Let all things be done decently and in order; Let all things
be done unto edification." (1 Cor. xiv. 26, 40.) But as to the
application of these general principles, it seems to have been
left to each particular Church to decide.*
We know, finally, that the work begun by the missionary
preaching of the Apostles was carried on through the instru
mentality of the professing Churches. It was through the
means of grace used in their public assemblies that God added
to the number of His people, converted sinners, and built up
saints. Mixed and imperfect as these Churches plainly were,
within their pale were to be found nearly all the existing
believers and members of the body of Christ. Everything in
the New Testament leads us to suppose that there could have
been few believers, if any, who were not members of some one
or other of the professing Churches scattered up and down the
world.
Such is about the whole of the information the New Testa
ment gives us concerning visible Churches in the apostolic times.
How shall we use this information ? What shall we say of all
the visible Churches in our own time 1 We live in days
when there are many Churches ; the Church of England, the
Church of Scotland, the Church of Ireland, the Church of Rome,
the Greek Church, the Syrian Church, the Armenian Church,
the Lutheran Church, the Genevan Church, and many others.
We have Episcopalian Churches. We have Presbyterian
Churches. We have Independent Churches. In what manner
shall we speak of them? Let me put down a few general
principles.")"
* "I find no one certain and perfect kind of government prescribed or
commanded in the Scriptures to the Church of Christ.
"I do deny that the Scriptures do express particularly everything that is
to be done in the Church, or that it doth put down any one sort of form and
kind of government of the Church to be perpetual for all times, persons, and
places, without alteration." Archbishop Whitgift. 1574. Folio edition,
p. 84.
" I for my part do confess that, in revolving the Scriptures, I could never
find but that God hath left the like liberty to the Church government as He
hath done to the Civil government ; to be varied according to time, place,
and accidents. So likewise in Church matters, the substance of doctrine is
immutable, and so are the general rules of government. But for rites and
ceremonies, and the particular hierarchies, policies, and discipline of the
Churches, they be left at large." Lord Bacon s Works, vol. vii., p. 68.
f For convenience sake these Churches collectively are often spoken of as
THE CHURCH. 223
(a) For one thing, no visible Church on earth has a right to
say, " We are the true Church, and except men belong to our
communion they cannot be saved." No Church whatever
lias a right to say that ; whether it be the Church of
Konie, the Church of Scotland, or the Church of England ;
whether it be an Episcopalian Church, a Presbyterian, or
an Independent. Where is the text in the Bible that ties
admission into the kingdom of God to the membership of any
one particular visible Church upon earth? I say confidently,
not one.
(b) Furthermore, no visible Church has a right to say, "We alone
have the true form of worship, the true Church government, the
true way of administering the sacraments, and the true manner
of offering up united prayer; and all others are completely
wrong." No Church, I repeat, has a right to say anything of
the kind. Where can such assertions be proved by Scripture ?
What one plain, positive word of revelation can men bring-
forward in proof of any such affirmations 1 I say confidently,
not one. There is not a text in the Bible which expressly
commands Churches to have one special form of government,
and expressly forbids any other. If there is, let men
point it out. There is not a text which expressly confines
Christians to the use of a Liturgy, or expressly enjoins them
only to have extempore prayer. If there is, let it be shown.
And yet for hundreds of years Episcopalians and Presbyterians
and Independents have contended with each other, as if these
things had been settled as minutely as the Levitical ceremonies,
and as if everybody who did not see with their eyes was almost
guilty of a deadly sin ! It seems wonderful, that in a matter
like this, men should not be satisfied with the full persuasion
that they themselves are right, but must also go on to condemn
everybody who disagrees with them as utterly wrong ! And yet
this groundless theory, that God has laid down one particular
form of Church government and ceremonies, has often
divided men who ought to have known better. It has caused
even good men to speak and write very unadvisedly. It has
" The Church," in contradistinction to the Heathen and Mahometan part of
mankind. Only let us remember, that this is a very mixed Church, and one
to which no special promises belong.
224 KNOTS UNTIED.
been made a fountain of incessant strife, intolerance, and
bigotry by men of all parties, even among Protestants, from
the times of Cartwright, Travers, and Laud, down to the
present day.
(c) Furthermore, no visible Church on earth has a right to say,
" We shall never fall away. We shall last for ever." There is
no promise in the Bible to guarantee the continuance of any
professing Church upon earth. Many have fallen completely,
and perished already. Where are the Churches of Africa, in
which Augustine and Cyprian used once to preach ? Where are
most of the Churches of Asia Minor, which we read of in the
Xew Testament? They are gone. They have passed away, and
left hardly a wreck behind. Other existing Churches are so
corrupt that it is a plain duty to leave them, lest we become
partakers of their sins, and share in their plagues.
(d) Furthermore, no visible. Church is in a sound and healthy
state, which has not the marks we see in all the New Testament
Churches. A Church in which the Bible is not the standard of
faith and practice, a Church in which repentance, faith, and
holiness, are not prominently put forward as essential to salva
tion, a Church in which forms, and ceremonies, and ordinances
not commanded in the Bible, are the chief things urged upon
the attention of the members, such a Church is in a very
diseased and unsatisfactory condition. It may not formally
deny any article of the Christian faith. It may have been
founded originally by the Apostles. It may boast that it is
Catholic. But if the Apostles were to rise from the dead, and
visit such a Church, I believe they would command it to repent,
and have no communion with it till it did. Would St. Peter
be seen worshipping at the Cathedral of St. George s, South vvark?
I believe firmly that he would not.
(e) Furthermore, no mere membership of any visible Church
will avail a man anything " in the hour of death and in the day of
judgment." No communion with a visible Church will stand in
the place of direct personal communion with the Lord Jesus.
Xo attendance whatever on its ordinances is a substitute for
personal faith and conversion. It will be no consolation when
we lay our heads upon a dying pillow, if we can say no more
than this, that we have belonged to a pure Church. It will be
no answer in the last great day, when the secrets of all hearts
THE CHURCH. 225
are revealed, if we can only say that we worshipped in the
Church in which we were baptized, and used its forms.
(/) After all, what is the great use and purpose for which God
has raised up and maintained visible Churches upon earth 1 They
are useful as witnesses, keepers, and librarians of Holy Scripture.
They are useful as maintainers of a regular succession of ministers
to preach the Gospel. They are useful as preservers of order
among professing Christians. But their great and principal use
is to train up, to rear, to nurse, to keep together, members of
that one true Church which is the body of Jesus Christ. They
are intended to "edify the body of Christ." (Ephes. iv. 12.)
Which is the best visible Church upon earth 1 That is the
best, which adds most members to the one true Church, which
most promotes "repentance towards God, faith towards the
Lord Jesus Christ," and good works among its members. These
are the true tests and tokens of a really good and flourishing
Church. Give me that Church which has evidence of this
kind to show.
Which is the worst visible Church on earth ? That is the
worst which has the fewest members of the one true Church
to show in its ranks. Such a Church may possess excellent
forms, pure orders, venerable customs, ancient institutions.
But if it cannot point to faith, repentance, and holiness of heart
and life among its members, it is a poor Church indeed. "By
their fruits " the Churches upon earth must be judged, as well
as individual Christians.*
We shall do well to remember these things. On the one
side, a visible professing Church is a true thing, and a thing
according to the mind of God. It is not, as some would tell us
in these days, a mere human device, a thing which God does
not speak of in the Word. It is amazing, to my mind, that
any one can read the New Testament, and then say that visible
Churches are not authorized in the Bible. On the other side,
something more is needed than merely belonging to this Church,
* " That which makes every visible Church to be more or less the true
Church of God, is the greater or less efficacy or conformity of its public
doctrines and discipline for adapting or fashioning the visible members of it,
that they may become live members of the Holy Catholic Church, or living
stones of the new Jerusalem. Every true visible Church is as an inferior
free school or nursery for training up scholars, that they may be fit to be
admitted into the celestial academy." Jackson on the Church. 1670.
226 KNOTS UNTIED.
or that Church, to take a man to heaven. Are we bom again ?
Have we repented of our sins ? Have we laid hold of Christ
by faith ? Are we holy in life and conversation 1 These are
the grand points that a man must seek to ascertain. Without
these things, the highest, the strictest, and the most regular
member of a visible Church, will be a lost Churchman in the
last great day.
Let us look upon visible Churches, with their outward forms
and ordinances, as being to the one true Church what the husk
is to the kernel of the nut. Both grow together, both husk
and kernel. Yet one is far more precious than the other.
Just so the true Church is far more precious than the outward
and visible. The husk is useful to the kernel. It preserves it
from many injuries, and enables it to grow. Just so the out
ward Church is useful to the body of Christ ; it is within the
pale of its ordinances that believers are generally born again,
and grow up in faith, hope, and charity. The husk is utterly
worthless without the kernel. Just so the outward Church is
utterly worthless except it guards and covers over the inward
and the true. The husk will die, but the kernel has a prin
ciple of life in it. Just so the forms and ordinances of the
outward Church will all pass away, but that which lives and
lasts for ever is the true Church within. To expect the kernel
without the husk, is expecting that which is contrary to the
common order of the laws of nature. To expect to find the
true Church, and members of the true Church, without having
an orderly and well-governed and visible Church, is expecting
that which God, in the ordinary course of things, does not
give.*
Let us seek a right understanding upon these points. To
give to the visible Church the names, attributes, promises, and
privileges which belong to the one true Church, the body of
Christ \ to confound the two things, the visible and the inward
Church, the Church professing and the Church of the elect,
is an immense delusion. It is a trap into which only too many
fall. It is a great rock, on which many, in these days, un
happily make shipwreck.
* " The invisible Church is ordinarily and regularly part of the visible, but
yet that only part that is the true one. " Bishop Jeremy Taylor. 1670.
THE CHURCH. 227
Once confound the body of Christ with the outward pro
fessing Church, and there is no amount of error into which you
may not at last fall. Nearly all perverts to Romanism begin
with getting wrong here.*
Once get hold of the idea that Church government is of more
importance than sound doctrine, and that a Church with
bishops teaching falsehood is better than a Church without
bishops teaching truth, and none can say what we may come to
in religion.
III. Let me now pass on to the third and last thing I pro
posed to do. Let me draw from the subject some practical
counsels and cautions for the times in which we live.
I feel deeply that I should neglect a duty if I did not do
this. The errors and mistakes connected with the subject of
the Church are so many and so serious, that they need to be
plainly denounced, and men need to be plainly put upon their
guard against them. I have laid down some general principles
about the one true Church, and about the visible professing
Churches. Now let me go on to make some particular appli
cation of these general principles to the times in which we
live.
(1) First of all, let no reader suppose, because I have said that no
membership of a visible Church can be the saving of a sold, that
it does not signify to what visible CJiurch a man belongs. It does
signify to what visible Church a man belongs ; and it signifies
very much. There are Churches in which the Bible is practic
ally lost sight of altogether. There are Churches in which
Jesus Christ s Gospel is buried, and lies completely hidden.
There are Churches in which a man may hear God s service
performed in an unknown tongue, and never hear of " repent
ance towards God, faith towards Christ," and the work of the
Holy Ghost, from one end of the year to the other. Such are
the Armenian and Greek Churches, and such, above all others
in corruption, is the Church of Rome. To belong to such
Churches brings tremendous peril upon anybody s soul. They
* " For lack of diligent observing the difference first between the Church
of God, mystical and visible, then between the visible sound and the visible
corrupted, the oversights are neither few nor light that have been com
mitted. "Hooker, Eccles. Pol, book iii. 1600.
228 KNOTS UNTIED.
do not help men to the one true Church. They are far more
likely to keep men out, and put barriers in their way for ever.
A wise man should beware of ever being tempted to belong to
such Churches himself, or of ever thinking lightly of the con
duct of those who join such Churches, as if they had only com
mitted a little sin.*
(2) In the next place, let us not be moved by tlie argument of the
Roman Catholic, when he says, " There is only one true Church and
that one true CJiurch is the Church of Rome, and you must join us if
you mean to be saved" Let no reader be entrapped by such miser
able sophistry as this. A more preposterous and unwarrantable
assertion was never made, if the question is simply tried by the
Bible. It is a wonderful proof of the fallen condition of man s
understanding that so many people are taken in by it. Tell the
man who uses this argument, that there is indeed only one true
Church, but it is not the Church of Kome, or the Church of
England, or the Church of any other nation upon earth. Defy
him boldly to show a single text which says that the Church
of Kome is that one true Church to which men must belong.
Tell him that to quote texts of Scripture which merely speak of
"the Church," is no proof on his side at all, and that such
texts might just as well refer to the Church of Jerusalem, or
to the Church of Antioch, as to Rome. Point out to him the
eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, which foretells
Romish arrogance, and Romish presumption, and the possi
bility of Rome itself being cut off. Tell him that the Church s
proud claim to be the one true Church is a mere baseless
assumption, a house built upon sand, which has not a tittle
of Scripture to rest upon. Alas, how awful it is to think that
many in this day of light and knowledge should be completely
* "If it be possible to be there, where the true Church is not, then is it at
Home." Church of England Homily for Whit-Sunday.
"We have forsaken a Church in which we could neither hear the pure
Word of God nor administer the sacraments, nor invoke the name of God as
we ought, and in which there was nothing to retain a prudent man who
thought seriously of his salvation." Bishop JeiveVs Apology.
" Such adherence to the visible or representative Church of Rome, as
Jesuits and others now challenge, doth induce a separation from the Holy
Catholic Church, and is more deadly to the soul than to be bedfellow to
one sick of the pestilence is to the body." Jackson on the Catholic Church.
1670.
THE CHURCH. 229
carried away by this miserable argument : "There must be one
true Church; that one true Church must be a visible, pro
fessing Church : the Church of Eome is that one true Church ;
therefore join it, or you will not be saved ! "
(3) In the next place, let us not be shaken by those persons
li-ho talk q/- " the voice of the Church," and the " Catholic Church,"
when we disagree with them, as if the very mention of these worth
ought to silence us. There are many in these days of theological
warfare, whose favourite weapon, when the Bible is appealed to,
is this : " The Church says it ; the Church has always so ruled
it ; the voice of the Church has always so pronounced it."
I warn my readers never to be put down by arguments of this
kind. Ask men what they mean when they talk in this vague
way about " the Church." If they mean the whole professing
Church throughout the world, cafi upon them to show when
and where the whole Church has met to decide the matter about
which they speak. Or ask them, if the Church had met, what
right its decision would have to be listened to, except it could
be shown to be founded upon the Word of God 1 Or, if they
mean by " the voice of the Church," the voice of the Church of
England, ask them to show you in the Thirty-nine Articles the
doctrine which they want you to receive, and are pressing upon
you. Point out to them that the Church of England says
in those Articles, that "nothing is to be required of men, as
necessary for salvation, except it can be read in, or proved by,
the Holy Scriptures." Point out to them that it says further
more, that although the Church has power to decree rites and
ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith, yet " it is
not lawful for the visible Church to ordain anything contrary to
God s Word written, or so to expound one place of Scripture as
to make it repugnant to another." Show them also what the
Church of England says when it speaks of the three creeds,
the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian
Creed. It does not say they are to be received and believed
because the Primitive Church put them forth, but because
" they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scrip
ture." (Arts, vi., xx., viii.)
Tell men, when they talk mysteriously to you about "hearing
the Church," that our Lord was not speaking of matters of faith
at all when He said, "Hear the Church." (Matt, xviii. 17.)
230 KNOTS UNTIED.
Tell them that your rule of faith and practice is the Bible only,
and that if they will show you their views in the Bible, you
will receive them, but not otherwise. Tell them that their
favourite arguments, "the voice of the Church," and the
" Catholic Church," are nothing but high-sounding phrases,
and mere meaningless terms. They are great swelling words,
which make a noise in the distance, but in reality have neither
substance nor power.
Alas, that it should be needful to say all this. But I fear
there are only too many to whom " the voice of the Church "
has been like the fabled Medusa s head. It seems to have
petrified their common sense.*
(4) In the next place, let me warn members of the Church of
England never to take up ground on behalf of their CJmrch
which cannot be defended from the Holy Scriptures. I love the
Church of which I am a minister, and I delight to take up high
ground on its behalf. But I do not call that ground really high
which is not also Scripturally safe. I think it foolish and
wrong to take up ground from which we are sure to be driven
when we come to argue closely with those who differ from us.
]X"ow there are many in this day who would have us tell all
Presbyterians and Independents that the only true Church is
always an Episcopal Church, that to this belong the promises
of Christ, and to no other kind of Church at all, that to separate
from an Episcopal Church is to leave the Catholic Church, to be
guilty of an act of schism, and fearfully to peril the soul. This
is the argument made use of by many. Let us beware of ever
taking up such ground. It cannot be maintained. It cannot
be shown to be tenable by plain, unmistakable texts of Scrip
ture.
When the Scripture says, " Except a man be born again, he
* The only case in which an appeal to the testimony of the Church seems
allowable is where it is made in order to establish an historical fact. For
instance, the Sixth Article of the Church of England says, that of the
" Authority of the Canonical Books of the New Testament there never was
any doubt in the Church," that is, in the whole body of professing Churches.
Only let it be remembered that receiving the testimony of the Church to a
fact does not for a moment imply that the Church has any authoritative
power to interpret doctrine infallibly. A man may be a very competent
witness to the fact that a book has been faithfully printed, and yet know little
or nothing about the meaning of its contents.
THE CHURCH. 231
cannot see the kingdom of God," when the Scripture says,
"Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish," when the
Scripture says, " Without holiness no man shall see the Lord,"
when the Scripture says, " He that believeth not on the Lord
Jesus Christ shall be damned ; "when the Scripture so speaks,
such doctrines cannot be proclaimed too plainly by us. But
never anywhere does Scripture say, from Matthew down to
Revelation, "Except a man belong to a Church governed by
bishops, he cannot be saved." There is not a text in Scripture
which says anything of the kind, from first to last. It is in
vain for us to argue as if Scripture had spoken in this way.
Once begin to require things in religion which are not required
of men in the Bible, and where are we to stop 1 *
Let no one misunderstand my meaning in saying this. I am
deeply convinced of the excellency of my own Church, I would
even say, if it were not a proud boast, its superiority over any
other Church upon earth. I see more for Episcopacy in the
Bible than I do for any other form of Church government. I
consider the historical fact that there were bishops in most of
the professing Churches at the beginning of Christianity, deserves
much weight. I believe it is far wiser to have a regular, settled
Liturgy, for the use of congregations, than to make a congrega
tion dependent upon its minister s frames and feelings for the
tone of its regular prayers. I think that endowments settled
and established by law, are a way of paying ministers far prefer
able to the voluntary system. I am satisfied that, well adminis
tered, the Church of England is more calculated to help souls to
* " You shall not find in all the Scripture this your essential point of
succession of bishops." John Bradford, Reformer and Martyr, Chaplain to
Bishop Ridley.
"I conceive that the power of ordination was restrained to bishops rather
by Apostolical practice, and the perpetual custom and Canons of the Church,
than by any absolute precept that either Christ or His Apostles gave concern
ing it. Nor can I yet meet with any convincing argument to set it upon a
more high and divine institution." Bishop Cosin. 1660.
" We have found neither any express commandment, nor any example,
which prescribes as universal and unchangeable one particular system for the
regulation of the Church and its ministers. Our argument consists only of
inferences. The conclusions in favour of Episcopacy from the New Testament
are intimations rather than proofs. We can produce no single text so clear
as to compel us to conclude that the Apostles deemed any one peculiar form
of government to be indispensable, and unalterable in the Church." Discourses
by the Rev. G. Benson, Master of the Temple.
232 KNOTS UNTIED.
heaven than any Church on earth. But I never can take up
the ground that some men do in this day, who say that the
Episcopal Church is the only true Church in Great Britain, and
that all outside that Church are guilty schismatics. I cannot
do it, because I am sure such ground as this never can be main
tained.
No doubt the opinions I am expressing on this point are
utterly opposed to those which many members of the Church of
England hold in the present day. Such men will say that I
am no sound Churchman, that I am ignorant of true Church
principles, and so forth. Such charges weigh very little with me.
I have found that those who talk loudest about the Church are
not always its most faithful friends, and often end with leaving
it altogether. I am not to be put down by such vague talk
as this. I should like men who tell me my views are not
" Church" views, to consider calmly what authority they have
for such an assertion. I appeal confidently to the authorized
Formularies of the Church of England, and I defy them to
meet me on that ground. What do these Formularies say of
the visible Church ? Hear the Nineteenth Article : " It is a
congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God
is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered." What
do they say of the ministry 1 Hear the Twenty-third Article :
" We ought to judge those lawfully called and sent, which be
chosen and called to this work by men who have public
authority given unto them, in the congregation, to call and
send ministers into the Lord s vineyard." What do they say
of ceremonies? Hear the Thirty-fourth Article: "They may
be changed, according to the diversities of countries, times, and
men s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God s
Word." What do they say of bishops, priests, and deacons 1
Hear the Preface to the Ordination Service: "It is evident
unto all men diligently reading the Holy Scriptures and ancient
authors, that from the Apostles times there have been these
orders of ministers in Christ s Church: bishops, priests, and
deacons." What do they say of ministers ordained according
to this service ? Hear the Thirty-sixth Article : " We decree
all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and
ordered."
Now to all this I heartily and cordially subscribe. The
THE CHURCH. 233
Church of England calmly asserts that its own ministers are
Scripturally ordained. But this is a very different thing from
saying that those who are not ordained in like manner are not
ordained at all. It calmly asserts that there always have been
bishops, priests, and deacons. But this is very different from
saying that where these orders are not there is no true Church.
It calmly asserts that a man must be lawfully called and
sent, in order to be a minister. But it nowhere says that none
but bishops have power to call.*
I believe the Church of England has been graciously guided
by God s mercy to adopt the language of true Scriptural
moderation. It is a moderation strikingly in contrast with
the bold, decided language which it uses when speaking in
the Doctrinal Articles about things essential to salvation. But
it is the only true ground which can ever be maintained. It is
the only ground on which we ought to stand. Let us be satis
fied that our own communion is Scriptural ; but let us never
pretend to unchurch all other communions beside our own.
For my own part, I abhor the idea of saying that men like
Carey, and Rhenius, and Williams, and Campbell, the mis
sionaries, were not real ministers of Jesus Christ. I loathe the
idea of handing over the communions to which such men
as Matthew Henry, and Doddridge, and Robert Hall, and
M Cheyne, and Chalmers belonged, to the uncovenanted
mercies of God, or saying that such men as these were not
really and truly ordained. Hard language is sometimes used
about them. People dare to talk of their not belonging to the
" Catholic Church," and of their being guilty of schism ! I can
not for a moment hold such views. I deeply lament that any
one should hold them. I would to God that we had many
* " It might have been expected that the defenders of the English
Hierarchy against the first Puritans should take the highest ground, and
challenge for the bishops the same unreserved submission, on the same
plea of exclusive Apostolical prerogative, which their adversaries feared
not to insist on for their elders and deacons. It is notorious, however, that
such was not in general the line preferred by Jewel, Whitgift, Bishop
Cooper, and others, to whom the management of that controversy was
intrusted during the early part of Elizabeth s reign. It is enough with
them to show that the government by archbishops and bishops is ancient
and allowable. They never venture to urge its exclusive claims, or to con
nect the succession with the validity of the sacraments. " Keble s Preface
to Hooker s Works, page 59.
234 KNOTS UNTIED.
Episcopalians like the men I have named. People may shut
them out from what they call the " Catholic Church," but I am
firmly persuaded they will not shut them out from the kingdom
of God. Surely those whom God hath not excluded, we should
take care not to exclude.
(5) In the next place, let us not set down men as no
Cliristians, because they do not agree with us in our manner
of worshipping God. In saying this, I would have it distinctly
understood that I am not speaking now of those who deny the
doctrine of the Trinity, and the sufficiency of Scripture to
make men wise unto salvation. I speak with especial
reference to the great body of Protestant Dissenters in
England, who hold the leading doctrines of the Gospel as set
forth at the time of the Reformation. I wish every member
of the Church of England to take broad, charitable, and Scrip
tural views of such persons, and to dismiss from his mind
the wretched, narrow-minded, bigoted prejudices which are so
unhappily common on the subject. Are they members of the
one true Church 1 Do they love the Lord Jesus Christ ?
Are they born again of God s Spirit? Are they penitent,
believing, holy people 1 If they are, they will get to heaven, I
firmly believe, as certainly as any Episcopalian on earth. Men
must tolerate them, if such a word may be used, men must
tolerate them, see them, and love them too, in heaven and the
kingdom of Christ. Surely if we expect to meet men of
different denominations from our own at the right hand of the
Lord Jesus, and to spend eternity in their company, we ought
not to look coldly on them upon earth. Surely it were far
better to begin something like union and co-operation with
them, and to cultivate a spirit of love and kind feeling towards
them while we can.
We may think our Dissenting brethren mistaken in many of
their views. We may believe they miss privileges and lose
advantages by being separated from our own Church. We
may be fully satisfied that Episcopacy is that form of govern
ment which is most agreeable to God s Word, and most in
harmony with what we read of in the history of the early
Church. We may feel persuaded that, taking human nature
as it is, it is far better, both for ministers and hearers, to have
a Liturgy, or settled form of prayer, and endowments guaranteed
THE CHURCH. 235
by the State, and an income for ministers not dependent on
pew-rents. We may feel persuaded, from observation of the
working of the voluntary system, and of the state of religion
among Dissenters generally, that the way of the Church of
England is the " more excellent way." But, after all, we must
not speak positively where the Bible does not speak positively.
Where, in all the compass of Scripture, can we point out
that text which says that Episcopacy and a Liturgy are things
absolutely needful to salvation ? I say, without fear of con
tradiction, nowhere at all.
We may regret the divisions among professing Christians in
our own country. We may feel that they weaken the holy
cause of Christ s Gospel. We may feel that people have often,
and do often, become Dissenters in England from very insuffi
cient reasons, and from motives by no means of the highest
order. But, after all, we must not forget by whom the greater
part of these divisions were primarily occasioned. Who obliged
the bulk of English Nonconformists to secede ? Who drove
them out of the fold of the Church of England 1 We of the
Church of England did it ourselves, by not properly providing
for their souls wants. Who, in reality, built the Dissenting
chapels, the Bethels, the Bethesdas, which so often offend the
eyes of many members of the Church of England in these
days ? We did ourselves ! We did it by gross neglect of the
people s souls, by the grossly unscriptural kind of preaching
which prevailed in the pulpits of our churches a century ago.
I believe the plain truth is, that the vast majority of Dissenters
in England did not leave the Church of England at first from
any abstract dislike to the principle of Episcopacy, or Liturgies,
or establishments. But they did dislike the moral essays and
inconsistent lives of the clergy ; and we must confess, with
shame, that they had only too much reason. Some may think
it strange that they did not see the beauties of our Prayer-book
and Episcopacy more clearly. But there was one thing they
saw far more clearly, and that was, that men wholly taken up
with field sports and the world, and never preaching Christ,
were not likely to teach them the way to be saved. Surely
when these things are so we have no right to speak harshly
about Dissenters. We have no right to wonder at secession
and separations. If sheep are not fed, who can wonder if they
236 KNOTS UNTIED.
stray ? If men found out that the Gospel was not preached by
the clergy of the Church of England, who can blame them if
they cared more for the Gospel than for the clergy, and went
to hear that Gospel wherever it could be heard 1
I know well that such opinions as these are very offensive to
many people. Many will think I am taking very low ground
in speaking as I have done about Dissenters. It is easy to
think so, and to fancy higher ground might be found. It is
not quite so easy to point out higher ground in Scripture, or to
justify the language frequently used in speaking of English
Dissenters. We must consider calmly the conduct of the
Church of England for the last two hundred years. We must
not forget that "he is the schismatic who causes the schism."
We must confess that the Church of England caused most of
the dissent that has taken place. However much we may regret
divisions, we must take the greater part of the blame to our
selves. Surely we ought to feel very tenderly towards our
separating brethren. We should never forget that many of
them hold the essence of Jesus Christ s Gospel. Justice and
fairness demand that we should treat them with kindness.
Whatever their mistakes may be, we of the Church of England
made the vast majority of them what they are at the present
day. Granting for a moment that they are wrong, we are not
the men who can, with any face, tell them so.
(6) Let me pass on now to another warning of a different
kind. Let me warn men not to fancy that divisions and schisms
are unimportant things. This also is a great delusion, and one
into which many fall, when they find there is no visible Church
which can be called the only true Church on earth. So weak
are our understandings, that if we do not fall over upon the one
side, we are disposed at once to fall over on the other. Let us
settle it down then in our minds that all divisions among Chris
tians are an immense evil. All divisions strengthen the hands
of infidels, and help the devil. The great maxim of Satan is,
"Divide and conquer." If he can set professing Christians by
the ears, and make them spend their strength in contending one
with another, our spiritual enemy has gained a great point. We
may be very sure that union is strength, and we may be no less
sure that discipline and uniformity are one great aid to union.
Order is a vast help to efficient working in Christ s cause as well
THE CHURCH. 23 7
as in other things, and " God is not the Author of confusion, but
of peace, as in all Churches of the saints." (1 Cor. xiv. 33.)
I would not be misunderstood in saying this. I fully admit
that separation is justifiable under some circumstances, beyond
a question. But it is absurd to say on that account that there
is no such thing as schism. I for one cannot say so. Men
ought to tolerate much, I say it confidently, men ought to
tolerate and put up with much, before they think of separating
and dividing, and leaving one Church for another. It is a step
which nothing but the deliberate teaching of false doctrine can
really justify. It is a step that should never be taken without
much consideration, much waiting, and much prayer. It is a
step that seems to me more than questionable, except it can be
clearly proved that the salvation of the soul is really at stake.
It is a step that in England is often taken far too lightly,
and with an evident want of thought as to its serious nature
and tendency. It is a common opinion of ignorant people, " It
is no matter where we go. It is no matter if we first join one
denomination and then join another; first worship with this
people and then with that. It is all the same where we go, if
we do but go to some place of worship." I say this common
opinion is an enormous evil, and ought to be denounced by all
true-hearted Christians. This Athenian kind of spirit, which
ever wants something new, which must have something
different in religion from what it had a little time ago, is a
spirit which I cannot praise. I believe it to be the mark of a
very diseased and unhealthy state of soul.
(7) In the next place, let me warn men not to be shaken by
those who say that all visible Churches are necessarily corrupt,
and that no man can belong to them without peril to his soul.
There never have been wanting men of this kind, men who
have forgotten that everything must be imperfect which is
carried on by human agency, and have spent their lives in a
vain search after a perfectly pure Church. Members of all
Churches must be prepared to meet such men, and especially
members of the Church of England. Fault-finding is the
easiest of all tasks. There never was a system upon earth, in
which man had anything to do, in which faults, and many faults,
too, might not soon be found. We must expect to find imper
fections in every visible Church upon earth. There always
238 KNOTS UNTIED.
were such in the New Testament Churches. There always
will be such now. There is only one Church without spot or
blemish. That is the one true Church, the body of Christ,
which Christ shall present to His Father in the last great day.
With regard to the Church of England, I will only remark
that men ought not to confound the bad working of a system
with the system itself. It may be quite true that many of its
ministers are not what they ought to be. It may be true that
some of its revenues are misapplied, and not properly spent.
This does not prove that the whole machinery of the Church
of England is rotten and corrupt, and the whole Church an
institution which ought to be cast down. Surely there is
many a good machine on earth at this moment which works
badly, simply because it is in hands that know not in what way
it ought to be worked.
I will only ask those who advise men to leave the Church
of England, what they have got better to show us ? Where is
the visible Church, where is the denomination of Christians
upon earth, which is perfect, without spot, and without blemish ?
None, I say confidently, none is to be found at all. Many
people of scrupulous consciences, I firmly believe, have found
this to their cost already. They left the Church of England
because of alleged imperfections. They thought they could
better their condition. What do they think now ? If the truth
were really told, I believe they would confess that in getting
rid of one kind of imperfection, they have met with another ;
and that in healing one sore, they have opened two more, far
worse than the first.
I advise the members of the Church of England not to leave
that Church lightly, and without good reason. Numerous forms
and ceremonies may be attended with evil consequences, but
there are also evils in the absence of them. Episcopacy may
have its disadvantages, but Presbyterianism and Congrega
tionalism have their disadvantages too. A Liturgy may possibly
cramp and confine some highly gifted ministers, but the want of
one sadly cramps and confines the public devotions of many
congregations. The Church of England Prayer-book may not
be perfect, and may be capable of many improvements. It
would be strange if this was not the case, when we remember
that its compilers were not inspired men. Still, after all, the
THE CHURCH. 239
Prayer-book s imperfections are few, compared to its excellencies.
The testimony of Kobert Hall, the famous Baptist, on this
subject is very striking. He says, " The evangelical purity of
its sentiments, the chastened fervour of its devotion, and the
majestic simplicity of its language, have combined to place it in
the very first rank of uninspired compositions."
(8) In the last place, let me advise men to try to understand
thoroughly the principles and constitution of the Church of
England. I say that advisedly. I say it to Churchmen and
Dissenters alike. The ignorance which prevails in our country
about the Church of England is great and deplorable. There
are thousands of members of that Church who never studied the
Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, who hardly know of their
existence, and who have often found fault with the very
doctrines that these Articles contain, and especially the Seven
teenth. Yet those Articles are the Church s Confession of
faith. They show what is the Church s view of doctrine. No
man, I say, is a true member of the Church of England who
does not thoroughly agree, in heart and in truth, with the
Thirty-nine Articles of his own Church.
So also there are thousands who have never read the Homilies
which the Church of England has provided. Many have never
heard of them, much less read them. Yet those Homilies are
declared by the Thirty-fifth Article to contain "godly and
wholesome doctrine," and they condemn thousands of so-called
Churchmen in this day.
So also there are hundreds of thousands who do not know
that the laity might prevent many improper ministers from
being ordained in the Established Church. No man can be
ordained a deacon in the Church of England, without notice
being read in the parish church to which he belongs, and with
out people being invited to tell the bishop if they know of any
just cause or impediment why he should not be ordained. But
the laity hardly ever raise any impediment against the ordination
of a young man. Surely when this is the case, if men utterly
unfit for the ministerial office get into the ministry of the Church
of England, the blame ought not to be borne only by the bishops
who ordain them, but to be shared by the laity who never
objected to their being ordained.
If we belong to the Church of England, let us wipe off this
240 KNOTS UNTIED.
reproach. Let us try to understand our own Church. Let us
study the Articles of Religion regularly, and make ourselves
master of them. Let us read the Homilies with care, and see in
them what the Reformers taught as true. Surely I may well come
round to the point with which I started. I may well say that
ignorance covers the whole subject as with a cloud. As to the
true Church, as to the visible professing Churches, as to the
real doctrines and constitution of the Established Church of
England, as to all these subjects, it is painful to see the
ignorance which prevails. Surely it ought not to be so.
And now, let me conclude this paper by saying a few words
of practical application to the conscience of every one who
reads it.
(a) First of all, let me advise every reader to ask himself,
solemnly and seriously, whether he belongs to that one true
Church of Christ which I began by describing.
Oh, that men would but see that salvation turns upon this
question ! Oh, that men would but see that it shall profit
nothing to say, " I have always gone to my Church," or " always
gone to Meeting," if they have not gone to Christ by faith, and
been born again, and been made one with Christ, and Christ
with them ! Oh, that men would understand that " the kingdom
of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and
joy in the Holy Ghost," that true religion does not turn on
Episcopacy, or Presbyterianism, on churches or chapels, on
liturgies or extempore prayer, but on justification and sancti-
fication, on saving faith, and new hearts ! * Oh, that men would
set their minds more upon these points, and leave off their
miserable squabbling about unprofitable controversies, and settle
down to this one great question, Have I come to Christ and
laid hold of Him, and been born again 1
(b) Last of all, if we can say that we belong to the one true
* " I cannot be so narrow in my principles of Church communion as many
are, that are so much for a Liturgy, or so much against it, so much for
ceremonies, or so much against them, that they can hold communion with no
Church that is not of their mind and way.
"I cannot be of their mind who think God will not accept him tlint
prayeth by the Common Prayer-book; and that such forms are a self-
invented worship which God rejecteth ; nor yet can I be of their mind that
say the like of extempore prayers." Baxter, in Orme s Life, page 385.
THE CHURCH. 241
Church, wo may rejoice. Our Church shall never fall. Our
Church shall never come to an end. The world and all its
greatness will pass away. The works of statesmen shall vanish
and come to nothing. The cathedrals and churches of man s
erecting shall all crumble into dust. But the one true Church
shall never perish. It is built upon a rock. It shall stand for
ever. It shall never fall. It shall wax brighter and brighter to
the end, and never be so bright as when the wicked shall be
separated from it, and it shall stand alone.
If we belong to the true Church, let us not waste our time in
controversies about outward things. Let us say to them all,
" Get ye behind me." Let us care for nothing so much as the
heart and marrow of Christianity. Let the grand point to which
we give our attention be the essence of true religion, the
foundations of the one true Church.
If we belong to the true Church, let us see that we love all
its members. Let our principle be, " Grace be with all that
love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity." (Ephes. vi. 24.)
Wherever we find a man that has grace and faith, let us hold
out our right hand to him. Let us not stop to ask him where
he was baptized, and what place of worship he attends ? Has
he been with Jesus 1 Is he born again ? Then let us say to
ourselves, "This is a brother. We are to be with him in
heaven by-and-by for ever. Let us love him upon earth. If
we are to be in the same home, let us love each other even now
upon the road."*
Finally, if we belong to the true Church, let us try to increase
the number of members of that Church. Let us not work
merely for a party, or labour only to get proselytes to our own
professing visible Church. Let our first care be to pluck brands
from the fire, to awaken sleeping souls to rouse those who
{ire in darkness and ignorance, and to make them acquainted
with Him who is "the light of the world," and "Whom to
know is life eternal." Never let us forget, that he who has
helped to turn one sinner from his sins and make him a temple
of the Holy Ghost, has done a far more glorious and lasting
work than if he had built York Minster, or St. Peter s at Rome.
* " Wherever my Lord has a true believer, I have a brother, Bishop
M Uvaine.
XL
THE PKIEST.
" We have a great High Priest." HEB. iv. 14.
HE that wishes to have any comfort in religion must have a
priest. A religion without a priest is a poor, unhappy, useless
thing. Now what is our religion 1 Have we a Priest ?
We are all such sinful, corrupt creatures, that we are unfit,
by ourselves, to have anything to do with God. God is so holy
a Being that He cannot bear that which is evil, and so high a
Being that His majesty makes us afraid. We are so fallen,
and defective, and guilty, that we naturally shrink from God,
and dare not speak to Him or look Him in the face. We need
an almighty Friend between us. We need a Mediator and
Advocate, able, willing, loving, commissioned, tried, proved,
and ready to help us. Have we found this out 1 Have we got
a Friend "\ Have we a Priest ?
The Christian religion provides the very thing that man s
soul and conscience require. It is the glory of God s Word
that it reveals to man the very Friend and Mediator that he
needs, the God-man Christ Jesus. It tells us of the very
Priest that meets our wants, even Jesus the Son of God. It
sets Him fully before us, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, as the
very Person that our longing hearts could desire. To open up
this great subject is the simple purpose of this paper.
I think it will clear our way, and throw broad light on the
matter in hand, if I state three plain questions, and try to
supply answers to them.
I. Where is Jesus Clirist now ?
II. What is Jesus Christ doing now ?
III. What is Jesus Christ going to do before the end of the
world ?
242
THE PKIEST. 243
When we have considered these three questions, we shall
perhaps be better able to answer the inquiry, Have we a Priest 1
r {I. In the first place, Where is Jesus Christ now ?
Let us take care that we understand the drift of this inquiry.
He about whom we are now asking is no common person. He
is God as well as man, and man as well as God. The words of
the Creed ought to be carefully remembered. Jesus Christ is
"God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the
worlds ; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the
world : perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and
human flesh subsisting." This, at any rate, is sound speech
that cannot be condemned. This is one of the foundation doc
trines of Christianity.
Where is Jesus Christ, as God ? That is not the question I
want to consider. As God He is everywhere. He fills heaven
and earth. There is no secret corner, there is no height above
or depth beneath where He is not. Wherever two or three
are met together on earth in His name, there is He in the midst
of them. " Show me where your God is," said an infidel to a
Christian. " Show me where your God is, and I will give you
a penny." "Show me where He is not," was the crushing
reply. I am not asking where Christ is as God.
But where is Christ, as Man ? That is the point. Where is
the body that was born of the Virgin Mary? Where is the
head that was crowned with thorns? Where are the hands
that were nailed to the cross, and the feet that walked by the
sea of Galilee 1 Where are the eyes that wept tears at the
grave of Lazarus ? Where is the side that was pierced with a
spear 1 Where is the " visage that was marred more than any
man, and the form more than the sons of men?" (Isa. lii. 14.)
Where, in a word, is the Man Christ Jesus? That is the
question.
I answer in the words of Scripture, that "Christ is passed
into the heavens," that He "has entered into the holy place,"
that " He has entered into heaven itself, now to appear in
the presence of God for us," and that "the heavens must
receive Him until the time of restitution of all things." (Heb.
iv. 14; ix. 12-24; Acts iii. 21.)
Let us mark this well. Christ, as Man, is in heaven, and not
244 KNOTS UNTIED.
in the grave. The Jews pretended to deny that He rose from
the dead. The infidels of modern times profess to believe that
the ashes of Jesus of Nazareth are still lying, like the remains
of any other man, in some Syrian town. What is this but
kicking against the pricks ? If ever there was a fact proved by
unanswerable evidence in this world, it is the fact that Jesus
rose from the dead ! That He died on a Friday, is certain.
That He was buried in a sepulchre hewn out of rock that night,
is certain. That the stone over the place was sealed, and a
guard of soldiers set around it, is certain. That the grave was
opened and the body gone on Sunday morning, is certain.
That the soldiers could give no account of it, is certain. That
the disciples themselves could hardly believe that their Master
had risen, is certain. That after seeing Him several times for
forty days, they at last were convinced, is certain. That, once
convinced, they never ceased to teach and hold, even to death,
that their Master had risen, is certain. That the unbelieving
Jews could neither shake the disciples out of their belief, nor
show Christ s dead body, nor give any satisfactory account of
what had become of it, is equally certain. All this is certain,
certain, certain ! The resurrection of Christ is a great, unan
swerable, undeniable fact. There are none so blind as those
that will not see.
Once more let us mark this point. Christ, as man, is in
heaven and not on the Communion Table, at the celebration of the
Lord s Supper. He is not present at that holy sacrament under
the form of bread and wine, as the Eoman Catholics, and some
Anglicans, say. The consecrated bread is not the body of
Christ, and the consecrated wine is not the blood of Christ.
Those sacred elements are the emblem of something absent, and
not of something present. The words of the Prayer-book state
this fact with unmistakable clearness : " The sacramental bread
and wine remain still in their very natural substance, and there
fore may not be adored (for that were idolatry to be abhorred
of all faithful Christians) ; and the natural body and blood of
our Saviour Christ are in heaven and not here, it being against
the truth of Christ s natural body to be at one time in more
places than one." Rubric at the end of the Communion Service.
Let these things sink down into our hearts. It is a point of
vast importance in this day, to see clearly where Christ s natural
THE PRIEST. 245
body and blood are. Right knowledge of this point may save
our souls from many ruinous errors.
Let us not be moved, for a moment, by the infidel, when he
sneers at miracles, and tries to persuade us that a religion based
011 miracles cannot be true. Tell him not to waste his time
in talking about the flood, or the sun standing still, or Balaam s
ass speaking, or the whale swallowing Jonah, or the ravens
feeding Elijah. Ask him to grapple, like a man, with the
greatest miracle of all, the resurrection of Christ from the
dead. Ask him to explain away the evidence of that miracle,
if he can. Remind him that, long before He died, Jesus Christ
staked the truth of His Messiahship on His resurrection, and
told the Jews not to believe Him if He did not rise from the
dead. Remind him that the Jews remembered this, and did all
they could to prevent any removal of our Lord s body, but in
vain. Tell him, finally, that when he has overthrown the
evidence of Christ s resurrection, it will be time to listen to his
argument against miracles in general, but not till then. The;
Man Christ Jesus is in heaven, and not on earth. The mere
fact that His natural body and blood are in heaven, is one
among many proofs of the truth of Christianity.
Let us not be moved by the Roman Catholic, any more than
by the infidel. Let us not listen to his favourite doctrine of
Christ s body and blood being " really present " in the elements
of bread and wine at the Lord s Supper. It is his common
argument that we should believe the doctrine, though we cannot
understand it; and that it is a pleasant, comfortable, and
reverent thought, that Christ s natural body and blood are in
the bread and wine in some mysterious way, though we know
not how. Let us beware of the argument. It is not only with
out foundation of Scripture, but full of dangerous heresy. Let us
stand fast on the old doctrine, that Christ s natural body and
blood " cannot be in more places than one at one time." Let
us maintain firmly that Christ s human nature is like our own,
sin only excepted, and cannot therefore be at once in heaven
and on the Communion Table. He that overthrows the doctrine
of Christ s real, true, and proper humanity, is no friend to the
Gospel, any more than he that denies His divinity. Tell me
that my Lord is not really Man, and you rob me of one half of
my soul s comfort. Tell me that His body can be on earth and
246 KNOTS UNTIED.
yet in heaven at the same time, and you tell me that He is not
Man. Let us resist this mischievous doctrine. Christ, as Man,
is in heaven, and in heaven alone.
So much for the first question which I proposed to answer.
Christ is in heaven, and not in the grave. Miserable indeed is
that religion which is content to honour Him as nothing more
than a moral teacher, who died like Plato or Socrates, and saw
corruption. Christ is in heaven, and not in the bread and wine
at the Lord s Supper. They do Him little real honour who in
fancied reverence try to persuade us that His body is a body
unlike that of man. Christ is in heaven, alive, and not dead.
For ever let us glory in His atoning death, and the life-blood
that He shed for us on the cross. But never let us forget that
He was "raised again for our justification." His life is as
important to us as His death. What saith the Scripture 1 " If,
when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death
of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by
His life." (Rom. v. 10.)
II. Let us next consider the second question which I propose
to examine : What is Jesus Christ doing now ?
That He is doing some great thing for man w r e need not
doubt for a moment. The Bible account of all His dealings
with man makes it impossible to arrive at any other conclusion.
In abounding mercy and grace He has always been taking
thought for our poor fallen race, and caring for our best interests.
He has been ever caring and working for our souls. And " His
mercy endure th for ever." He never changes.
Do we not read that Christ was " the Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world?" (Rev. xiii. 18.) Do we not hear
Him saying, " When the Lord gave to the sea His decree,
that the w r aters should not pass His commandment : when He
appointed the foundations of the earth : then I was by Him, as
one brought up with Him : and I was daily His delight, rejoicing
always before Him ; rejoicing in the habitable part of the earth ;
and my delights were with the sons of men." (Prov. viii.
29-31.) Are we not taught everywhere in Scripture that for
4000 years He was trusted for salvation by all saved souls,
though seen dimly and afar off through figures and sacrifices ?
Do we not learn that Christ, and Christ alone, was the only
THE PRIEST. 247
hope of Abel, and Enoch, and Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac,
and Jacob, and Moses, and Samuel, and David, though they
only saw " through a glass darkly " what we see face to face "?
Do we not know that in the fulness of time Christ came into
the world born of a woman, lived for us, suffered for us,
wrought righteousness for us, made satisfaction for us, died for
us, rose again for us, and purchased eternal redemption for
sinners at the cost of His own blood ? And can we doubt for a
moment that Christ is still doing great things for us? No,
indeed ! He said Himself in a certain place, " My Father
worketh hitherto, and I work." (John v. 17.) We may take
up the expression, * and say, "Christ has worked for us, and
Christ is working for us at this very day."
But what is that special thing that Christ is doing now 1
The question demands our best attention. This is no light and
speculative matter. It lies near the foundation of all comfort
able Christianity. Let us see.
Christ is now carrying on in heaven the work of a Priest,
which He began upon earth. He took our nature on Him in
the fulness of time, and became a man, that He might be
perfectly fitted to be the Priest that our case required. As a
Priest, He offered up His body and soul as a sacrifice for sin
upon the cross, and made a complete atonement for us with His
own blood. As a Priest, He ascended up on high, passed
within the veil, and entered into the presence of God. As a
Priest, He is now sitting on our behalf at the right hand of
God ; and what He began actively on earth He is carrying on
actively in heaven. This is what Christ is doing.
How and in what manner does Christ exercise His priestly
office ? This is a deep subject, and one about which it is easy to
make rash statements. The action of one of the Persons of the
blessed Trinity in heaven is a high thing, and passes man s
understanding. The place whereon we stand is holy ground.
The thing we are handling must be touched with reverence, like
the ark of God. Nevertheless, there are some things about
Christ s priestly office which even our weak eyes may boldly
look at ; and God has caused them to be written plainly for our
learning. " The secret things belong unto the Lord our God :
but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our
children." (Dent. xxix. 29.) Let us see.
248 KNOTS UNTIED.
(1) We need not doubt that Christ, as our Priest, is ever
presenting the merits of His sacrifice for us before God. Of
course He has no need to repeat that sacrifice. " By one offer
ing He has perfected for ever those that are sanctified." (Heb.
x. 14.) But in some ineffable manner He is ever in God s
presence as the Bearer of the sins of His people. The atonement
made on the cross for us is kept continually in remembrance by
the appearance of Him who made it. Twenty-seven times the
visions of heaven in Revelation describe Christ as the " Lamb."
Twice they call Him " the Lamb slain." Twice they speak of
His " blood." The Priest who offered the sacrifice is always in
heaven : the sacrifice is never forgotten in heaven : and so they
that trust in it are always acceptable in heaven. This is one
thing.
(2) Again : we need not doubt that Christ, as our Priest, is
ever interceding for us in heaven. It is written, " He is able to
save them to the uttermost who come unto God by Him, because
He ever liveth to make intercession for them." (Heb. vii. 25.)
It is asked by St. Paul, " Who is he that condemneth ? " and one
reason he gives why there is no condemnation for believers, is
the fact that " Christ maketh intercession for us." (Rom.
viii. 34.) Of the manner of that intercession we cannot of
course speak particularly : we may not intrude into things
unseen. But it may suffice us to remember how our Lord
prayed for His people in the seventeenth chapter of John, and
how He told Peter He prayed for him, that his faith might not
fail (Luke xxii. 32.) Our great High Priest knows how to
intercede. This is another thing.
(3) Again : we need not doubt that Christ, as our Priest,
pi esents the names of His people continually before His Father.
The Jewish high priest had the names of the tribes of Israel
engraved on the ornaments he wore upon his head and shoulders.
That this was the figure of something which Christ is ever doing
for Christians in heaven, is clear and plain as the day. He
" appears in the presence of God for us." (Heb. ix. 24.) He
acts as the Representative of His people. Through Him they
are known and thought for in heavenly places, long before they
go there. The interests and safety of the body are secured and
provided for, because the Head is already in heaven. This is
another tliinu:.
THE PEIEST. 249
(4) Again : we need not doubt that Christ, as our Priest,
presents the prayers and services of His people before God, and
obtains for them hearing, acceptance, and favour. Like the
Jewish Priest, He offers incense within the veil (Lev. xvi.
12, 13), and that incense is mingled with the prayers of His
saints. (Rev. viii. 3.) This is a great mystery, no doubt, but
one full of consolation. It is hard at any time to understand
how any word or deed of sinful creatures like us can ever come
into the presence of God, and do us any good. But the Priest
hood of Christ explains all. Placed in His hands and endorsed
by Him, our petitions, like bank-notes duly signed, obtain a
value which they have not in themselves. A young Christian
once said to an old one, " My prayers are so poor and weak, that
I cannot think they are of any use." The old Christian replied,
with deep wisdom, " Only place them in Christ s hands, and He
makes them look so different in heaven that you would hardly
know them again." Prayers that are worth nothing in them
selves are effectual, when offered " through Christ, for the sake
of Christ, through the mediation of Christ." Expressions like
these are so common, that few duly weigh their meaning. But
rightly considered, they are full of deep doctrine, even the
doctrine of the priestly office of Jesus. This is another thing.
(5) Again : we need not doubt that Christ, as our Priest in
heaven, is ever doing the ivork of a Friend, a Protector, a Coun
sellor, and Advocate, on behalf of His people. It is not for
nothing that we are told that He is "at God s right hand"
(Bom. viii. 34), and that He "sitteth at the right hand of
God." (Coloss. iii. 1 ; 1 Peter iii. 22.) These words have a
deep meaning. They teach that Christ is ever watching over
the interests of His people, and providing a continual supply of
all that they need. " He that keepeth Israel neither slumbers
nor sleeps." " We have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus
Christ, the righteous." (Psalm cxxi. 4 ; 1 John ii. 1.) To hear
the daily confessions of His saints, and grant them daily absolu
tion ; to sympathize with them in all their troubles, guide them
in their perplexities, strengthen them for their duties, preserve
them in their temptations, all this is part of Christ s priestly
office. What else can be the meaning of St. Paul s words,
when he says to the Hebrews, "Let us come boldly to the
throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to
250 KNOTS UNTIED.
help in time of need " 1 (Heb. iv. 16.) The Priesthood of Jesus
is the very hinge and pivot on which that whole exhortation
turns. This is another thing.
(6) Finally, we need not doubt that Christ as a Priest in
heaven is continually doing the work of a Receiver of sinners,
and a Mediator between God and man. The priest was the
person to whom the Israelite was bidden to go, when he was
ceremonially unclean and wanted forgiveness. The command
was distinct : " Go to the priest." The Heavenly Priest is the
person to whom labouring and heavy-laden souls ought always
to be directed when they want pardon and rest. He that feels
the burden of sin on his conscience and wants it taken away,
ought to be told that there is One appointed by the Father for
the very purpose of taking it away, and that the first step he
must take is to go to Him. When the frightened jailer of
Philippi cried out in agony of spirit, " What must I do to be
saved 1 " he got, to all appearance, a very simple answer :
" Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."
(Acts xvi. 30, 31.) Yet simple as that answer seems, it con
tains the whole doctrine of Christ s priestly office. It was as
good as saying, "There is a Priest ready to receive, confess, and
absolve you : Jesus Christ the Lord. Go and put your soul into
His hands, and you shall have full pardon." The power of
absolving every sinner that comes to Him is one grand part of
Christ s priestly office. " Thou hast given him power over all
flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast
given Him." (John xvii. 3.) "Jesus whom ye slew and
hanged on a tree, Him hath God exalted with His right hand
to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance unto Israel,
and forgiveness of sins." (Acts v. 31.) This is another thing.
Such is the manner in which Christ exercises the work of a
Priest in heaven. It is a vast and wide subject. I feel deeply
that I have only touched the surface of it, and the half of it is
left untold. Who can describe fully the singular fitness of our
Lord Jesus Christ to be the Priest of man ? His possession of
all power in heaven and earth, so that He is able to save to the
uttermost, and no case is too hard for Him, and no sinner too
bad to be saved, His tenderness and sympathy, so that He can
be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, His long-suffering
and patience, so that He can bear with our weaknesses and pity
THE PRIEST. 251
our mistakes, His wisdom, His faithfulness, His readiness to
nidj w ho can describe or number up these things? None
know them but those who know them by experience : and even
they know very little of their extent. Of all the offices that
Christ exercises on behalf of His people, none will so richly
repay thought and study as that of His Priesthood.
Let us thank God daily that Christ is doing the work of a
Priest for us in heaven. Let us glory in His death, but let us
not glory less in His life. Let us praise God daily that Jesus
" died for our sins according to the Scriptures ; " but let us never
forget to praise Him that He "rose again for us, and sat down at
the right hand of God." Let us be thankful for the precious
blood of Christ ; but let us not be less thankful for His precious
intercession.
Christ s Priesthood is the great secret of daily comfort in
Christianity. It is hard to do our duty in that place of life
which God has appointed us, and not to become absorbed in it.
We are such poor weak creatures that we cannot do two things
at once. The cares, and business, and occupations of life,
however innocent and sinless, often seem to drink up all our
thoughts, and swallow up all our attention. But, oh, what an
unspeakable comfort it is to remember that we have an High
Priest in heaven, who never forgets us night or day, and is
continually interceding for us, and providing for our safety.
Happy is that man who knows how to begin and end each day
with his Priest ! This is, indeed, to live the life of faith.
Christ s Priesthood is the great secret of a saint s perseverance
to the end. Left to ourselves there would be little likelihood of
our getting safe home. We might begin well and end ill. So
weak are our hearts, so busy the devil, so many the temptations
of the world, that nothing could prevent our making shipwreck.
But, thanks be to God, the Priesthood of Christ secures our
safety. He who never slumbers and never sleeps is continually
watching over our interests, and providing for our need. While
Satan pours water on the fire of grace, and strives to quench it,
Christ pours on oil, and makes it bum more brightly. Start us
in the narrow way of life, with pardon, grace, and a new heart, and
leave us to ourselves, and we should soon fall away. But grant us
the continual intercession of an Almighty Priest in heaven,
God as well as Man, and Man as well as God, and we shall
252 KNOTS UNTIED.
never be lost. "Because I live," says our Lord, "ye shall live
also." (John xiv. 19.)
Let tis ever beware of any doctrine which interferes with the
Priesthood of Christ. Any system of religion which teaches
that we need other mediators besides Jesus, other priests
besides Jesus, other intercessors besides Jesus, is unscrip-
tural and dangerous to men s souls. What greater folly can be
conceived than to flee to the Virgin Mary or the saints, or to
put our souls in the hands of clergymen and ministers, when
we have such a Priest as Jesus Christ in heaven 1 What can a
woman, who herself needed a " Saviour," do for the souls of
others 1 (Luke i. 47.) What has she done to prove her love to
sinners, compared to the Great High Priest, Christ the Lord 1
What single example have we in all the ]STew Testament of any
one using a minister as a priest, even in the days of Peter and
Paul 1 This modern system, which is not satisfied with Christ s
Priesthood, but must have mortal men as priests besides, bears
the mark of its origin on its face. It is from beneath, and not
from above. " There is no office of Christ," said John Owen,
" that Satan labours so hard to obscure and overthrow as His
priestly one." Satan cares little, comparatively, for Christ the
Prophet, and Christ the King, so long as he can persuade man
to forget Christ the Priest. For ever let us stand fast on this
point. That Christ is carrying on the office of a Priest in
heaven, is the crown and glory of Christian theology.
III. Last of all, let us consider the third question which I
propose to examine : What is Jesus Christ going to do before the
end of the world ?
I will answer that inquiry in the words of Scripture. In
speaking of things to come, the safest plan is to go to the Book.
Let us hear what St. Paul says to the Hebrews : " Christ was
once offered to bear the sins of many ; and unto them that look
for Him shall He appear the second time, without sin, unto
salvation." (Heb. ix. 28.) Let us hear what the angel said to
the Apostles on the Mount of Olives, in the day of the ascension :
"Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?
This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven, shall
so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven."
(Acts i. 11.) Let us hear what St. Peter preached to the Jews
THE PRIEST. 253
;it Jerusalem: "Times of refreshing shall come from the
presence of the Lord ; and He shall send Jesus Christ, which
before was preached unto you : whom the heavens must receive
until the times of restitution of all things." (Acts iii. 19-21.)
Let us hear what St. Paul writes to the Thessalonians : " The
Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the
voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God : and the
dead in Christ shall rise first." (1 Thess. iv. 16.) Let us
hear what Enoch prophesied 5000 years ago: "Behold, the
Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints." (Jude 14.)
The world has not done with Jesus Christ yet. The wicked,
and worldly, and unbelieving, and sceptical, who flatter them
selves that Christianity, as a system, is worn out and dying
away, will find themselves fearfully mistaken one day. The
philosophers and admirers of science, falsely so called, who
talk of " modern progress " and " free thought," and sneer at " old
world creeds," as they term them, will have their eyes rudely
opened by and by. That same Jesus of Nazareth of whom
they speak so lightly now, will appear to their confusion, and
set up a kingdom over all the earth. He shall rise up from
that seat at God s right hand, which He now occupies as
Priest, and come down to this sin-burdened world to rule over
it as King. Every eye shall see Him, and every knee shall
bow before Him, and every tongue which has spoken against
Him shall be silenced for ever. The great High Priest shall
come forth from within the veil, and sit upon His throne as a
King. This is what Christ is going to do before the end of the
world.
How will Jesus come the second time 1 ? Not spiritually
and figuratively, as some say ; but really, literally, truly, and in
the body, as He came the first time. He came with a real
material body, when He came the first time to surfer and be
crucified. He will come back with a real material body, when
He returns to be glorified and to reign. There will be a "real
presence " at length on earth of that holy body which was born
of the Virgin Mary and crucified under Pontius Pilate. But it
will be a very different "presence" from that which is now
ignorantly talked of by the Church and the world !
In what fashion will Jesus Christ return the second time ?
Not as He came the first time, in weakness and humiliation.
254 KNOTS UNTIED.
He shall come, as He told Caiaphas in the judgment-hall, " in
the clouds of heaven," with power and great glory. He shall
come attended by thousands of ministering angels, with all the
pomp and majesty that becomes the King of kings. Before
His face the frame of this world shall be shaken to the very
centre. It was shaken when the law was given on Mount
Sinai. It was shaken again when Christ offered Himself for
our sins on the cross. How much more shall it be shaken
when the throne of mercy shall be taken down, and the great
High Priest shall return in power to reign ! The earth quaked,
and the rocks were rent, and the sun was darkened, when the
great High Priest of our profession shed His atoning blood for
us on Calvary. Much more then may we expect signs and
wonders when He "appears the second time, without sin, unto
salvation." (Heb. ix. 28.)
For what purpose is Christ coming the second time 1 He is
coming to set up His throne of judgment, and to wind up the
affairs of this sin-laden and bankrupt world. He is coming to
raise the dead, and change the living ; to gather all mankind
before His bar, and to hold a last assize. He is coming to
reckon with His professing Churches, and to punish with ever
lasting destruction the impenitent, the unbelieving, and the
ungodly. They will find to their cost that there is such a thing
as " the wrath of the Lamb." He is coming to bless and
reward His own believing people, to gather them into one
happy home, to wipe away all their tears, and to give them a
crown of glory that fadeth not away. (Rev. vi. 16.)
When is the Lord Jesus Christ coming the second time ?
We do not know the precise season. " Of that day and hour
knoweth no man : no, not the angels in heaven." (Matt. xxiv.
36.) The time is wisely withheld from us in order that we
may be kept in a watchful frame of mind. We know the fact,
but we do not know the date. When the iniquity of Christ s
enemies is full, when the number of His elect is complete,
when the last sinner in the mystical company of His people has
been brought to repentance, then, and not till then, the Lord
will return. He will not send the plough of judgment into the
field till the last sheaf has been gathered into the barn. Come
when He may, His advent will be a very sudden and unexpected
one. It will take a sleeping world by surprise, like a thief in
THE PRIEST. 255
the night. It will startle a drowsy Church from its slumber,
and make myriads cry, " Give us of your oil ; for our lamps are
gone out." (Matt. xxv. 8.) As it was in the days of Noah, so
shall it be at the second coming of the Son of Man. Blessed,
indeed, is that servant whom the Lord, when He cometh, shall
find watching !
Great indeed are the things which our great High Priest shall
do at His second coming. He did great things when He came the
first time, and spoiled principalities and powers by His sacrifice
on the cross. He is doing great things now, by carrying
believers from grace to glory, by His almighty intercession.
But He will put the crown on all His doings for His Church,
when He comes forth from within the veil the second time, to
confound His enemies and reward His friends. Never will our
great High Priest appear so glorious as when He presents His
people before the Father s throne, saying, for the last time, " Of
them whom thou gavest Me, have I lost none." (John xviii. 9.)
He did thoroughly the work He came to do, when He made
His soul a sacrifice for sin, and died upon the cross as our
substitute. He is doing thoroughly the work He undertook
when He ascended up to heaven, and sat down on the right
hand of God to be the Priest and Advocate of His people. He
will yet do thoroughly His last great work, when He shall come
again to complete our salvation, and to present us "without
spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing," before His Father s throne.
(Eph. v. 27.)
Let us lean back our souls, if we know anything of saving
religion, on Christ s coming again, as well as Christ dying and
Christ interceding. Let the comfortable thought of our Lord s
return sustain us in public troubles, and cheer us in private
trials. When the governments of the world are reeling and
tottering, when the air is filled with rumours of wars and
revolutions, when the nations of the earth are heaving up and
down and ill at ease, when faith is faint and love is waxing
cold, and the best of Churches seem running to seed and decay,
when men s hearts are failing for fear and looking after the
things coming on the earth, in times like these let us fix our
eyes steadily on the second advent of our Lord Jesus Christ.
That great High Priest who died for us and intercedes for us,
will never forget His people, or allow one lamb of His flock to
256 KNOTS UNTIED.
perish. The disciples on the sea of Galilee, when tossed by
storm and worn with toil, were ready perhaps to think their
Lord had forgotten them. Yet, just when it was the darkest
hour of the night, Jesus came to them " walking on the water,"
and they heard His welcome voice, saying, "It is I : be not
afraid." Let us not cast away our confidence, however dark the
horizon may seem around us. Let us look bade to the cross.
Let us look upward to the right hand of God. Let us look
forward to the day of the promised return. Let experience of
the past give lessons for the future. The merciful and faithful
High Priest who began a work for us on the cross, will bring-
that work to a triumphant conclusion. He will never forsake
the work of His own hands. " Yet a little while, and He that
shall come will come, and will not tarry." (Heb. x. 37.)
It only remains to wind up the whole subject with a few
words of practical application. Living in a world full of un
certainty, I commend the following words to the attention of all
who may read these pages.
(1) First of all, have we a Priest in our religion? Is there
any one whom we employ as our Mediator and Advocate with
God? Is the person we employ the one true appointed and
anointed Priest, Jesus Christ the Lord 1 Can we lay our hand
on our heart and say, " Christ is mine and I am His ? I have
come to Him, poured out my heart to Him, received absolution
from Him, cast all my burden on Him, placed my soul in His
hands." We may be sure, if we have a religion without a
Priest, or any Priest except Christ, we are in awful danger : we
are yet unpardoned, unforgiven, unfit to die, unprepared to meet
God. If we die without Christ as our Priest, we shall awake
to find we had better never have been born. It is not enough
to talk of "God," and "mercy," and "providence," and "trying
all we can," and " saying our prayers," and "going to church or
chapel," and being "a member" here and there. It will not do.
This will not save us. We need far more than this. We must
lay hold on Christ as our Mediator and Advocate, or else we
shall never be saved. Have we done this? Is Christ our
Priest ?
(2) In the second place, if Christ is really the Priest of our
souls, let us use Him regularly, and keep back nothing from
THE PRIEST. 257
Him. It is a sorrowful fact that many believers enjoy the
Gospel far less than they ought to do, for lack of boldness in
using the priestly office of Jesus Christ. They go mourning
and weeping along the way to heaven, perplexing themselves
by poring over their infirmities and sins, and carrying ten times
as much weight on their backs as Christ ever meant them to
bear. Ignorance, sad ignorance, is too often the simple account
of the condition of these people. They think only of the death
of Christ, and not of the life of Christ. They think of His
finished work on the cross, but forget His priestly intercession.
If this be our case, let us turn over a new leaf, and change our
plan this very day. Let us think of Jesus Christ as a loving
Friend, to whom we may go morning, noon, and night, and get
relief from Him every day. " Cast thy burden on the Lord,
and He will sustain thee." (Psalm Iv. 22.) Let us live the
life of faith in the Son of God, and hold communion with Him
continually. Let us use Him every morning as a Fountain of
grace and help, and drink freely of that Fountain. Let us use
Him every evening as a Fountain of absolution and refreshment,
and draw out of Him living water. He that tries this plan will
find it for the health of his soul.
(3) In the third place, if Christ is the Priest of our souls, let
us beware of ever giving His office to another. Let no man
delude us into supposing that we need any clergyman, or
minister, or priest of any Church on earth, to be our spiritual
director and soul s confessor.
I am sure this warning is greatly needed in this day. One
of the most mischievous delusions of this age, I firmly believe,
is the attempt that is widely made to teach the benefit of
habitual private confession to a clergyman. Occasional private
conference with a minister is one thing; habitual confession
of sin, with habitual absolution, is quite another. The first
practice, under proper restriction, " may do good ; the last is a
practice fraught with danger, dishonouring to our Lord Jesus
Christ, and calculated to do infinite harm to souls.
(a) Where is the warrant of Scripture for habitual private
confession and private absolution ? I answer, Nowhere at all.
Not a single case can be shown in the New Testament where
any one confessed sin in private to a minister, or was privately
absolved. Not a single word did Paul say in the Epistles
258 KNOTS UNTIED.
which he wrote to his two young friends in the ministry,
Timothy and Titus, to justify habitual private confession and
absolution.
(b) Where is the man upon earth who is really fit to be an
habitual hearer of confessions? He only is fit for such an
office who has perfect knowledge, and knows that the person
confessing is telling all the truth. He only is fit who will
receive no damage himself by hearing others constantly confess
and unbosom their secret sins. He only is fit who is sure
to use the knowledge He possesses of others sins rightly, and
can always feel rightly for those who confess. He only is fit
who has full power to pardon the sins he hears confessed, and
to set the conscience of the confessing entirely free. Where
shall we find such a man upon earth? I answer boldly,
Nowhere at all! There is but one Person fit to be our Con
fessor, and that one is Christ Jesus the Lord.
(c) Where is the wisdom of ignoring the lessons of history and
experience 1 If there is any fact in Church history which is
clearly established, it is the fact that the confessional has led to
a flood of wickedness and immorality. I challenge any well-
informed reader of history to deny this, if he can. He that
desires to re-introduce the practice of private confession into the
Church of England may be a devout and well-meaning man,
but he is ignorantly seeking to bring back among us a fountain
of the worst kind of sins.
(d) Where is the sense or reason of going to an earthly confessor,
so long as we can have the best of all Priests, the commis
sioned and appointed Priest, the perfect Mediator between God
and man, the man Christ Jesus ! When His ear is deaf, and
His heart is cold, when His hand is feeble, and His power to
heal is exhausted, when the treasure-house of His sympathy is
empty, and His love and goodwill have become cold, then,
and not till then, it will be time to turn to earthly priests and
earthly confessionals. Thank God, that time is not yet come !
Let us stand fast in the old paths. Let no man deceive us
with vain words. Away with the plausible idea that habitual
private confession tends to "deepen spiritual life." We may
be sure it does nothing of the kind. Nothing really " deepens
spiritual life " which interposes anything between our souls and
Christ. Ministers are useful just so far as they promote private
THE PKIEST. 259
communion between Jesus Christ and our souls. But the
moment a minister begins to stand between our soul and Christ,
even in the slightest degree, he becomes an enemy and not a
friend to our peace.
Once more I repeat my warning. No priest but Christ !
]S T o confessor but Christ ! No absolver but Christ ! No
habitual private submission or bowing down in religion to any
one but Christ ! No spiritual director but Christ ! No putting
of our conscience in the power of any one but Christ ! If we
love peace and wish to honour Christ, let us beware of the
confessional, or the slightest approach to it. I declare I had
almost rather hear my sons and daughters had gone to the
grave, than hear they had adopted the habit of going to a
confessional.
(4) In the last place, if Christ is the Priest of our souls, let
us live always like men who look for His second coining. Let
us live like men who long to see face to face the Saviour in
whom they believe. Let us live like men who would be found
ready at any moment, like good servants prepared for their
master. Happy is the Christian who lives the life of faith in
Christ s dying, interceding, and coming again ! There is a
crown laid up for " all that love His appearing." (2 Tim. iv.
8.) Let us give diligence that this crown may be ours !
XII.
CONFESSION.
" If ive confer our sins, He is faithful and just toforyive us our sins, and
to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. " 1 Joiix i. 9.
THERE arc occasions when circumstances give a peculiar im
portance to particular doctrines in religion. The assaults of
enemies sometimes make it needful to exhibit some special
truth with special distinctness. The plausible assertion of some
error sometimes requires to be met by more than ordinary
carefulness in showing " the thing as it is " in the Word. A
doctrine may perhaps be in the rear rank to-day, and to-morrow
may be thrust forward by the force of events into the very
front of the battle. This is the case at the present time with
the subject of " Confession." Many years have passed away
since men thought and talked so much as they do now about
"the confession of sins."
I desire in this paper to lay down a few plain Scriptural
principles about " Confession of sin." The subject is one of
primary importance. Let us beware, in the din of controversy
and discussion, that we do not lose sight of the mind of Holy
Scripture, and injure our own souls. There is a confession
which is needful to salvation, and there is a confession which
is not needful at all. There is a confessional to which all men
and women ought to go, and there is a confessional which ought
to be denounced, avoided, and abhorred. Let us endeavour to
separate the wheat from the chaff, and the precious from the vile.
I. In the first place, Who are they who ought to confess sin ?
II. In the second place, To wliom ought confession of sin to
be made?
Once let a man have clear views on these two points, and he
will never go far wrong on the subject of confession.
260
CONFESSION. 261
I. In the first place, Who are they that ought to confess sins?
I answer this question in one plain sentence. All men and
women in the world ! All are born in sin and children of
wrath. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Before God all are guilty. There is not a just man upon earth
that doeth good and sinneth not. There is not a child of Adam
that ought not to confess sin. (Eph. ii. 3; Rom. iii. 23, 19;
Eccles. vii. 20.)
There is no exception to this rule. It does not apply only to
murderers, and felons, and the inmates of prisons : it applies to
all ranks, and classes, and orders of mankind. The highest are
not too high to need confession ; the lowest are not too low to
be reached by God s requirement in this matter. Kings in
their palaces and poor men in their cottages, preachers and
hearers, teachers and scholars, landlords and tenants, masters
and servants, all, all are alike summoned in the Bible to con
fession. None are so moral and respectable that they need not
confess that they have sinned. All are sinners in thought,
word, and deed, and all are commanded to acknowledge their
transgressions. Every knee ought to bow, and every tongue
ought to confess to God. "Behold," saith the Lord, "I will
plead with thee because thou sayest, I have not sinned." (Jer.
ii. 35.) "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,
and the truth is not in us." (1 John i. 8.)
Without confession there is no salvation. The love of God
towards sinners is infinite. The readiness of Christ to receive
sinners is unbounded. The blood of Christ can cleanse away
all sin. But we must " plead guilty," before God can declare
us innocent. We must acknowledge that we surrender at dis
cretion, before we can be pardoned and let go free. Sins that
are known and not confessed, are sins that are not forgiven :
they are yet upon us, and daily sinking us nearer to hell. "He
that covereth his sins shall not prosper : but whoso confesseth
and forsaketh them shall find mercy." (Prov. xxviii. 13.)
Without confession there is no inward peace. Conscience
will never be at rest, so long as it feels the burden of unacknow
ledged transgression. It is a load of which man must get rid
if he means to be really happy. It is a worm at the root of all
comfort. It is a blight on joy and mirth. The heart of the
little child is not easy, when he stands in his parents presence
262 KNOTS UNTIED.
and knows that he has been doing something wrong. He is
never easy till he has confessed. The heart of the grown-up
man is never really easy, until he has unburdened himself
before God and obtained pardon and absolution. " When I
kept silence," says David, "my bones waxed old through my
roaring all the day long. For day and night Thy hand was
heavy upon me : my moisture is turned into the drought of
summer. I acknowledged my sin unto Thee, and mine iniquity
have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgression unto
the Lord ; and Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin." (Psalm
xxxii. 3-5.)
There is no gainsaying these things. They stand out plainly
on the face of Scripture, as if they were written with a sun
beam : they are so clear that he who runs may read. Confes
sion of sin is absolutely necessary to salvation : it is a habit
which is an essential part of repentance unto life. Without it
there is no entrance into heaven. Without it we have no part
or lot in Christ. Without it we shall certainly go to hell. All
this is undoubtedly true. And yet in the face of all this, it is
a melancholy and appalling fact that few people confess their
sins !
Some people have no thought or feeling about their sins : the
subject is one which hardly crosses their minds. They rise in
the morning and go to bed at night ; they eat, and drink, and
sleep, and work, and get money, and spend money, as if they
had no souls at all. They live on as if this world was the
only thing worth thinking of. They leave religion to parsons,
and old men and women. Their consciences seem asleep, if not
dead. Of course they never confess !
Some people are too proud to acknowledge themselves sinners.
Like the Pharisee of old, they natter themselves they are "not
as other men." They do not get drunk like some, or swear
like others, or live profligate lives like others. They are moral
and respectable ! They perform the duties of their station !
They attend church regularly ! They are kind to the poor !
What more would you have ? If they are not good people
and going to heaven, who can be saved ? But as to habitual
confession of sin, they do not see that they need it. It is all
very well for wicked people, but not for them. Of course,
when sin is not really felt, sin will never be confessed !
CONFESSION. 263
Some people are too indolent and slothful to take any step in
religion so decided as confession. Their Christianity consists
in meaning, and hoping, and intending, and resolving. They
do not positively object to anything that they hear upon spiritual
subjects. They can even approve of the Gospel. They hope
one day to repent, and believe, and be converted, and become
thorough Christians, and go to heaven after death. But they
never get beyond "hoping." They never come to the point of
making a business of religion. Of course they never confess sin.
In one or other of these ways thousands of persons on every
side are ruining their souls. In one point they are all agreed.
They may sometimes call themselves "sinners," in a vague,
general way, and cry out, "I have sinned," like Pharaoh, and
Balaam, and Achan, and Saul, and Judas Iscariot (Exod. ix. 27;
Xum. xxii. 34 ; Josh. vii. 20 ; Matt, xxvii. 4) ; but they have
no real sense, or sight, or understanding of sin. Its guilt, and
vileness, and wickedness, and consequences, are utterly hid
from their eyes. And the result, in each case, is one and the
same. They know nothing practically of confession of sins.
Shall I say what seems to me the clearest proof that man is
a fallen and corrupt creature 1 It is not open vice or unblushing
profligacy. It is not the crowded public-house, or the murderer s
cell in a jail. It is not avowed infidelity, or gross and foul
idolatry. All these are proofs, and convincing proofs indeed,
that man is fallen ; but there is to my mind a stronger proof
still That proof is the wide-spread "spirit of slumber" in
which most men lie chained and bound about their souls.
When I see that multitudes of sensible men, and intelligent
men, and decent-living men, can travel quietly towards the
grave, and feel no concern about their sins, I want no more
convincing evidence that man is "bom in sin," and that his
heart is alienated from God. There is no avoiding the con
clusion. Man is naturally asleep, and must be awakened. He
is blind, and must be made to see. He is dead, and must be
made alive. If this was not the case there would be no need
for our pressing the duty of confession. Scripture commands
it. Reason assents to it. Conscience, in its best moments,
approves of it. And yet, notwithstanding this, the vast majority
of men have no practical acquaintance with confession of
sin | No disease of body is so desperate as mortification.
264 KNOTS UNTIED.
No heart is in so bad a state as the heart that does not
feel sin.
Shall I say what is my first and foremost wish for men s
souls, if they are yet unconverted 1 I can wish them nothing-
better than thorough self-knoivledye. Ignorance of self and sin
is the root of all mischief to the soul. There is hardly a re
ligious error or a false doctrine that may not be traced up to it.
Light was the first thing called into being. When God created
the world, He said, "Let there be light" (Gen. i. 3.) Light
is the first thing that the Holy Ghost creates in a man s heart,
when He awakens, converts, and makes him a true Christian.
(2 Cor. iv. 6.) For want of seeing sin men do not value salva
tion. Once let a man get a sight of his own heart, and he will
begin to cry, "God be merciful to me a sinner."
If a man has learned to feel and acknowledge his sinfulness,
he has great reason to thank God. It is a real symptom of
health in the inward man. It is a mighty token for good. To
know our spiritual disease is one step towards a cure. To feel
bad and wicked and hell-deserving, is the first beginning of
being really good.
What though we feel ashamed and confounded at the sight
of our own transgressions ! What though we are humbled to
the dust, and cry, " Lord, I am vile. Lord, I am the very chief
of sinners ! " It is better a thousand times to have these feelings
and be miserable under them, than to have no feelings at all.
Anything is better than a dead conscience, and a cold heart,
and a prayerless tongue !
If we have learned to feel and confess sin, we may well
thank God and take courage. Whence came those feelings?
Who told you that you were a guilty sinner ? What moved you
to begin acknowledging your transgressions ? How was it that
you first found sin a burden, and longed to be set free from it 1
These feelings do not come from man s natural heart. The
devil does _ not teach such lessons. The schools of this world
have no power to impart them. These feelings came down from
above. They are the precious gifts of God the Holy Ghost. It
is His special office to convince of sin. The man who has
really learned to feel and confess his sins, has learned that
which millions never learn, and for want of which millions die
in their sins, and are lost to all eternity.
CONFESSION. 265
II. I now turn to the second branch of my subject : To wliom
ought confession of sin to be made ?
I enter on this branch of the subject with sorrowful feelings.
I approach it as a sailor would approach some rock on which
many gallant ships have made shipwreck. I cannot forget that
I have arrived at a point on which millions of so-called Chris
tians have erred greatly, and millions are erring at the present
day. But I dare not keep back anything that is Scriptural, for
fear of giving offence. The errors of millions must not prevent
a minister of the Gospel speaking the truth. If multitudes are
hewing out broken cisterns that can hold no water, it becomes
the more needful to point out the true fountain. If countless
souls are turning aside from the right way, it becomes the more
important to show clearly to whom confession ought to be
made.
Sin, to speak generally, ought to be confessed to God. He
it is whom we have chiefly offended : His are the laws which
we have broken. To Him it is that all men and women will
one day give account : His displeasure is that which sinners
have principally to fear. This is what David felt: "Against
Thee, Thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Thy
sight." (Psalm li. 4.) This is what David practised : " I said
I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord." (Psalm xxxii.
5.) This is what Joshua advised Achan to do : "My son, give
glory to God, and make confession to Him." (Josh. vii. 19.)
The Jews were right when they said, " Who can forgive sins
but God only ? " (Mark ii. 7.)
But must we leave the matter here ? Can vile sinners like
us ever dare to confess our sins to a holy God 1 Will not the
thought of His infinite purity shut our mouths and make us
afraid? Must not the remembrance of His holiness make us
afraid ? Is it not written of God, that He is " of purer eyes
than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity " 1 (Hab. i.
13.) Is it not said, that He "hates all workers of iniquity"?
(Psalm v. 5.) Did He not say to Moses, " There shall no man
see My face and live"? (Exod. xxxiii. 20.) Did not Israel
say of old, " Let not God speak with us, lest we die " ? (Exod.
xx. 19.) Did not Daniel say, "How can the servant of my
Lord talk with this my Lord "? (Dan. x. 17.) Did not Job
say, "When I consider, I am afraid of Him "? (Job xxiii. 15.)
266 KNOTS UNTIED.
Did not Isaiah say, " Woe is me, for I am undone : for mine
eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts " ? (Isa. vi. 5.)
Does not Elihu say, " Shall it be told Him that I speak *? If a
man speak, surely he shall be swallowed up " ? (Job xxxvii. 20.)
These are serious questions. They are questions which must
and will occur to thoughtful minds. There are many who
know what Luther meant, when he said, " I dare not have any
thing to do with an absolute God." But I thank God they are
questions to which the Gospel supplies a full and satisfactory
answer. The Gospel reveals One who is exactly suited to the
wants of souls which desire to confess sin.
I say then that sin ought to be confessed to God in Christ.
I say that sin ought specially to be confessed to God manifest
in the flesh, to Christ Jesus the Lord, to that Jesus who
came into the world to save sinners, to that Jesus who died
for our sins, and rose again for our justification, and now lives at
the right hand of God to intercede for all who oome to God by
Him. He that desires to confess sin should apply direct to
Christ.
Christ is a great High Priest. Let that truth sink down into
our hearts and never be forgotten. He is sealed and appointed
by God the Father for that very purpose, to be the Priest of
Christians. It is His peculiar office to receive, and hear, and
pardon, and absolve sinners. It is His place to receive con
fessions, and to grant plenary absolutions. It is written in
Scripture, "Thou art a Priest for ever." "We have a great
High Priest that is passed into the heavens." "Having an
High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true
heart, in full assurance of faith." (Heb. iv. 14; v. 6 ; vi. 20;
x. 21, 22.)
(a) Christ is a High Priest of Almighty power. There is no sin
that He cannot pardon, and no sinner that He cannot absolve.
He is very God of very God. He is " over all, God blessed for
ever." He says Himself, "I and my Father are one." He
has " all power in heaven and earth." He has " power on earth
to forgive sins." He has complete authority to sayHo the chief
of sinners, "Thy sins are forgiven. Go in peace." He has
"the keys of death and hell." When He opens no one can
shut. (Rom. ix. 5 ; John x. 30 ; Matt, xxviii. 18 ; ix. 6 ;
Luke vii. 48-50 ; Rev. i. 18; iii. 7.)
CONFESSION. 267
(b) Christ is a High Priest of infinite ivillingness to receive con
fession of sin. He invites all who feel their guilt to come to
Him for relief. " Come unto Me," He says, " all ye that labour
and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." "If any man
thirst, let him come unto Me and drink." When the penitent
thief cried to Him on the cross, He at once absolved him fully,
and gave him an answer of peace. (Matt. xi. 28 ; John
vii. 37.)
(e) Christ is a High Priest of perfect knowledge. He knows
exactly the whole history of all who confess to Him : from Him
no secrets are hid. He never errs in judgment : He makes no
mistakes. It is written that " He is of quick understanding.
He shall not judge after the sight of His eyes, neither reprove
after the hearing of His ears." (Isa. xi. 3.) He can discern
the difference between the hypocritical professor who is full of
words, and the broken-hearted sinner who can scarce stammer
out his confession. People may deceive ministers by "good
words and fair speeches," but they will never deceive Christ.
(d) Christ is a High Priest of matchless tenderness. He will
not afflict willingly, or grieve any soul that comes to Him. He
will handle delicately every wound that is exposed to Him. He
will deal tenderly even with the vilest sinners, as He did with
the Samaritan woman. Confidence reposed in Him is never
abused : secrets confided to Him are completely safe. Of Him
it is written, that "He will not break the bruised reed, nor
quench the smoking flax." He is one that " despiseth not any."
(Isaiah xlii. 3 } Job xxxvi. 5.)
(e) Christ is a High Priest who can sympathize with all that
confess to Him. He knows the heart of a man by experience,
for He had a body like our own, and was made in the likeness
of man. "We have not a High Priest who cannot be touched
with the feeling of our infirmities ; but was in all points tempted
like as we are, yet without sin." (Heb. iv. 15.) To Him the
words can most truly be applied, which Elihu applied to him
self, " Behold, I am according to thy wish in God s stead : I
also am formed out of the clay. Behold, my terror shall not
make thee afraid, neither shall my hand be heavy upon thee. "
(Job xxxiii. 6, 7.)
This great High Priest of the Gospel is the person whom we
ought specially to employ in our confession of sin. It is only
268 KNOTS UNTIED.
through Him and by Him that we should make all our
approaches to God. In Him we may draw near to God with
boldness, and have access with confidence. (Ephes. iii. 12.)
Laying our hand on Him and His atonement, we may " come
boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and
find grace to help in time of need." (Heb. iv. 16.) We need
no other Mediator or Priest. We can find no better High
Priest. To whom should the sick man disclose his ailment, but
the physician 1 To whom should the prisoner tell his story,
but to his legal advocate ? To whom should the sinner open
his heart and confess his sins, but to Him who is the " Advocate
with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous"? (1 John ii. 1.)
Why should we confess our sins to angels and dead saints,
while we have Christ for a High Priest 1 Why should we
confess to the Virgin Mary, Michael the Archangel, John the
Baptist, St. Paul, or any other creature in the unseen world ?
The Church of Rome enjoins such confession as this on her
millions of members, and many members of the Church of
England seem half-disposed to think the Church of Rome is
right ! But when we ask a Scriptural reason for the practice,
we may ask long without getting an answer.
There is no need for such a confession. Christ has not given
up His office, and ceased to be a Priest. The saints and angels
cannot possibly do more for us than Christ can. They certainly
have not more pity or compassion, or more good-will towards
our souls.
There is no warrant of Scripture for such a confession. There
is not a text in the Bible that bids us confess to dead saints
and angels. There is not an instance in Scripture of any living-
believer taking his sins to them.
There is not the slightest proof that there is any use in such
a confession. We do not even know that the saints in glory
can hear what we say ; much less do we know that they could
help us if they heard. They were all sinners saved by grace
themselves : where is the likelihood that they could do any
thing to aid our souls 1
The man who turns away from Christ to confess to saints and
angels is a deluded robber of his own soul. He is following a
shadow, and forsaking the substance. He is rejecting the
bread of life, and trying to satisfy his spiritual hunger with sand.
CONFESSION. 260
But why, again, should we confess our sins to living priests
or ministers, while we have Christ for a High Priest? The
Church of Koine commands her members to do so. A party
within the Church of England approves the practice as useful,
helpful, and almost needful to the soul. But, again, when we
ask for Scripture and reason in support of the practice, we
receive no satisfactory answer.*
* The only passages in the Prayer-book of the Church of England, which
appear at first sight to favour the Romish view of confession and absolution,
are to be found in the Exhortation in the Communion Service, and in the
Visitation of the Sick.
In both these cases I am entirely satisfied that the Reformers never intended
to give any countenance to the Romish doctrine, and that the true and honest
interpretation of the language used affords no help to those who hold that
doctrine.
In the Exhortation in the Communion Service, the case is supposed of some
person who "cannot quiet his conscience." The advice then follows : " Let
him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned minister of God s holy
Word, and open his grief ; that by the ministry of God s holy Word he may
receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice."
If men are determined to twist this passage into a sanction of the Romish
doctrine of habitual confession and absolution, it is iiseless to reason with
them. To my own eyes the exhortation seems nothing more than advice to
people who are troubled with some special difficulties, to go and speak to a
minister in private about them, and to get them cleared up by texts from the
Bible.
But I can see nothing in the passage like Romish auricular confession and
priestly absolution.
In the Visitation of the Sick, the language used about absolving the sick
man, "if he humbly and heartily desire it," is undoubtedly very strong, and
the direction to " move " the sick person to " make a special confession of his
sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any mighty matter," is unmis
takable.
Yet, even here, it is hard to prove that this confession means more than
any faithful minister of the Gospel would press on any sick and dying person,
if he saw him "troubled," or distressed about "some weighty matter." It
is only in this case, be it remembered, that he is to be " moved to make " it.
As to the absolution, the most that can be made of it is that it is declara
tory. It is a very strong and authoritative declaration of the forgiveness of
the Gospel, addressed to a dying person, in need of special comfort. It is
the custom of the Prayer-book to call any ministerial declaration of God s
willingness to pardon those who repent and believe, an "absolution." We
see this very plainly in the beginning of the morning and afternoon service.
After the general confession, the minister reads what is called "an
absolution."
The language of the absolution in the Visitation of the Sick is undoubtedly
very strong. But still it must be observed that it only declares a person
absolved, who is already absolved by God. The very form itself says that
the Church s absolution is to be given to "all sinners who truly repent and
believe in Jesus Christ." Now all such are of course pardoned the very
2*70 KNOTS UNTIED.
Is there any need for confessing to priests or ministers?
There is none. There is nothing they can do for a sinner that
Christ cannot do a thousand times better. When Christ has
failed the soul that cried to Him, it may be time to turn to
ministers. But that time will never come.
Is there any Scriptural warrant for confessing to priests or
ministers 1 There is none. There is not a passage in the New
Testament which commands it. St. Paul writes three Epistles
to Timothy and Titus about ministerial duty. But he says
nothing about receiving confessions. St. James bids us " confess
our faults to one another," but he says nothing about confessing
to ministers. Above all, there is not a single example in
Scripture of any one confessing to a minister and receiving-
absolution. We see the Apostles often declaring plainly the
way of forgiveness, and pointing men to Christ. But we
nowhere find them telling men to confess to them, and offering
to absolve them after confession.
Finally, is any good likely to result from confessing to priests
or ministers 1 I answer boldly, There is none. Ministers can
never know that those who confess to them are telling the
truth. Those who confess to them will never feel their
consciences really satisfied, and will never feel certain that
what they confess will not be improperly used. Above all, the
experience of former times is enough to condemn "auricular
confession " for ever, as a practice of most vile and evil tendency.
Facts, stubborn facts, abound to show that the practice of
confessing to ministers has often led to the grossest and most
disgusting immorality. A living writer has truly said, " There
is no better school of wickedness on earth than the confessional.
History testifies that for every offender whom the confessional
has reclaimed it has hardened thousands ; for one it may have
saved it has destroyed millions." Wylie on Popery, p. 329.*
moment they repent and believe. When, therefore, the minister says, "I
absolve thee," he can only mean, " I declare thee absolved."
When I add to this explanation the striking fact that the Homily of
Repentance contains a long passage most strongly condemning auricular
confession, I can see no fair ground for the charge that the Church of England
sanctions auricular confession, as a practice of general utility to the soul.
At the same time I deeply regret that the formularies of the Church contain
any expressions which are capable of being twisted into an argument in
defence of the doctrine, and I should rejoice to see them removed.
* Those who wish for more information on this painful subject will find it
CONFESSION. 271
The man who turns away from Christ to confess his sins to
ministers, is like a man who chooses to live in prison when he
may walk at liberty, or to starve and go in rags in the midst of
riches and plenty, or to cringe for favours at the feet of a
servant, when he may go boldly to the Master and ask what he
will. A mighty and sinless High Priest is provided for him,
and yet he prefers to employ the aid of mere fellow-sinners like
himself ! He is trying to fill his purse with rubbish, when he
may have fine gold for the asking. He is insisting on lighting a
rush-light, when he may enjoy the noon-day light of God s sun !
If we love our souls, let us beware of giving to ministers the
honour that belongs to Christ alone. He is the true High
Priest of the Christian s profession. He ever lives to receive
confessions, and to absolve sinners. Why should we turn away
from Him to man? Above all, let us beware of the whole
system of the Romish confessional. Of all practices that were
ever devised by man in the name of religion, I firmly believe
that none was ever devised so mischievous and objectionable
as the confessional. It overthrows Christ s office, and places
man in the seat which should only be occupied by the Son of
God. It puts two sinners in a thoroughly wrong position : it
exalts the confessor far too high ; it places those who confess
far too low. It gives the confessor a place which it is not safe
for any child of Adam to occupy. It imposes on those who
confess a bondage to which it is not safe for any child of Adam
to submit. It sinks one poor sinner into the degrading attitude
of a serf ; it raises another poor sinner into a dangerous mastery
over his brother s soul. It makes the confessor little less than
a god : it makes those who confess little better than slaves.
If we love Christian liberty, and value inward peace, let us
beware of the slightest approach to the Romish confessional !
Those who tell us that Christian ministers were intended to
receive confessions, and that Evangelical teaching makes light
of the ministerial office, and strips it of all authority and
power, are making assertions which they cannot prove. We
fully supplied in Elliott s Delineation of Romanism (p. 210), under the
head "Confession." Those who take a favourable view of auricular con
fession, and wish to see it introduced into the English Church, would do well
to study Elliott s account of the Bull of Pope Paul IV. against those Spanish
confessors who were called "Solicitants." If then they are not convinced of
the immoral tendency of the confessional, I shall be surprised.
272 KNOTS UNTIED.
honour the minister s office highly, but we refuse to give it a
hair s breadth more dignity than we find given in the Word of
God. We honour ministers as Christ s ambassadors, Christ s
messengers, Christ s watchmen, helpers of believers joy, preachers
of the Word, and stewards of the mysteries of God. But we de
cline to regard them as priests, mediators, confessors, and rulers
over men s faith, both for the sake of their souls and of our own.*
The vulgar notion that Evangelical teaching is opposed to
the exercise of soul-discipline, or heart-examination, or self-
humiliation, or mortification of the flesh, or true contrition, is
a mere invention of man s. Opposed to it ! There never was
a more baseless assertion. We are entirely favourable to it.
This only we require, that it shall be carried on in the right
way. We approve of a confessional ; but it must be the only
true one, the throne of grace. We approve of going to a
confessor ; but it must be the true One, Christ the Lord. We
approve of submitting consciences to a priest ; but it must be
to the great High Priest, Jesus the Son of God. We approve
of unbosoming our secret sins, and seeking absolution; but it
must be at the feet of the great Head of the Church, and not
at the feet of one of His weak members. We approve of
kneeling to receive ghostly counsel ; but it must be at the feet
of Christ, and not at the feet of man.
Let us beware of ever losing sight of Christ s priestly office.
Let us glory in His atoning death, honour Him as our Substi
tute and Surety on the cross, follow Him as our Shepherd, hear
His voice as our Prophet, obey Him as our King. But in all
our thoughts about Christ, let it be often before our minds that
He alone is our High Priest, and that He has deputed His
priestly office to no order of men in the world, j This is the
* It should always be remembered that the word " priest " in the Prayer-
book, was not intended to mean a sacrificing priest, like the Old Testament
priests. It signifies the same as presbyter or elder.
f The passage, " "Whosesoever sins yo remit they are remitted unto them ;
and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained " (John xx. 23), is often
quoted in defence of the Romish view of priestly absolution, but I am firmly
persuaded, in entire contradiction to our Lord s intention.
I believe that in these words our Lord conferred on His apostles, and all
those disciples who were present with them at the same time (Luke xxiv. 33),
the power of authoritatively declaring whose sins are forgiven, and whose
sins are not forgiven, but nothing more. I believe, moreover, that from their
peculiar gift of discerning spirits, the Apostles were fitted and enabled to
CONFESSION. 273
office of Christ, which Satan lahours above all to obscure. It
is the neglect of this office which leads to every kind of error.
It is the remembrance of this office which is the best safe-guard
against the plausible teaching of the Church of Rome. Once
right about this office wo shall never greatly err in the matter
of the confession of sin. We shall know to whom confession
ought to be made ; and to know that rightly is no slight thing.
I shall conclude this paper with two words of practical appli
cation, (a) We have seen who ought to confess sin. (b) We
have seen to whom confession ought to be made. Let us try
to bring the subject nearer to our hearts and consciences. Time
flies very fast. Writing and preaching, reading and working,
doubting and speculating, discussion and controversy, all,
all will soon be past and gone for ever. Yet a little while and
there will remain nothing but certainties, realities, and eternity.
Let us then ask ourselves honestly and conscientiously, Do
we CONFESS ?
(1) If we never confessed sin before, let us go this very day
to the throne of grace, and speak to the great High Priest, the
Lord Jesus Christ, about our souls. Let us pour out our hearts
before Him, and keep nothing back from Him. Let us acknow
ledge our iniquities to Him, and entreat Him to cleanse them
away. Let us say to Him, in David s words, "For Thy name s
sake, pardon my iniquity ; for it is great." " Hide Thy face
from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities." Let us cry to
Him as the publican did in the parable, " God be merciful to
me a sinner." (Ps. xxv. 11 ; li. 9 ; Luke xviii. 13.)
Are we afraid to do this 1 Do we feel unworthy and unfit to
begin? Let us resist such feelings, and begin without delay.
There are glorious Bible examples to encourage us : there are
rich Bible promises to lure us on. In all the volume of Scrip-
exercise this power of declaring, in a way that no minister, since the apostolic
times, ever can or ever did.
But that the Apostles ever took on themselves to "remit or retain sins,"
in the way that the Romish Church enjoins on her priests to do, is not to be
traced out in any passage in the whole New Testament.
The reader who wishes to investigate this subject further, will find it fully
discussed in my Expository Thoughts on St. John s Gospel (vol. in., pp.
444-453), together with many valuable quotations from eminent divines
elucidating the whole matter. The passage is too long for insertion in this
place.
274 KNOTS UNTIED.
ture there are no passages so encouraging as those which are
about confession of sin. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful
and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness." (1 John i. 8.) "If any say, I have sinned,
and perverted that which is right, and it profited me not ; He
will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall
see the light." (Job xxxiii. 27.) "Father," said the prodigal
son, " I have sinned against heaven and in thy sight, and am
no more worthy to be called thy son. But the father said to
his servant, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him, and
put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet ; and bring hither
the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and be merry." (Luke
xv. 21-23.) If Christ had never died for sinners, there might
be some excuse for doubting. But Christ having suffered for
sin, there is nothing that need keep us back.
(2) If we have been taught by the Holy Ghost to confess
our sins, and know the subject of this paper by inward ex
perience, let us keep up the habit of confession to the last day
of our lives.
We shall never cease to be sinners as long as we are in the
body. Every day we shall find something to deplore in our
thoughts, or motives, or words, or deeds. Every day we shall
find that we need the blood of sprinkling, and the intercession
of Christ. Then let us keep up daily transactions with the
throne of grace. Let us daily confess our infirmities at the feet
of our merciful and faithful High Priest, and seek fresh absolu
tion. Let us daily cast ourselves under the shadow of His
wings, and cry, " Surely in me dwelleth no good thing : Thou
art my hiding-place, Lamb of God ! "
May every day find us more humble and yet more hopeful,
more sensible of our own un worthiness, and yet more ready to
rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh !
May our prayers become every day more fervent, and our con
fessions of sin more real ; our eye more single, and our walk
with God more close ; our knowledge of Jesus more clear,
and our love to Jesus more deep ; our citizenship in heaven
more manifest, and our separation from the world more
distinct !
So living, we shall cross the waves of this troublesome world
with comfort, and have an abundant entrance into God s
CONFESSION. 275
kingdom. So living, wo shall find that our light affliction,
which is but for a moment, works for us a far more exceeding
and eternal weight of glory. Yet a few more years, and our
prayers and confessions shall cease for ever. We shall begin
an endless life of praise. We shall exchange our daily con
fessions for eternal thanksgivings.*
* The attention of all members of the Church of England is particularly
requested to the following passages from the " HOMILY OF REPENTANCE" :
"Whereas the adversaries [Roman Catholics] wrest this place [in St.
James (James v.) ], for to maintain their auricular confession withal, they
are greatly deceived themselves and do shamefully deceive others ; for if
this text ought to be understood of auricular confession, then the priests
are as much bound to confess themselves unto the lay-people, as the lay-
people are bound tu confess themselves to them. And if to pray is to
absolve, then the laity by this place hath as great authority to absolve the
priests, as the priests have to absolve the laity.
" And where that they do allege this saying of our Saviour Jesus Christ
unto the leper, to prove auricular confession to stand on God s Word, Go tin)
way, and show thyself unto the priest (Matt, viii.), do they not see that the
leper was cleansed from his leprosy before he was by Christ sent unto the
priest, for to show himself unto him? By the same reason we must be
cleansed from our spiritual leprosy, I mean our sins must be forgiven us,
before that we come to confession. What need we then to tell fortli our
sins into the ear of the priest, sith that they be already taken away ! There
fore holy Ambrose, in his second sermon upon the hundred-and-nineteenth
Psalm, doth say full well, Go, shoio thyself unto the priest. Who is the true
priest, but He which is the Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec?
Whereby this holy Father doth understand that, both the priesthood and
the law being changed, we ought to acknowledge none other Priest for
deliverance from our sins but our Saviour Jesus Christ : who being Sovereign
Bishop, doth with the sacrifice of His body and blood, offered once for ever
upon the altar of the cross, most effectually cleanse the spiritual leprosy,
and wash away the sins of all those that with true confession of the same
do flee unto Him.
"It is most evident and plain that this auricular confession hath not the
warrant of God s Word, else it had not been lawful for Nectarius, Bishop
of Constantinople, upon a just occasion to have put it down. (Nectarius
Sozomcn Ecdes. Hist., lib. vii. cap. 10.) For when anything ordained of God
is by the lewdness of men abused, the abuse ought to be taken away, and
the thing itself suffered to remain. Moreover, these are St. Augustine s
words (Confession urn, lib. x., cap. 3) : What have I to do with men, that
they should hear my confession, as though they were able to heal my
diseases? A curious sort of men to know another man s life, and slothful
to correct and amend their own. Why do they seek to hear of me what I
am, which will not hear of Thee what they are? And how can they tell,
when they hear by me of myself, whether I tell the truth, or not ; sith no
mortal man knoweth what is in man, but the spirit of man which is in him (
Augustine would not have written thus if auricular confession had been used
in his time.
"Being, therefore, not led with the conscience thereof, let us with fear
2*76 KNOTS UNTIED.
and trembling, and with a true contrite heart, use that kind of confession
that God doth command in His Word ; and then doubtless, as He is faithful
and righteous, He will forgive us our sins, and make us clean from all
wickedness. I do not say but that, if any do find themselves troubled in
conscience, they may repair to their learned evirate or pastor, or to some
other godly learned man, and show the trouble and doubt of their conscience
to them, that they may receive at their hand the comfortable salve of God s
AVord ; but it is against the true Christian liberty that any man should be
bound to the numbering of his sins, as it hath been used heretofore in the
time of blindness and ignorance."
XIII.
WORSHIP.
" God ?.s a Spirit: and they that worship Him mutt worship Him in
spirit and in truth." JOHN iv. 24.
" We are the, circumcision, which worship God in the. spirit." PHIL.
iii. 3.
In vain they do worship Me. " MATT, x v. 9.
"A show of wisdom in will-worship." COL. ii. 23.
WE live in times when there is a vast quantity of public
religious worship. Most English people who have any respect
for appearances go to some church or chapel on Sundays. To
attend no place of worship in this country, whatever may be
the case abroad, is at present the exception and not the rule.
But we all know that quantity is of little value without quality.
It is not enough that we worship sometimes. There remains
behind a mighty question to be answered, " How do we
worship 1 "
Not all religious worship is right in the sight of God. I
think this is as clear as the sun at noon-day to any honest
reader of the Bible. The Bible speaks of worship which is
in vain," as well as worship which is true, and of "will-
worship," as well as spiritual worship. To suppose, as some
thoughtless persons do, that it signifies nothing where we go on
Sundays, and matters nothing how the thing is done, provided
it is done, is mere childish folly. Merchants and tradesmen do
not carry on their business in this fashion. They look at the
way their work is done, and are not content with work done
anyhow. Let us not be deceived. God is not mocked. The
question, "How do we worship?" is a very serious one.
I propose to unfold the subject of worship, and to lay down
some Scriptural principles about it. In a day of profound
ignorance in some quarters, and of systematic false teaching in
others, I hold it to be of primary importance to have clear ideas
278 KNOTS UNTIED.
about all disputed points in religion. I fear that thousands of
English men and women can render no reason of their faith
and practice. They do not know why they believe, or what
they believe, or why they do what they do. Like children,
they are tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, and are
liable to be led astray by the first clever heretic who meets them.
In a day like this let us try to get hold of some distinct notions
about Christian worship.
I. / will show the general importance of public worship,
II. I will show the leading principles of public warship.
III. I will show the essential parts of complete public worship.
IV. / will show the things to be avoided in public worship.
V. / will show the tests by which our public worship should
be tried.
I purposely confine my attention to public worship. I pur
posely pass over all private religious habits, such as praying,
Bible-reading, self-examination, and meditation. No doubt
they lie at the very root of personal Christianity, and with
out them all public religion is utterly in vain. But they are
not the subject I want to handle to-day.
I. I have first to show the general importance of public worship.
I trust I need not dwell long on this part of my subject.
This paper is not likely to fall into the hands of any who do not
at least call themselves Christians. There are few, except
downright infidels, who will dare to say that we ought not to
make some public profession of religion. Most people, what
ever their own practice may be, will admit that we ought to
meet other Christians at stated times and in stated places, and
unitedly and together to worship God.*
* " To deny God a worship is as great a folly as to deny His being. He
that renounceth all homage to his Creator, envies Him the being of which
he cannot deprive Him. The natural inclination to worship is as universal
as the notion of a God ; else idolatry had never gained a footing in the world.
The existence of God was never owned in any nation without a worship of
God being appointed ; and many people who have turned their backs upon
some other parts of the law of nature, have paid a continual homage to some
superior and invisible Being. The Jews gave a reason why man was created
in the evening of the Sabbath, because he should begin his being with the
worship of his Maker. As soon as ever he found himself to be a creature,
his first solemn act should be a particular respect to his Creator. To fear
WORSHIP. 279
Public worship, I am bold to say, has .always been one mark
of God s servants. Man, as a general rule, is a social being,
and does not like to live separate from his fellows. In every
age God has made use of that mighty principle, and has taught
His people to worship Him publicly as well as privately,
together as well as alone. I believe the last day will show
that wherever God has had a people He has always had a
congregation. His servants, however few in number, have
always assembled themselves together, and approached their
Heavenly Father in company. They have been taught to do
it for many wise reasons, partly to bear a public testimony to
the world, partly to strengthen, cheer, help, encourage, and
comfort one another, and above all, to train and prepare them
for the general assembly in heaven. " As iron sharpeneth iron,
so doth the countenance of a man his friend." That man can
know little of human nature who does not know that to see
others doing and professing the same things that we do in
religion, is an immense help and encouragement to our souls.
From the beginning of the Bible down to the end, you may
trace out a line of public worship in the history of all God s
saints. You see it in the very first family that lived on earth.
The familiar story of Cain and Abel hinges entirely on acts of
public worship. You see it in the history of Noah. The very
first thing recorded about Noah and his family, when they
came forth from the ark, was a solemn act of public worship.
You see it in the history of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Wherever the patriarchs had a tent they always had an altar.
They not only prayed in private, but worshipped in public.
You see it throughout the whole Mosaic economy, from Sinai
downward, till our Lord appeared. The Jew who was not a
public worshipper in the tabernacle or the temple, would have
been cut off from the congregation of Israel. You see it
throughout the whole New Testament. The Lord Jesus Him
self gives a special promise of His presence wherever two or
three are assembled in His name. The Apostles, in every
God and keep His commandment, is the whole of man (Eccles. xii. 13), or is
whole man : he is not a man, but a beast, without observance of God.
Religion is as requisite as reason to complete a man. He were not reason
able, if he were not religious, because by neglecting religion he neglects the
chiefest dictate of reason." Char nock s Works. Nichol s Edition. Vol. i.,p.!82.
280 KNOTS UNTIED.
Church they founded, made the duty of assembling together a
first principle in their list of duties. Their universal rule was,
" Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together." (Heb.
x. 25.) These are ancient things, I know ; but it is well to be
reminded of them. Just as you may lay it down, as a certainty,
that where there is no private prayer there is no grace in a
man s heart, so you may lay it down, as the highest probability,
that where there is no public worship there is no Church of
God, and no profession of Christianity.*
Turn now from the Word of God to the pages of Church
history, and what will you find ? You will find that from the
days of the Apostles down to this hour, public worship has
always been one of God s great instruments in doing good to
souls. Where is it that sleeping souls are generally awakened,
dark souls enlightened, dead souls quickened, doubting souls
brought to decision, mourning souls cheered, heavy-laden souls
relieved 1 Where, as a general rule, but in the public assembly
of Christian worshippers, and during the preaching of God s
Word ? Take away public worship from a land, shut up the
churches and chapels, forbid people to meet together for
religious services, prohibit any kind of religion except that
which is private, do this, and see what the result would be.
You would inflict the greatest spiritual injury on the country
which was so treated. You could do nothing so likely to help
the devil and stop the progress of Christ s cause, except the
taking away of the Bible. Next to the Word of God there is
nothing which does so much good to mankind as public worship.
"Faith cometh by hearing." (Rom. x. 7.) There is a special
presence of Christ in religious assemblies.
I grant freely that public worship may become a mere act
of formality. Thousands of so-called Christians, no doubt, arc
continually going to churches and chapels, and getting no
benefit from their attendance. Like Pharaoh s lean kinc,
they are nothing bettered, but rather worse, more impenitent,
and more hardened. ]STo wonder that the ignorant Sabbath-
* The reader will of course understand that I fully admit the impossibility
of public worship being kept up in times of persecution. "When the lioman
PJmperors persecuted the early Church, and all Christians were proscribed,
there could of necessity have been no public worship. But these are evi
dently exceptional cases.
WORSHIP. 281
breaker defends himself by saying, " For anything I can see,
those who go nowhere on Sundays are just as good people as
church-goers and chapel-goers." But we must never forget
that the misuse of a good thing is no argument against the use
of it. Once begin to refuse everything that is misused in this
sinful world, and there is hardly anything left for you that is
good. Take a broader view of the question before you. Look
at any district you like in England, and divide people into two
great parties, worshippers and non-worshippers. I will engage
you will find that there is far more good among those that
worship than among those that do not. It does make a differ
ence, whatever men may say. It is not true that worshippers
and non-worshippers are all alike.
We ought never to forget the solemn words of St. Paul :
" Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together, as the
manner of some is ; but exhort one another." (Heb. x. 25.)
Let us act upon that exhortation, as long as we live, and through
evil report and good report continue regular attendants at public
worship. Let us not care for the bad example of many around
us who rob God of His Bay, and never go up to His House from
one end of the year to the other. Let us go on worshipping in
spite of every discouragement, and let us not doubt that in the
long run of life it does us good. Let us prove our own meet-
ness for heaven by our feelings toward the earthly assemblies of
God s people. Happy is that man who can say with David, " I
was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of
the Lord ; " " I had rather be a door-keeper in the house of my
God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness." (Psalm cxxii. 1 ;
Ixxxiv. 10.)
II. I proceed, in the second place, to show the leading
principles of pull ic worship.
These leading principles are so plain and obvious to any
thoughtful reader of the Bible, that I need not dwell on them
at any length. But for the sake of some who may not hitherto
have given much attention to the subject, I feel it best to state
them in order.
(a) For one thing, true public worship must be directed to the
right object. It is written plainly, both in the Old and K"ew
Testament : " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him
282 KNOTS UNTIED.
only shalt thou serve." (Deut. vi. 13 ; Matt. iv. 10.) All
adoration and prayers addressed to the Virgin Mary, the saints
and angels, is utterly useless, and unwarranted by Scripture.
It is worship that is mere waste of time. There is not the
slightest proof that the departed saints or the angels can hear
our worship, or that if they did hear it they could do anything
for us. It is worship that is most offensive to God. He is a
jealous God, and has declared that He will not give His glory
to another. Of all His Ten Commandments there is none more
stringent and sweeping than the Second. It forbids us not only
to worship, but even to " bow down " to anything beside God.
(b) For another thing, true public worship must be directed
to God through the mediation of CJirist. It is written plainly,
" I am the way, the truth, and the life : no man cometh unto
the Father, but by Me." (John xiv. 6.) It is written of
Christians, that they are a people who " come unto God by
Christ." (Heb. vii. 25.) The mighty Being with whom we
have to do, without controversy, is a God of infinite love,
kindness, mercy, and compassion. "God is love." But it is
no less true that He is a Being of infinite justice, purity, and
holiness, that He has an infinite hatred of sin, and cannot bear
that which is evil. He is the same God that cast down the
angels from heaven, drowned the world with a flood, and burned
up Sodom and Gomorrah. He who carelessly presumes to draw
near to Him without an atonement and a mediator, or by any
other mediator than the one Mediator whom He has appointed,
will find that he worships in vain. " Our God is a consuming
fire." (Heb. xii. 29.)
(c) For another thing, true public worship must be either
directly Scriptural, or deducible from Scripture, or in harmony
with Scripture. It is written plainly concerning the Jews of
our Lord s time, " In vain do they worship Me, teaching for
doctrines the commandments of men." (Matt. xv. 9.) No
doubt there is a conspicuous absence of particular injunctions
about New Testament worship. No doubt there is a reasonable
liberty allowed to Churches and congregations in their arrange
ments about worship. But still the rule must never be for
gotten : " Nothing must be required of men contrary to God s
Word." Well says the Twentieth Article of the Church of
England : " The Church hath power to decree rites and cere-
WORSHIP. 283
monies, and authority in controversies of faith. And yet it is
not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to
God s Word written." Well says the Thirty-fourth Article:
" Ceremonies at all times have been divers, and may be changed
according to the diversities of countries, times, and men s
manners, so that nothing be ordained against God s Word." I
say therefore that any man who tells us that there are seven
sacraments, when the Bible only mentions two, or that any
man-made ordinance is as binding on our consciences and as
needful to salvation as an ordinance appointed by Christ, is
telling us what he has no right to tell. We must not listen to
him. He is committing not only a mistake, but a sin. St.
Paul distinctly tells us that there is such a thing as "will-
worship," which has a "show of wisdom," but is in reality
useless, because it only "satisfies the flesh." (Col. ii. 23.)
(d) For another thing, true public worship must be an
intelligent worship. I mean by that expression that worshippers
must know what they are doing. It is written plainly as a
charge against the Samaritans, " Ye worship ye know not what :
we know what we worship." (John iv. 22.) It is written of
the heathen Athenians, that they ignorantly worshipped an
"unknown god." It is utterly false that ignorance is the
mother of devotion. The poor Italian Papists, unable to read,
and not knowing a chapter in the Bible, may appear extremely
devout and sincere, as they kneel in crowds before the image of
the Virgin Mary, or hear Latin prayers which they do not
understand. But it is utterly preposterous to suppose that
their worship is acceptable to God. He who made man at the
beginning made him an intelligent being, with mind as well as
body. A worship in which the mind takes no part is useless
and unprofitable. It might suit a beast as well as a man.
(e) For another thing, true public worship must be the
worship of the heart. I mean by this, that the affections must
be employed as well as our intellect, and our inward man must
serve God as well as our body. It is written plainly in the Old
Testament, and the saying is quoted by Jesus Christ Himself :
" This people draweth nigh to Me with their mouth, and
honoureth Me with their lips ; but their heart is far from Me.
But in vain do they worship Me." (Isa. xxix 13 ; Matt. xv. 8.)
It is written of the Jews in Ezekiel s time : " They come unto
284 KNOTS UNTIED.
thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as My people,
and they hear thy words, but they will not do them : for with
their mouth they show much love, but their heart goeth after
their covetousness." (Ezek. xxxiii. 31.) The heart is the
principal thing that God asks man to bring in all his approaches
to Him, whether public or private. A church may be full of
Worshippers who may give God an immense amount of bodily
service. There may be abundance of gestures, and postures,
and turnings to the East, and bowings, and crossings, and
prostrations, and grave countenances, and upturned eyes, and
yet the hearts of the worshippers may be at the end of the earth.
One may be thinking only of coming or past pleasures, another
of coming or past business, and another of coming or past sins.
Such worship, we may be very sure, is utterly worthless in God s
sight. It is even worse than worthless : it is abominable
hypocrisy. God is a Spirit, and He cares nothing for man s
bodily service without man s heart. Bodily service profiteth
little. "Man looketh on the outward appearance; but the
Lord looketh 011 the heart." The broken and contrite heart is
the true sacrifice, the sacrifice which " God will not despise." *
(1 Sam. xvi. 7 ; Psalm li. 17.)
(/) In the last place, true public worship must be a reverent
worship. It is written, "Keep thy foot when thou goest to the
house of God, and be more ready to hear than to give the
* " Men may attend on worship all their days with a juiceless heart and
unquickened frame, and think to compensate the neglect of the manner, with
the abundance of the matter of the service. Outward expressions are only
the badges and liveries of service, not the service itself. As the strength of
sin lies in the inward frame of the heart, so the strength of worship lies in
the inward complexion and temper of the soul. What do a thousand services
avail, without cutting the throat of carnal affections? What are loud
prayers, but as sounding brass and tinkling cymbals, without divine charity ?
A Pharisaical diligence in outward forms had no better title vouchsafed by
our Saviour than that of hypocrisy. God desires not sacrifices nor delights
in burnt-offerings. Shadows are not to be offered instead of substance. God
required the heart of man for itself, but commanded outward ceremonies, as
subservient to inward worship, and goads and spurs unto it. They were
never appointed as the substance of religion, but as auxiliaries to it.
" Could the Israelites have been called worshippers of God according to
His order, if they had brought Him a thousand lambs that had died in a
ditch or been killed at home ? They were to be brought to the altar living,
and the blood shed at the foot of it. A thousand sacrifices killed without
had not been so valuable as one brought alive to the place of offering. "-
Charnock, vol. i., p. 323,
WORSHIP. 285
sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil."
(Eccles. v. 1.) It is recorded that our Lord Jesus Christ began
and ended His ministry with two practical protests against
irreverent worship. On two distinct occasions He cast out of
the temple the buyers and sellers who were profaning its courts
by their traffic, and justified His act by the weighty words, " It
is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer, but ye
have made it a den of thieves." (Matt. xxi. 13.) People who
call themselves Christians, and go to churches and chapels to
stare about, whisper, fidget, yawn, or sleep, but not to pray, or
praise, or listen, are not a whit better than the wicked Jews.
They do not consider that God detests profaneness and careless
ness in His presence, and that to behave before God as they
would not dare to behave before their sovereign at a levee or
a drawing-room, is a very grave offence indeed. We must
beware that we do not rush from one extreme into another. It
does not follow, because " bodily service " alone is useless, that
it does not matter how we behave ourselves in the congregation.
Surely even nature, reason, and common sense should teach us
that there is a manner and demeanour suitable to mortal man,
when he draws nigh to his Almighty Maker. It is not for
nothing that it is written, " God is greatly to be feared in the
assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them
that are" about Him." (Psalm Ixxxix. 7.) If it is worth while
to attend public worship at all, it is worth while to do it care
fully and well. God is in heaven, and we are on earth. Let
us not be rash and hasty. Let us mind what we are about.
" Let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably
with reverence and godly fear." (Heb. xii. 28, 29.)
I ask the reader s special attention to the five leading
principles which I have just laid down. I fear they strike at
the root of the worship of myriads in our own land, to say nothing
of Papists, Mahometans, and heathens abroad. Thousands of
English people, I fear, are regularly spending their Sundays in
a worship which is utterly useless. It is a worship without
Scripture, without Christ, without the Holy Spirit, without
knowledge, without heart, and without the slightest benefit to
the worshippers. For any good they get from it, they might
just as well be sitting at home, and not worship at all. Let us
take heed that this is not our condition. Let us remember, as
286 KNOTS UNTIED.
long as we live, that it is not the quantity of worship, but the
quality that God regards. The inward and spiritual character
of the congregation is of far more importance in His sight than
the number of the worshippers, or the outward and visible signs
of devotion which they exhibit. Children and fools, who
admire poppies more than corn, may think all is right when
there is a great external show of religion. But it is not so with
God. His all-seeing eye looks at the inner man.
III. I proceed, in the third place, to show the essential parts
of Christian public worship.
I will suppose the case of a man who has never given the
subject of religion any sincere attention, and has never gone
regularly to any place of worship at all. I will suppose such
a man to be awakened to a sense of the value of his soul, and to
be desirous of information about things in religion. He is
puzzled by finding that all Christians do not worship God in
the same way, and that one neighbour worships God in one
fashion, and another in another. He hears one man saying
that there is no road to heaven excepting through his Church,
and another replying that all will go to hell who do not join his
ChapeL Now what is he to think 1 Are there not certain
things which are essential parts of Christian worship? I answer
without hesitation that there are. It shall be my next business
to exhibit them in order.
I freely grant that there is little said on the nature of public
worship in the New Testament. There is a wide difference in
this respect between the law of Moses and the law of Christ.
The Jew s religion was full of strict and minute directions about
worship : the Christian s contains very few directions, and those
of the simplest and most general description. The Jew s religion
was full of types, emblems, and figures : the Christian s only
contains two, viz. Baptism and the Lord s Supper. The Jew s
religion approached the worshipper chiefly through the eye :
the New Testament religion appeals directly to the heart and
conscience. The Jew s religion was confined to one particular
nation : the Christian s was meant for the whole world. The
Jew could turn to the writings of Moses, and see at a glance
every item of his worship : the Christian can only point to a
few isolat d texts and passages, which are to be applied by
WORSHIP. 287
every Church according to circumstances. In a word, there is
nothing answering to Exodus or Leviticus in the New Testa
ment. Yet a careful reader of the Christian Scriptures can
hardly fail to pick out of them the essential parts and principles
of Christian worship. Where these essential parts are present,
there is Christian worship. Where they are absent, the worship
is, to say the least, defective, imperfect, and incomplete.
(a) In complete public worship the Sabbath should always
be honoured. That blessed day was appointed for this very
purpose, among others, to give men an opportunity of meeting
together in God s service. A Sabbath was given to man even in
Paradise. The observance of a Sabbath was made part of the
Ten Commandments. The worship of God on the Sabbath was
observed by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. To meet together
on one day in the week at least was a practice of the early
Christians, though they met on the first day instead of the
seventh. (Acts xx. 7 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 2.) To assemble in God s
house on the Christian Sabbath has been the custom of all
professing Christians for eighteen hundred years. The best
and holiest of God s saints have always pressed on others most
strongly the value of Sabbath worship, and borne witness to its
usefulness. It sounds very fine and spiritual, no doubt, to say
that every day should be a Sabbath to a Christian, and that
one day should not be kept more holy than another. But facts
are stronger than theories. Experience proves that human
nature requires such helps as fixed days, and hours, and seasons
for carrying on spiritual business, and that public worship never
prospers unless we observe God s order. "The Sabbath was
made for man " by Him who made man at the beginning, and
knew what flesh and blood is. As a general rule, it will always be
found that where there is no Sabbath there is no public worship.
(b) In complete public worship there should be a ministry. I
do not for a moment say that it is of absolute necessity that it
must be an Episcopal ministry. I am not so narrow-minded
and uncharitable as to deny the validity of Presbyterian or Con
gregational orders. I only maintain that it is the mind of God
that ministers of some kind should conduct the worship of
Christian congregations, and be responsible for its decent and
orderly conduct in approaching God. I am at a loss to under
stand how any one can read the Acts of the Apostles, and the
288 KNOTS UNTIED.
Epistles to the Corinthians, Ephesians, Timothy, and Titus, and
deny that the ministry is an appointment of God. I say this
with every feeling of respect for the Quakers and Plymouth
Brethren, who have no ordained ministers : I simply say that I
cannot understand their views on this subject. Reason itself
appears to me to tell us that business which is left to nobody in
particular to attend to, is a business which is soon entirely
neglected. Order is said to be heaven s first law. Once let a
people begin with no Sabbath and no ministry, and it would
never surprise me if they ended with no public worship, no
religion, and no God.
(c) In complete public worship there should be the preaching
of God s Word. I can find no record of Church assemblies in
the New Testament in which preaching and teaching orally
does not occupy a most prominent position. It appears to me
to be the chief instrument by which the Holy Ghost not only
awakens sinners, but also leads on and establishes saints. I
observe that in the very last words that St. Paul wrote to
Timothy, as a young minister, he especially enjoins on him to
"preach the Word." (2 Tim. iv. 2.) I cannot, therefore,
believe that any system of worship in which the sermon is made
little of, or thrust into a corner, can be a Scriptural system, or
one likely to have the blessing of God. I have no faith in the
general utility of services composed entirely of prayer-reading,
hymn-singing, sacrament-receiving, and walking in procession.
I hold firmly with Bishop Latimer, that it is one of Satan s
great aims to exalt ceremonies and put down preaching. There
is a deep meaning in the words, " Despise not prophesying."
(1 Thess. v. 20.) A contempt for sermons is a pretty sure mark
of a decline in spiritual religion.
(d) In complete public worship there should be united public
prayer. I can find no account of religious assemblies in the
New Testament in which prayer and supplication do not form a
principal business. I find St. Paul telling Timothy, " I exhort,
first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving
of thanks, be made for all men." (1 Tim. ii. 1.) Such prayers
should be plain and intelligible, that all the worshippers may
know what is going on, and be able to go along with him who
prays. They should as far as possible be the joint act of all the
assembly and not the act of one man s mind alone. A con-
WORSHIP. 289
gregation of professing Christians which only meets to hear a
grand sermon, and takes no part or interest in the prayers, seems
to me to fall far short of the standard of the New Testament.
Public worship does not consist only of hearing.*
(e) In complete public worship there should be the public
reading of the Holy Scriptures. This was evidently a part of the
service of the Jewish synagogue, as we may learn from what
happened at Nazareth, and at Antioch in Pisidia. (Luke iv. 16 ;
Acts xiii. 15.) We cannot doubt that the Christian Church
was intended to honour the Bible as much as the Jewish. To
my eye St. Paul points to this when he says to Timothy, " Till
I come give attention to reading." (1 Tim. iv. 13.) I do not
believe that "reading" in that text means "private study."
Reason and common sense alike teach the usefulness of the
practice of publicly reading the Scriptures. A visible Church
will always contain many professing members who either cannot
read, or have no will or time to read at home. What safer plan
can be devised for the instruction of such people than the
regular reading of God s Word ? A congregation which hears
but little of the Bible is always in danger of becoming entirely
dependent on its minister. God should always speak in the
assembly of His people as well as man. j
* The reader is requested to observe that I purposely abstain from saying
anything about the vexed question, whether public prayers in the congrega
tion should be liturgical and pre-composed, or extemporaneous. I say nothing,
because nothing is said about it in Scripture. Neither liturgies nor extem
poraneous prayers are expressly sanctioned, or expressly prohibited, in God s
Word. A large liberty is mercifully given to the Churches. I think the
Christian (so called) who anathematises and abuses his brother because he
uses a liturgy, is an ignorant, narrow-minded bigot on one side. I think the
Christian (so-called) who anathematises and excommunicates his brother
because he does not use a liturgy, is a narrow-minded, ignorant bigot on the
other side. Both are wrong.
My own mind has been long made up. If all ministers prayed extempore
always, as some ministers pray sometimes, I should be against a liturgy. But
considering what human nature is, I decidedly think it better both for
minister and people, in the regular, habitual, and stated assemblies of the
Church to have a liturgy. With all its imperfections I am very thankful for
the Book of Common Prayer. It may have defects, because it was not com
piled by inspiration. But for all that, it is an admirable and matchless
manual of public devotion. I would not impose the use of it on a brother s
conscience for a thousand worlds. But I claim the right to use it myself un
disturbed.
f There is nothing in the public worship of the Church of England which I
admire so much as the large quantity of Scripture which it orders to be read
290 KNOTS UNTIED.
(/) In complete public worship there should be united public
praise. That this was the custom among the first Christians, is
evident from St. Paul s words to the Ephesians and Colossians,
in which he commended the use of " psalms and hymns and
spiritual songs." (Ephes. v. 19 ; Coloss. iii. 16.) That it was
a custom so widely prevalent as to be a mark of the earliest
Christians, is simply matter of history. Pliny records that
when they met they " used to sing a hymn to Christ as God."
!N"o one indeed can read the Old Testament and not discover the
extremely prominent place which praise occupied in the temple
service. What man in his senses can doubt that the " service
of song" was meant to be highly esteemed under the New
Testament? Praise has been truly called the flower of all
devotion. It is the only part of our worship which will never
die. Preaching and praying and reading shall one day be no
longer needed. But praise shall go on for ever. A congrega
tion which takes no part in praise, or leaves it all to be done by
deputy through a choir, can be hardly thought in a satisfactory
state.
(g) Finally, in complete public worship there should be the
regular use of the two sacraments which Christ appointed in His
Church. By baptism new members should be continually added
to the congregation, and publicly enrolled in the list of profess
ing Christians. By the Lord s Supper believers should be con
tinually offered an opportunity of confessing their Master, and
continually strengthened and refreshed, and put in remembrance
of His sacrifice on the cross. I believe, with every feeling of
respect for Quakers and Plymouth Brethren, that no one who
neglected these two sacraments would have been regarded as a
Christian by St. Paul and St. Peter, St. James and St. John.
Xo doubt, like every other good thing, they may be painfully
misused and profaned by some, and superstitiously idolized by
others. But after all there is no getting over the fact that
baptism and the Lord s Supper were ordained by Christ Himself
as means of grace, and we cannot doubt He meant them to be
reverently and duly used. A man who preferred to worship
aloud to its members. Every Churchman who goes to church twice on
Sunday hears two chapters of the Old Testament and two of the New, beside
the Psalms, the Epistle, and the Gospel. : I doubt if the members of any other
Church in Christendom hear anything like the same proportion of God s Word.
WORSHIP. 291
God for many years without ever receiving the sacrament of the
Lord s Supper, is a man, I am firmly persuaded, that would not
have been thought in a right state in the days of the Apostles.
I commend these seven points to the serious attention of my
readers, and invite them to consider them well. I can easily
believe that I may have said things about them with which
some Christians may not agree. I am not their judge. To
their own Master they must stand or fall. I can only tell my
readers, as an honest man, what appears to me the teaching of
Holy Scripture. I do not for a moment say that no man will
be saved who does not see public worship precisely with my
eyes. I say nothing of the kind. But I do say that any
regular system of public worship which does not give a place
to the Sabbath, the ministry, preaching, prayers, Scripture-
reading, praise, and the two sacraments, appears to me deficient
and incomplete. If we attend a place of worship where any of
these seven points is neglected, I think we suffer loss and
damage. We may be doing well; but I think we might be
doing better. To my mind these seven parts of public worship
appear to stand out plainly on the face of the New Testament ;
and I plainly say so.
IV. I proceed, in the fourth place, to show some things
which ought to be avoided in public worship.
I am well aware that there is no perfection in this world.
There is no visible Church, I am sure, in whose public worship
it would not be easy to show faults, defects, and shortcomings.
The best service in the best visible Church on earth will always
be infinitely below the standard of the glorified Church in
heaven. I admit with sorrow and humiliation, that the faith,
and hope, and life, and worship of God s people are all alike
full of imperfections. To be continually separating and seced
ing from Churches, because we detect blemishes in their admin
istration, is not the act of a wise man. It is to forget the
parable of the wheat and tares.
But I cannot forget, for all this, that we have fallen on
dangerous times in the matter of worship. There are things
going on in many English churches and chapels in the present
day so highly objectionable, that I feel it a plain duty to offer
some cautions about them. Plain speaking about them is
292 KNOTS UNTIED.
imperatively demanded at a minister s hands. If the watchmen
hold their peace, how shall the city take alarm? "If the
trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for
the battler 5 (1 Cor. xiv. 8.)
There are three great and growing evils in public worship,
which require special watching in the present day. I feel it a
positive duty to direct attention to them. We have need to
stand on our guard about these evils, and to take heed that
they do not infect and damage our souls.
(a) Let us beware, for one thing, of any worship in which a
disproportionate honour is given to any one ordinance of Christ,
to the neglect of another. There are Churches at this moment,
in which baptism and the Lord s Supper, like Aaron s rod,
swallow up everything else in religion. Nothing beside receives
much attention. The honour done to the font and the Lord s
Table meet you at every turn. All else, in comparison, is
jostled out of its place, overshadowed, dwarfed, and driven into
a corner. Worship of this sort, I hesitate not to say, is useless
to man s soul. Once alter the proportions of a doctor s prescrip
tion, and you may turn his medicine into a poison. Once bury
the whole of Christianity under baptism and the Lord s Supper,
and the real idea of Christian worship is completely destroyed.
(I) Let us beware, for another thing, of any worship in which
an excessive quantity of decoration and ornament is used. There
are many Churches at this moment, in which Divine service is
carried on with such an amount of gaudy dressing, candle-
lighting, and theatrical ceremonial, that it defeats the very
purpose of worship. Simplicity should be the grand character
istic of New Testament worship. Ornament at any time should
be employed with a very sparing hand. Neither in the Gospels
nor in the Epistles shall we find the slightest warrant for a
gorgeous and decorated ceremonial, or for any symbols except
water, bread, and wine. Above all, the inherent wickedness of
human nature is such that our minds are only too ready to turn
away from spiritual things to visible things. Whether men
like it or not, what the heart of man needs teaching, is the use-
lessness of outward ornaments without inward grace.*
* "Pompous rites have been the great engine whereby the devil hath
deceived the souls of men, and wrought them to a nauseating simplicity of
Divine worship as if unworthy the majesty and excellency of God. (2 Cor.
WORSHIP. 293
(G) Let us beware, above all things, of any worship in which
ministers wear the dress, or act in the manner, of sacrificing
Ijriests. There are hundreds of English Churches at this moment
in which the Lord s Supper is administered as a sacrifice and
not as a sacrament, and the clergy are practically acting as
mediators between God and man. The real presence of our
Lord s body and blood under the form of bread and wine is
openly taught. The Lord s Table is called an altar. The con
secrated elements are treated with an idolatrous reverence, as
if God Himself was in them, under the form of bread and
wine. The habit of private confession to clergymen, is encour
aged and urged on the people. I find it impossible to believe
that such worship as this can be anything but offensive to God.
He is a jealous God, and will not give His honour to another.
The sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross once offered,
can in no sense or way ever be repeated. His mediatorial and
priestly office He has never deputed to any man, or any order
of men. There is not a word in the Acts or Epistles to show
that the Apostles ever pretended to be sacrificing priests, or to
make any oblation in the Lord s Supper, or to hear private
confessions, and confer judicial absolutions. Surely that simple
fact ought to make men think. Let us beware of Sacrincialism,
the Mass, and the Confessional !
xi. 3.) But the Jews would not understand the glory of the second temple
in the presence of the Messiah, because it had not the pompous grandeur of
the temple erected by Solomon.
"Hence in all ages men have been forward to disfigure God s models and
to dress up a brat of their own ; as though God had been defective in provid
ing for His own honour in His institutions without the assistance of His
creature. This hath always been in the world ; the old world had their
imaginations, and the new world hath continued them. The Israelites, in the
midst of miracles and under the memory of a famous deliverance, would
erect a calf. The Pharisees who sat in Moses chair, would coin new tradi
tions, and enjoin them to be as current as the law of God. Papists will be
blending Christian appointments with Pagan ceremonies, to please the carnal
fancies of the common people.
"How often hath the practice of the Primitive Church, the custom
wherein we are bred, the sentiments of our ancestors, been owned as a more
authentic rule, in matters of worship, than the mind of God delivered in His
Word. It is natural by creation to worship God ; and it is as natural by
corruption for man to worship Him in a human way, and not in a divine. Is
not this to impose laws upon God ? to reckon ourselves wiser than He ? To
think Him negligent of His own services, and that our feeble brains can find
out ways to accommodate His honour better than Himself hath done."-
Charnock, vol. i., p. 222.
294 KNOTS UNTIED.
Against the three evils of which I have just been speaking,
I desire to lift up a warning voice. Such worship is not accept
able in God s sight. It may be pressed upon us most plausibly
by clever men. It may be very attractive to the eye, and ear,
and the sensual part of our nature. But it has one fatal defect
about it : it cannot be defended and maintained by plain texts
of Scripture. Sacramentalism, Ceremonialism, Sacrificialism,
will never be found in Bibles fairly read and honestly interpreted.
We should search the pages of English history, if nothing
else will open our eyes, and see what those pages tell us. Of
worship in which Sacraments, Ceremonies, Sacerdotalism, and
the Mass made the principal part, of such worship England
has surely had enough. Such worship was tried by the Church
of Rome in the days of our forefathers, for centuries before the
Protestant Reformation, and utterly failed. It filled the land
with superstition, ignorance, formalism, and immorality. It
comforted no one, sanctified no one, elevated no one, helped no
one toward heaven. It made the priests overbearing tyrants,
and the people cringing slaves. And shall we go back to it 1 God
forbid ! Shall we once more be content with services in which
baptism, the Lord s Supper, the power of the priesthood, the
real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the necessity of sym
bolical decorations, the value of processions, banners, pictures,
altar lights, are incessantly pressed on our minds 1 Once more
I say, God forbid ! Let every one that loves his soul come out
from such worship and be separate. Let him avoid it and turn
away from it, as he would from poison.
V. I proceed, in the last place, to show some tests l)ij which
OUT public worship should be tried.
This is a point of vast importance, and one which every
professing Christian should look fairly in the face. Too many
are apt to cut the knot of all difficulties about the subject before
us, by referring to their own feelings. They will tell us that
they are not theologians, that they do not pretend to understand
the difference between one school of divinity and another. But
they do know that the worship in which they take part makes
them feel so much better, that they cannot doubt it is all right.
I am not disposed to let such people turn away from the
subject of this paper quite so easily. I cannot forget that
WOKSHIP. 295
religious feelings are very deceitful things. There is a sort of
gentle animal excitement produced in some minds by hearing
religious music and seeing religious spectacles, which is not
true devotion at all. While it lasts, such excitement is very
strong and very contagious ; but it soon comes and soon goes,
and leaves no permanent impression behind it. It is a mere
sensuous animal influence, which even a Komanist may feel at
seasons, and yet remain a Komanist both in doctrine and practice.
(a) True spiritual worship will affect a man s heart and con
science. It will make him feel more keenly the sinfulness of
sin, and his own particular personal corruption. It will deepen
his humility. It will render him more jealously careful over
his inward life. False public worship, like dram-drinking and
opium-eating, will every year produce weaker impressions.
True spiritual worship, like wholesome food, will strengthen
him who uses it, and make him grow inwardly every year.
(b) True spiritual worship will draw a man into close com
munion with Jesus Christ Himself. It will lift him far above
Churches, and ordinances, and ministers. It will make him
hunger and thirst after a sight of the King. The more he
hears, and reads, and prays, and praises, the more he will feel
that nothing but Christ Himself will feed the life of his soul,
and that heart communion with Him is "meat indeed and
drink indeed." The false worshipper in the time of need will
turn to external helps, to ministers, ordinances, and sacraments.
The true worshipper will turn instinctively to Christ by simple
faith, just as the compass-needle turns to the pole.
(c) True spiritual worship will continually extend a man s
spiritual knoicledye. It will annually give bone, and sinew, and
muscle, and firmness to his religion. A true worshipper will
every year know more of self, and God, and heaven, and duty,
and doctrine, and practice, and experience. His religion is a
living thing, and will grow. A false worshipper will never
get beyond the old carnal principles and elements of his theology.
He will annually go round and round like a horse in a mill, and
though labouring much will never get forward. His religion is
a dead thing, and cannot increase and multiply.
(d) True spiritual worship will continually increase the
holiness of a man s life. It will make him every year more
watchful over tongue, and temper, and time, and behaviour in
296 KNOTS UNTIED.
every relation of life. The true worshipper s conscience becomes
annually more tender. The false worshipper s becomes annually
more seared and more hard.
Give me the worship that will stand the test of our Lord s
great principle, " By their fruits ye shall know them." Give
me the worship that sanctifies the life, that makes a man walk
with God and delight in God s law, that lifts him above the
fear of the world and the love of the world, that enables him
to exhibit something of God s image and God s likeness before
his fellow-men, that makes him just, loving, pure, gentle, good-
tempered, patient, humble, unselfish, temperate. This is the
worship that comes down from heaven, and has the stamp and
seal and superscription of God.
Whatever men may please to say, the grand test of the value
of any kind of worship is the effect it produces on the lives of
the worshippers. A man may tell us that what is called
Ritualism now-a-days is the best and most perfect mode of
worshipping God. He may despise the simple and unadorned
ceremonial of Evangelical congregations. He may exalt to the
skies the excellence of ornament, decoration, and pageantry in
our service of God. But I take leave to tell him that Christian
men will try his favourite system by its results. So long as
Ritualistic worshippers can turn from matins and early com
munions to races and operas, and can oscillate between the
confessional and the ball-room, so long the advocates of Ritualism
must not be surprised if we think little^ of the value of Ritual
istic worship.
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter. The best
public worship is that which produces the best private Chris
tianity. The best Church Services for the congregation are
those which make its individual members most holy at home
and alone. If we want to know whether our own public
worship is doing us good, let us try it by these tests. Does it
quicken our conscience ? Does it send us to Christ ? Does it
add to our knowledge 1 Does it sanctify our life 1 If it does,
we may depend 011 it, it is worship of which we have no cause
to be ashamed.
The day is coming when there shall be a congregation that
shall never break up, and a Sabbath that shall never end, a
song of praise that shall never cease, and an assembly that shall
WORSHIP. 297
never be dispersed. In that assembly shall be found all who
have " worshipped God in spirit " upon earth. If we are such,
we shall be there.
Here we often worship God with a deep sense of weakness,
corruption, and infirmity. There, at last, we shall be able,
with a renewed body, to serve Him without weariness, and to
attend on Him without distraction.
Here, at our very best, we see through a glass darkly, and
know the Lord Jesus Christ most imperfectly. It is our grief that
we do not know Him better and love Him more. There, freed
from all the dross and defilement of indwelling sin, we shall
see Jesus as we have been seen, and know as we have been
known. Surely, if faith has been sweet and peace-giving, sight
will be far better.
Here we have often found it hard to worship God joyfully,
by reason of the sorrows and cares of this world. Tears over
the graves of those we loved have often made it hard to sing
praise. Crushed hopes and family sorrows have sometimes
made us hang our harps on the willows. There every tear
shall be dried, every saint who has fallen asleep in Christ shall
meet us once more, and every hard thing in our life-journey
shall be made clear and plain as the sun at noon-day.
Here we have often felt that we stand comparatively alone,
and that even in God s house the real spiritual worshippers are
comparatively few. There we shall at length see a multitude
of brethren and sisters that no man can number, all of one
heart and one mind, all free from blemishes, weaknesses, and
infirmities, all rejoicing in one Saviour, and all prepared to
spend an eternity in His praise. We shall have worshipping
companions enough in heaven.
Armed with such hopes as these, let us lift up our hearts and
look forward ! The time is very short. The night is far spent.
The day is at hand. Let us worship on, pray on, praise on,
and read on. Let us contend earnestly for the faith once
delivered to the saints, and resist manfully every effort to spoil
Scriptural worship. Let us strive earnestly to hand down the
light of Gospel worship to our children s children. Yet a little
time and He that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
Blessed in that day will be those, and those only, who are
found true worshippers, " worshippers in spirit and truth ! "
XIV.
THE SABBATH.
"Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy." EXODUS xx. 8.
THERE is a subject in the present day which demands the
serious attention of all professing Christians in Great Britain.
That subject is the Christian Sabbath, or Lord s Day.
It is a subject which is forced upon our notice, whether we
like it or not. The minds of Englishmen are agitated by
questions arising out of it. "Is the observance of a Sabbath
binding on Christians ? Have we any right to tell a man that
to do his business or seek his pleasure on a Sunday is a sin 1
Is it desirable to open places of public amusement on the Lord s
Day ? " All these are questions which are continually asked.
They are questions to which we ought to be able to give a
decided answer.
The subject is one on which "divers and strange doctrines"
abound. Statements are continually made about Sunday, both
by speakers and writers, which plain unsophisticated readers of
the Bible find it impossible to reconcile with the Word of God.
If these statements proceeded only from the ignorant and
irreligious part of the world, the defenders of the Sabbath
would have no reason to be surprised. But they may well
wonder when they find educated and religious persons among
their adversaries. It is a melancholy truth that in some
quarters the Sabbath is wounded by those who ought to be its
best friends.
The subject is one which is of immense importance. It is
not too much to say that the prosperity or decay of English
Christianity depends on the maintenance of the Christian
Sabbath. Break down the fence which now surrounds the
Sunday, and our Sunday schools will soon come to an end.
THE SABBATH. 299
Let in the flood of worldliness and dissipation on the Lord s
Day, without check or hindrance, and our congregations will
soon dwindle away. There is not too much religion in the
land now. Destroy the sanctity of the Sabbath, and there
would spon be far less. Nothing, in short, I believe, would
so thoroughly advance the kingdom of Satan in England, as
to withdraw legal protection from the Lord s Day. It would
be a joy to the infidel ; but it would be an insult and offence
to God.
I ask the attention of all professing Christians, while I try to
say a few plain words on the subject of the Sabbath. I have
no new argument to advance. I can say nothing that has not
been said, and said better too, a hundred times before. But
at a time like this it becomes every Christian writer to cast in
his mite into the treasury of truth. As a minister of Christ,
a father of a family, and a lover of my country, I feel bound to
plead in behalf of the old English Sunday. My sentence is
emphatically expressed in the words of Scripture, let us "keep
it holy." My advice to all Christians is to contend earnestly
for the whole day against all enemies, both without and within.
It is worth a struggle. Let our united cry be, " We do not
want the Sabbath law of England to be changed."
There are four points in connection with the Sabbath which
require examination. On each of these I wish to offer a few
remarks.
I. The authority on which the Sabbath stands.
II. The purpose for which the Sabbath was appointed.
III. The manner in which the Sabbath ought to be kept.
IV. Tlie ways in which the Sabbath may be profaned.
I. Let me, in the first place, consider the authority on which
the Sabbath stands.
I hold it to be of primary importance to have this point
clearly settled in our minds. Here is the very rock on which
many of the enemies of the Sabbath make shipwreck. They
tell us that the day is " a mere Jewish ordinance," and that
we are no more bound to keep it holy than to offer sacrifice.
They proclaim to the world that the observance of the Lord s
Day rests upon nothing but Church authority, and cannot be
proved by the Word of God.
300 KNOTS UNTIED.
Now I believe that those who say such things are entirely
mistaken. Amiable and respectable as many of them are, I
regard them in this matter as being thoroughly in error. Names
go for nothing with me in such a case. It is not the assertion
of a hundred divines, whether living or dead, that will make
me believe black is white, or reject the evidence of plain texts
of Scripture. I care little to be told what Jeremy Taylor, or
Paley, or Arnold have thought. The grand question is, " Were
their thoughts worth credit ? were they right or wrong ? "
My own firm conviction is, that the observance of a Sabbath
Day is part of the eternal law of God. It is not a mere tem
porary Jewish ordinance. It is not a man-made institution of
priestcraft. It is not an unauthorized imposition of the Church.
It is one of the everlasting rules which God has revealed for
the guidance of all mankind. It is a rule that many nations
without the Bible have lost sight of, and buried, like other
rules, under the rubbish of superstition and heathenism. But
it was a rule intended to be binding on all the children of Adam.
What saith the Scripture ? This is the grand point after all.
What public opinion says, or newspaper writers think, matters
nothing. We are not going to stand at the bar of man when
we die. He that judgeth us is the Lord God of the Bible.
What saith the Lord?
(a) I turn to the history of creation. I there read that " God
blessed the seventh day and sanctified it." (Gen. ii. 3.) I
find the Sabbath mentioned in the very beginning of all
things. There are five things which were given to the father
of the human race, in the day that he was made. God gave
him a dwelling-place, a work to do, a command to observe,
a help-meet to be his companion, and a Sabbath Day to keep.
I am utterly unable to believe that it was in the mind of God
that there ever should be a time when Adam s children should
keep no Sabbath.*
(b) I turn to the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai. I there
read one whole commandment out of ten devoted to the Sab-
* "The text (Gen. ii. 3) is so clear for the ancient institution of the Sab
bath, that I see no reason on earth why any man should make doubt thereof ;
especially considering that the very Gentiles, both civil and barbarous, both
ancient and of late days, as it were by an universal kind of tradition, re
tained the distinction of the seven days of the week." Letter to Tivissby
Archbishop Usher. 1650.
THE SABBATH. 301
bath Day, and that the longest, fullest, and most minute of all.
(Exod. xx. 8-11.) I see a broad, plain distinction between
these Ten Commandments and any other part of the Law of
Moses. It was the only part spoken in the hearing of all the
people, and after the Lord had spoken it, the Book of Deuter
onomy expressly says, "He added no more." (Dent. v. 22.)
It was delivered under circumstances of singular solemnity,
and accompanied by thunder, lightning, and an earthquake. It
was the only part written on tables of stone by God Himself.
It was the only part put inside the ark. I find the law of the
Sabbath side by side with the law about idolatry, murder,
adultery, theft, and the like. I am utterly unable to believe
that it was meant to be only of temporary obligation.*
(c) I turn to the writings of the Old Testament Prophets. I
find them repeatedly speaking of the breach of the Sabbath
side by side with the most heinous transgressions of the moral
law. (Ezek. xx. 13, 16, 24; xxii. 8, 26.) I find them speak
ing of it as one of the great sins which brought judgments
on Israel and carried the Jews into captivity. (Nehem. xiii.
18 ; Jer. xvii. 19-27.) It seems clear to me that the Sabbath,
in their judgment, is something far higher than the washings
and cleansings of the ceremonial law. I am utterly unable to
believe, when I read their language, that the Fourth Command
ment was one of the things one day to pass away.
(d) I turn to the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ when He
was upon earth. I cannot discover that our Saviour ever let fall
a word in discredit of any one of the Ten Commandments.
On the contrary, I find Him declaring at the outset of His
ministry, " that He came not to destroy the law but to fulfil,"
and the context of the passage where He uses these words,
satisfies me that He was not speaking of the ceremonial law,
but the moral. (Matt. v. 17.) I find Him speaking of the
Ten Commandments as a recognized standard of moral right
and wrong : "Thou knowest the Commandments." (Mark x.
* The learned Bishop Andrews wisely remarks that it is a dangerous
thing to make the Fourth Commandment ceremonial, and of mere temporary
obligation : "The Papists will then have the Second Commandment also to be
ceremonial ; and there is no reason why there may not be as well three as
two, and so four and five, and so all." "We hold that nil ceremonies are
ended and abrogated by Christ s death: but the Sabbath is not." Bishop
Andrews on the Moral Laiv. 1642.
302 KNOTS UNTIED.
19.) I find Him speaking eleven times on the subject of the
Sabbath, but it is always to correct the superstitious additions
which the Pharisees had made to the Law of Moses about
observing it, and never to deny the holiness of the day.*
He no more abolishes the Sabbath, than a man destroys a
house when he cleans off the moss or weeds from its roof.
Above all, I find our Saviour taking for granted the continu
ance of the Sabbath, when He foretells the destruction of
Jerusalem. "Pray ye," He says to the disciples, "that your
flight be not on the Sabbath Day." (Matt. xxiv. 20.) I am
utterly unable to believe, when I see all this, that our Lord
did not mean the Fourth Commandment to be as binding on
Christians as the other nine.
(e) I turn to the writings of the Apostles. I there find plain
speaking about the temporary nature of the ceremonial law and
its sacrifices and ordinances. I see them called " carnal " and
" weak." I am told they are a " shadow of good things to
come," " a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ," and " or
dained till the time of reformation." But I cannot find a
syllable in their writings which teaches that any one of the
Ten Commandments is done away. On the contrary, I see
St. Paul speaking of the moral law in the most respectful
manner, though he teaches strongly that it cannot justify us
before God. When he teaches the Ephesians the duty of
children to parents, he simply quotes the Fifth Command
ment : " Honour thy father and mother, which is the first
commandment with promise." (Rom. vii. 12; xiii. 8; Eph.
vi. 2 ; 1 Tim. i. 8.) I see St. James and St. John recognizing
the moral law, as a rule acknowledged and accredited among
those to whom they wrote. (James ii. 10; 1 John iii. 4.)
Again I say that I am utterly unable to believe that when the
Apostles spoke of the law, they only meant nine command
ments, and not ten.f
* See Bishop Daniel "Wilson of Calcutta s Seven Sermons on the Lord s
Day, pp. 60, 61.
f It is only fair to mention that many great and learned divines have
held that the text (Heb. iv. 9) distinctly teaches the authority of the Chris
tian Sabbath. The marginal reading is, "there remaineth the keeping of
a Sabbath." I offer no opinion on the point. I only remark that Owen,
Edwards, and Dwight all held this view. See Bishop of Calcutta s Sermons
on the Lord s Day, pp. 92, 93.
THE SABBATH. 303
(/) I turn to the practice of the Apostles, when they were
engaged in planting the Church of Christ. I find distinct
mention of their keeping one day of the week as a holy day.
(Acts xx. 7 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 2.) I find the day spoken of by
one of them as "the Lord s Day." (Rev. i. 10.) Undoubtedly
the day was changed : it was made the first day of the week
in memory of our Lord s resurrection, instead of the seventh :
but I believe the Apostles were divinely inspired to make that
change, and at the same time wisely directed to make no public
decree about it. The decree would only have raised a ferment
in the Jewish mind, and caused needless offence : the change
was one which it was better to effect gradually, and not to
force on the consciences of weak brethren. The spirit of the
Fourth Commandment was not interfered with by the change
in the smallest degree : the Lord s Day, on the first day of the
week, was just as much a day of rest after six days labour, as
the seventh-day Sabbath had been. But why we are told so
pointedly about the " first day of the week " and the " Lord s
Day," if the Apostles kept no one day more holy than another,
is to my mind wholly inexplicable.
(g) I turn, in the last place, to the pages of unfulfilled Prophecy.
I find there a plain prediction that in the last days, when the
knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth, there shall still
be a Sabbath. " From one Sabbath to another shall all flesh
come to worship before Me, saith the Lord." (Isa. Ixvi. 23.)
The subject of this prophecy no doubt is deep. I do not pre
tend to say that I can fathom all its parts : but one thing is
very certain to me, and that is that in the glorious days to
come on the earth there is to be a Sabbath, and a Sabbath not
for the Jews only, but for "all flesh." And when I see this I am
utterly unable to believe that God meant the Sabbath to cease
between the first coming of Christ and the second. I believe
He meant it to be an everlasting ordinance in His Church.
I ask serious attention to these arguments from Scripture.
To my own mind it appears very plain that wherever God
has had a Church, in Bible times, God has also had a Sabbath
Day. My own firm conviction is, that a Church without a
Sabbath would not be a Church on the model of Scripture.*
* The following quotations from Baxter, Lightfoot, Horsley, and "Wells,
need no apology. They speak for themselves. In a day like the present,
304 KNOTS UNTIED.
Let me close this part of the subject by offering two cautions,
which I consider are eminently required by the temper of the
times.
For one thing, let us beware of under-valuing the Old Testa
ment. There has arisen of late years a most unhappy ten
dency to slight and despise any religious argument which is
drawn from an Old Testament source, and to regard the man
who uses it as a dark, benighted, and old-fashioned person. We
shall do well to remember that the Old Testament is just as
much inspired as the New, and that the religion of both
Testaments is in the main, and at the root, one and the same.
The Old Testament is the Gospel in the bud : the New Testa
ment is the Gospel in full flower. The Old Testament is the
Gospel in the blade : the New Testament is the Gospel in full
ear. The Old Testament saints saw many things through a
glass darkly : but they looked to the same Christ by faith, and
were led by the same Spirit as ourselves. Let us, therefore,
never listen to those who sneer at Old Testament arguments.
when we are so often told that learned divines deny the Divine authority
of the Lord s Day, it may be well to show the reader that there are
other divines, and some eminently learned, who take an entirely different
view.
Let us hear what Baxter says : " It hath been the constant practice of all
Christ s Churches in the whole world ever since the days of the Apostles
to this day, to assemble for public worship on the Lord s Day, as a day set
apart thereto by the Apostles. Yea, so universal was this judgment and
practice, that there is no one Church, no one writer, or one heretic that I
remember to have read of, that can be proved even to have dissented or gain
said it till of late times."
" If any will presume to say that men properly endued with the Spirit for
the work of His commission, did notwithstanding do such a great thing as
to appoint the Lord s Day for Christian worship, without the conduct of
the Spirit, they may by the same way of proceeding, pretend it to be as un
certain of every particular book and chapter in the New Testament, whether
or no they wrote it by the Spirit." Baxter on the Divine Appointment of the
Lord s Day. 1680.
Let us next hear Lightfoot : " The first day of the week was everywhere
celebrated for the Christian Sabbath, and which is not to be passed over
without observing, as far as appears from Scripture, there is nowhere any
dispute about the matter. There was controversy concerning circumcision,
and other points of the Jewish religion, whether they were to be retained
or not, but nowhere do we read concerning the changing of the Sabbath.
There were indeed some Jews converted to the Gospel, who as in some
other things they retained a smack of their old Judaism, so they did in the
observance of days (Rom. xiv. 5; Gal. iv. 10), but yet not rejecting or
neglecting the Lord s Day. They celebrated it and made no manner of
scruple, it appears, concerning it ; but they would have their old festival
THE SABBATH. 305
Much infidelity begins with an ignorant contempt of the Old
Testament.
For another thing, let us beware of coming the law of the Ten
Commandments. I grieve to observe how exceedingly loose and
unsound the opinions of many men are upon this subject. I
have been astonished at the coolness with which even clergy
men sometimes speak of them as a part of Judaism, which may
be classed with sacrifices and circumcision. I wonder how
such men can read them to their congregations every week !
For my own part, I believe that the coming of Christ s Gospel
did not alter the position of the Ten Commandments one hair s
breadth. If anything, it rather exalted and raised their
authority. I believe, that in due place and proportion, it is
just as important to expound and enforce them, as to preach
Christ crucified. By them is the knowledge of sin. By them
the Spirit teaches men their need of a Saviour. By them the
Lord Jesus teaches His people how to walk and please God. I
suspect it would be well for the Church if the Ten Command
ments were more frequently expounded in the pulpit than they
(Lays too ; and they disputed not at all, whether the Lord s Day were to be
celebrated, but whether the Jewish Sabbath ought not to be celebrated also."
Lightfoot s Works, vol. xii., p. 556. 1670.
Let us next hear Bishop Horsley : " The Sabbath Days of which St.
Paul speaks to the Colossians (Col. ii. 16) were not the Sundays of the
Christians, but the Saturdays and other Sabbaths of the Jewish calendar.
The Judaizing heretics, with whom St. Paul was all his life engaged, were
strenuous advocates for the observation of the Jewish festivals in the
Christian Church, and St. Paul s admonition to the Colossians is that they
should not be disturbed by the censure of those who reproached them for
neglecting to observe the Jewish Sabbaths with Jewish ceremonies. It
appears from the First Epistle to the Corinthians that the Sunday was
observed in the Church of Corinth with St. Paul s own approbation. It
nppears from the Apocalypse that it was generally observed in the time
when that book was written by St. John ; and it is mentioned by the earliest
apologists of the Christian faith as a necessary part of Christian worship."
Bishop Harslets Sermons.
Let us hear Wells: "Darkness and division there hath been enough in
the Church to quarrel with institutions and appointments of former times.
But the perpetual silence of the Church on this particular infallibly shows
the Divine right of the Lord s Day. And the Churches are so silent,
because they dare not attempt such an enterprise as to raze the foundations
of a Divine institution." Well s Practical Sabbatarian, p. 587.
The whole subject of the change from the seventh-day Sabbath to the
Lord s Day is one which the reader will find admirably handled in the Ser
mons of Daniel Wilson, Bishop of Calcutta, on the Lord s Day. Those
sermons, and Willison on the Lord s Day, are by far the two best works on
the Sabbath question.
U
306 KNOTS UNTIED.
are. At all events, I fear that much of the present ignorance
on the Sabbath question is attributable to erroneous views
about the Fourth Commandment.
II. The second point I propose to examine, is the purpose
for which the Sabbath was appointed.
I feel it imperatively necessary to say something on this
point. There is no part of the Sabbath question about which
there are so many ridiculous misstatements put forward. Many
are raising a cry in the present day, as if we were inflicting a
positive injury on them in calling on them to keep the Sabbath
holy. They talk as if the observance of the day were a heavy
yoke, like circumcision and the washings and purifications of
the ceremonial law. They rail at ministers of religion for
defending the Sabbath, as if they only wanted it kept for their
own selfish ends. They insinuate that our motives are not
pure, and that we feel "our craft in danger." And all this
sounds very plausible in the ears of ignorant persons.
Once for all, let us understand that all such statements are
founded in entire misconception, and are rank delusions. The
Sabbath is God s merciful appointment for the common benefit
of all mankind. It was "made for man." (Mark ii. 27.) It
was given for the good of all classes, for the laity quite as much
as for the clergy. It is not a yoke, but a blessing. It is not a
burden, but a mercy. It is not a hard wearisome requirement,
but a mighty public benefit. It is not an ordinance which man
is bid to use in faith, without knowing why he uses it. It is
one which carries with it its own reward. It is good for man s
body and mind. It is good for nations. Above all, it is good
for souls.
(a) The Sabbath is good for inaiUs body. We all need a day of
rest. On this point, at any rate, all medical men are agreed.
Curiously and wonderfully made as the human frame is, it will
not stand incessant work without regular intervals of repose.
The first gold-diggers of California soon found out that ! Keck-
less and ungodly as many of them probably were, urged on as
they were, no doubt, by the mighty influence of the hope of gain,
they still found out that a seventh day s rest was absolutely
needful to keep themselves alive. Without it they discovered
that in digging for gold they were only digging their own graves.
THE SABBATH. 307
I firmly believe that one reason why the health of working
clergymen so frequently fails, is the great difficulty they find in
getting a day of rest. I am sure if the body could tell us its
wants, it would cry loudly, "Remember the Sabbath Day."*
(b) The Sabbath is good for man s mind. The mind needs rest
quite as much as the body : it cannot bear an uninterrupted
strain on its powers ; it must have its intervals to unbend and
recover its force. Without them it will either prematurely
wear out, or fail suddenly, like a broken bow. The testimony
of the famous philanthropist, Mr. Wilberforce, on this point is
very striking. He declared that he could only attribute his
own power of endurance to his regular observance of the
Sabbath Day. He remembered that he had observed some of
the mightiest intellects among his contemporaries fail suddenly
at last, and their possessors come to melancholy ends ; and he
was satisfied that in every such case of mental shipwreck the
true cause was neglect of the Fourth Commandment.
(c) The Sabbath is good for nations. It has an enormous effect
both on the character and temporal prosperity of a people. I
firmly believe that a people which regularly rests one day in
seven will do more work, and better work, in a year, than a
people which never rest at all. Their hands will be stronger ;
their minds will be clearer ; their power of attention, applica
tion, and steady perseverance will be far greater. What two
nations on earth are so prosperous at this day as Great Britain
and the United States of America ? Where shall we find on
the globe so much energy, so much steadiness, so much success,
so much public confidence, so much morality, and so much good
government, as in those two countries 1 Let others account for
all this as they please. I say without hesitation that one grand
secret of it all has been the observance of the Sabbath. Great
Britain and the United States, with all their sins, are the two
most Sabbath-keeping nations on earth. They have given up
* "During the excesses of the first French Revolution, at the close of last
century, Christianity and the Sabbath were abolished in France, but the
mere necessities of man s nature compelled the Atheistical government to
institute a day of rest of their own, which they called a decade, occurring
every tenth day. What a confession of the reasonableness of the Divine
command ! " Bishop of Calcutta s Sermons, p. 163.
There is an admirable tract on this subject, by that eminent man, the late
Professor Miller, of Edinburgh, entitled Physiology in Harmony ivith the
Bible.
308 KNOTS UNTIED.
seven years of good working -days in the last fifty years to
keeping the Lord s Day holy. But have they lost anything by
it 1 No ! indeed. The two Sabbath-keeping nations are the
most prosperous nations in the world.*
(d) Last, but not least, the Sabbath is an unmixed good for
man s soul. The soul has its wants just as much as the mind
and body. It is in the midst of a hurrying, bustling world, in
which its interests are constantly in danger of being jostled out
of sight. To have those interests properly attended to, there
must be a special day set apart; there must be a regularly
recurring time for examining the state of our souls ; there must
be a day to test and prove us, whether we are prepared for an
eternal heaven. Take away a man s Sabbath, and his religion
soon comes to nothing. As a general rule, there is a regular
flight of steps from "no Sabbath" to " no God."
I know well that many say that "religion does not consist in
keeping days and seasons. " I agree with them. I am quite
aware that it needs something more than Sabbath observance to
save our souls. But I would like such persons to tell us plainly
what kind of religion that is which teaches people to keep no
days holy at all. It may be the religion of poor corrupt human
nature, but I am sure it is not the religion of revelation : it is
not the religion which tells us that we "must be bom again,"
and believe in Christ, and live holy lives. Eevealcd religion
teaches me that it is not quite so cheap and easy a thing to go
to heaven, as many now-a-days seem to fancy, and that it is
essential to our soul s prosperity that in every week we give
God a day.
I know well that there are some good people who contend
that " every day ought to be holy " to a true Christian, and on
this ground deprecate the special sanctification of the first day
of the week. I respect the conscientious convictions of such
people. I would go as far as any one in contending for an
" every day religion," and protesting against a mere Sabbath
Christianity ; but I am satisfied that the theory is unsound and
unscriptural. I am convinced that, taking human nature as it
is, the attempt to regard every day as a Lord s Day would result
* See extracts from Lord Macaulay s Speeches, and Blackstone s Com
mentaries, at the end of this paper.
THE SABBATH. 309
in having no Lord s Day at all. None but a thorough fanatic, I
presume, would say that it is wrong to have stated seasons
for private prayer, on the ground that we ought to "pray
always ; " and few, I am persuaded, who look at the world with
the eyes of common sense, will fail to see, that to bring religion
to bear on men with full effect, there must be one day in the
week set apart for its business.
ISTow I believe I have advanced nothing that can be fairly
gainsaid. I believe that if every church and chapel were pulled
down, and every minister of religion banished from this kingdom,
it would still be an unmixed benefit for the nation to preserve
untouched the institution of the Sabbath, and an act of suicidal
folly to part with it. Whether Englishmen know it or not,
their Sabbath is one of their richest possessions, and the grand
secret of their position in the world. It is good for their bodies,
minds, and souls. Of it the famous words may be truly used,
that " it is the cheap defence of a nation."
III. I propose, in the third place, to show the manner in wJiicli
the Sabbath oufjlit to be kept.
This is a branch of the subject on which great difference of
opinion exists : it is one on which even the friends of the Sabbath
are not thoroughly agreed. Many, I believe, would contend as
strongly as I do for a Sabbath, but not for the Sabbath for which
I contend. In a matter like this I can call no man master. My
desire is simply to state what appears to be the mind of God as
revealed in Holy Scripture.
Once for all, I must plainly say, that I cannot entirely agree
with those who tell us that they do not want a Jewish Sabbath,
but a Christian one. I doubt whether such persons clearly
know what they mean. If they object to a Pharisaic Sabbath,
I agree with them ; if they object to a Mosaic Sabbath, I would
have them consider well what they say. I can find no clear
evidence that the Old Testament Sabbath was intended by
Moses to be more strictly kept than the Christian Sunday. The
case of the man stoned for gathering sticks on the Sabbath, is
clearly not a case in point : it was a special offence, committed
under specially heinous aggravations, in the very face of Mount
Horeb, and just after the giving of the law. It is no more a
precedent than the striking dead of Ananias and Sapphira, in
310 KNOTS UNTIED.
the Acts, for lying ; and there is no proof that such a punishment
was ever after repeated. My own belief is, that the explana
tions of the law of the Sabbath given by our Lord are the very
explanations which Moses himself would have given. I have a
strong suspicion that, allowing for the difference of the two
dispensations, David, and Samuel, and Isaiah would not have kept
their Sabbath very differently from St. John and St. Paul.
What then appears to be the will of God about the manner
of observing the Sabbath Day? There are two general rules
laid down for our guidance in the Fourth Commandment, and by
them all questions must be decided.
One plain rule about the Sabbath is, that it must be kept as a
day of rest. All work of every kind ought to cease as far as
possible, both of body and mind. "Thou shalt not do any
work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant nor
thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within
thy gates." Works of necessity and mercy may be done. Our
Lord Jesus Christ teaches us this, and teaches also that all such
works were allowable in the Old Testament times. " Have ye
not read," He says, "what David did?" "Have ye not read
that the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are
blameless?" (Matt. xii. 5.) Whatever, in short, is necessary to
preserve and maintain life, whether of ourselves, or of the
creatures, or to do good to the souls of men, may be done on
the Sabbath Day without sin.*
The other great rule about the Sabbath is, that it must l>e kept
holy. Our rest is not to be the rest of a beast, like that of the
ox and the ass, which have neither mind nor soul. It is not to
* Works needful for the comfortable passing of the Sabbath, as dressing of
moderate food and the like, may be done on the Sabbath Day. For, seeing
Christ allows us to lead an ox to water, and requireth not to fetch in water
for him over night, He alloweth us to dress meats, and requireth not to dress
it over night. For the order in the law of not kindling a fire pertained alone
to the business of the tabernacle, and that order of dressing what they would
dress on the sixth day pertained alone to the matter of manna." Leigh s Body
of Divinity. 1654.
" Not only those works which are of absolute necessity, but those which are
of great conveniency, may lawfully be done on the Lord s Day : such are
kindling of fire, preparing of meat, and many other particulars too numerous
to be mentioned. Only let us take this caution, that we neglect not the doing
of those things till the Lord s Day, which might be well done before, and then
plead necessity or convenience for it." Bishop Hopkins on the Fourth Com
mandment. 1690.
THE SABBATH. 311
be a carnal, sensual rest, like that of the worshippers of the
golden calf, who " sat down to eat and drink and rose up to
play." (Exod. xxxii. 6.) It is to be emphatically a holy rest.
It is to be a rest in which, as far as possible, the affairs of the
soul may be attended to, the business of another world minded,
and communion with God and Christ kept up. In short, it
ought never to be forgotten that it is " the Sabbath of the Lord
our God." (Exod. xx. 10.)
I ask attention to these two general rules. I believe that by
them all Sabbath questions may be safely tested. I believe that
within the bounds of these rules every lawful and reasonable
want of human nature is fully met, and that whatsoever trans
gresses these bounds is sin.
I am no Pharisee. Let no hard-working man, who has been
confined to a close room for six weary days, suppose that I object
to his taking any lawful relaxation for his body on the Sunday.
I see no harm in a quiet walk on a Sunday, provided always
that it does not take the place of going to public worship, and
is really quiet, and like that of Isaac.* (Gen. xxiv. 63.) I read
of our Lord and His disciples walking through the corn-fields on
the Sabbath Day. All I say is, beware that you do not turn
liberty into licence, beware that you do not injure the souls of
others in seeking relaxation for yourself, and beware that you
never forget you have a soul as well as a body.t
I am no enthusiast. I want no tired labourer to misunder
stand my meaning, when I bid him to keep the Sabbath holy.
I do not tell any one that he ought to pray all day, or read his
Bible all day, or go to church all day, or meditate all day,
* " If you walk abroad this day, choose to do it alone as much as possible, for
people going in troops to the fields occasion idleness, vain talking, sporting,
and misspending precious Sabbath time." Wilson on the Lord s Day. (An
admirable book.)
f " I cannot see that the employment of horses to take us to church on the
Sabbath is wrong, where it is a case of plain necessity and without the use
of them the Gospel cannot be heard. But in such cases people should use
their own horses if they have them. The following cpaotation deserves notice.
When the Shunammite came to her husband for the ass, he saith to her,
Why should you go to him to-day ? it is neither Sabbath Day, nor new
moon. The meaning is that the Shunammite was wont to go out to hear
the Prophet, and because she had got means would ride. Therefore when the
means of sanctification are wanting, a man may take a Sabbath Day s journey.
He may go where they are used to be gotten." Bishop Andrews on the Moral
Law. 1G42.
312 KNOTS UNTIED.
without let or cessation, on a Sunday. All I say is, that the
Sunday rest should be a holy rest. God ought to be kept in
view ; God s Word ought to be studied ; God s House ought to
be attended ; the soul s business ought to be specially considered ;
and I say that everything which prevents the day being kept
holy in this way, ought as far as possible to be avoided.
I am no admirer of a gloomy religion. Let no one suppose
that I want Sunday to be a day of sadness and unhappiness. I
want every Christian to be a happy man : I wish him to have
"joy and peace in believing," and to "rejoice in hope of the
glory of God." I want every one to regard Sunday as the
brightest, cheerfulest day of all the seven ; and I tell every one
who finds such a Sunday as I advocate, a wearisome day, that
there is something sadly wrong in the state of his heart. I tell
him plainly that if he cannot enjoy a " holy " Sunday, the fault
is not in the day, but in his own soul.
I can well believe that many will think that I am setting the
standard of Sabbath observance far too high. The thoughtless
and worldly, the lovers of money and lovers of pleasure, will
all exclaim that I am requiring what is impossible. It is easy
to make such assertions. The only question for a Christian
oughUo be, " What does the Bible teach 1 " God s measure of
what is right must surely not be brought down to the measure
of man: man s measure should rather be brought up to the
measure of God.
I want no other standard of Sabbath observance than th.it
which is laid down in the Fourth Commandment. I want
neither more nor less. It is a rule which has been sanctioned
by the Prayer-book of the Church of England, the writings of
all the leading Puritans, and the Scotch Confession of Faith.
No English Churchman, no Scotch Presbyterian, no Noncon
formist who walks in the steps of his forefathers, has any just
right to find fault with it.
I maintain no other standard of Sabbath observance than
that which all the best and holiest Christians, of every Church
and nation, have maintained almost without exception. It is
extraordinary to mark the harmony there is among them on
this point. They have differed widely on other subjects in
religion : they have even disagreed as to the grounds on which
they defend Sabbath sanctification : but as soon as you come
THE SABBATH. 313
to the practical question, "how the Lord s Day ought to be
observed," the unity among them is truly surprising.
Last, but not least, I want no other standard of Sabbath
observance than that to which a calm, rational reflection on
things yet to come, will lead every sober-minded person. Are
we really going to die one day and leave this world ? Are we
about to appear before God in another state of existence ?
Have we any hope that we are about to spend an endless eternity
in God s immediate presence ? Are these things so, or are they
not ? Surely, if they are, it is not too much to ask men to
give one day in seven to God ; it is not too much to require
them to test their own meetness for another world, by spending
the Sabbath in special preparation for it. Common sense,
reason, conscience, will combine, I think, to say, that if we
cannot spare God one day in a week, we cannot be living as
those ought to live who are going to die.
IV. The last thing I propose to do, is to expose some of the
tcays in which the Sabbath is profaned.
This is a painful and melancholy part of the subject ; but it
is one that must not be avoided. The Sabbath, no doubt, is far
better kept than it was a hundred years ago. Nevertheless,
after all that has been done, there remains amongst us a vast
amount of Sabbath profanation, which is every week crying
against England in the ears of God. The census of 1851
revealed the fearful fact that five millions of our fellow-country
men go to no place of worship at all on a Sunday ! It is a fact
that should make our ears tingle. What an enormous quantity
of weekly sin against God this single fact brings to light !
There are two kinds of Sabbath desecration which require to
be noticed. One is that more private kind of which thousands
are continually guilty, and which can only be checked by
awakening men s consciences. The other is that more public
kind, which can only be remedied by the pressure of public
opinion, and the strong arm of the law.
When I speak of private Sabbath desecration, I mean that
reckless, thoughtless, secular way of spending Sunday, which
every one who looks round him must know is common. How
many make the Lord s Day a day for visiting their friends and
giving dinner parties, a day for looking over their accounts
314 KNOTS UNTIED.
and making up their books, a day for going journeys and
quietly transacting worldly business, a day for reading news
papers or new novels, a day for writing letters, or talking
politics and idle gossip, a day, in short, for anything rather than
the things of God. *
Now all this sort of thing is wrong, decidedly wrong. Thou
sands, I firmly believe, never give the subject a thought : they
sin from ignorance and inconsideration. They only do as
others ; they only spend Sunday as their fathers and grand
fathers did before them : but this does not alter the case. It
is utterly impossible to say, that to spend Sunday as I have
described is to " keep the day holy : " it is a plain breach of the
Fourth Commandment, both in the letter and in the spirit. It
is impossible to plead necessity or mercy in one instance of a
thousand. And small and trifling as these breaches of the
Sabbath may seem to be, they are exactly the sort of things
that prevent men communing with God and getting good from
His Day.
When I speak of public desecration of the Sabbath, I mean
those many open, unblushing practices, which meet the eye on
Sundays in the neighbourhood of large towns. I refer to the
practice of keeping shops open, and buying and selling on
Sundays. I refer especially to Sunday trains on railways,
Sunday steamboats, and excursions to tea gardens and places of
public amusement ; and especially I refer to the daring efforts
which many are making in the present day, to throw open such
places as the British Museum, the National Gallery, and the
Crystal Palace on Sundays, and to have bands playing in the
public parks.
On all these points I feel not the smallest doubt in my own
mind. These ways of spending the Sabbath are all wrong,
decidedly wrong. So long as the Bible is the Bible, and the
Fourth Commandment the Fourth Commandment, I dare not
come to any other conclusion. They are all wrong.
These ways of spending Sunday are none of them
* The Sunday post is one of the greatest injuries to the cause of Sabbath
observance in the present day. It is astonishing how much harm is done by
receiving letters and newspapers on a Sunday, by answering the one and
reading the other. It distracts the minds of people, and prevents their
receiving benefit from what they hear in church.
THE SABBATH. 315
of necessity or works of mercy. There is not the slightest like
ness between them and any of the things which the Lord Jesus
explains to bo lawful on the Sabbath Day. To heal a sick
person, or pull an ox or an ass out of a pit, is one thing : to
travel in an excursion train, or visit picture galleries, is quite
another. The difference is as great as between light and
darkness.
These ways of spending Sunday are none of them of a holy
tendency, or calculated to do any good to souls. What soul was
ever converted by tearing down to Brighton, or dashing down
to Gravesend ? What heart was ever softened or brought to
repentance by gazing at Titians and Vandykes 1 What sinner
was ever led to Christ by looking at the Nineveh Bull or the
Pompeian Court ? What worldly man was ever turned to God
by listening to polkas, waltzes, or opera music 1 No, indeed !
all experience teaches that it needs something more than the
beauties of art and nature to teach man the way to heaven.
These ways of spending Sunday have never yet conferred
moral or spiritual good in any place where they have been tried.
They have been tried for hundreds of years in Italy, in Germany,
and in France. Sunday music has been long tried in Continental
cities. The people of Paris have had their Sunday visits to the
fountains and statues at Versailles. The Italians and Germans
have had their splendid works of art thrown open to the public
on Sundays. But what benefit have they derived that we
should wish to imitate them? What advantages have we to
gain by making a London Sunday like a Sunday at Paris, or
Vienna, or Koine 1 ? I say decidedly we have nothing to gain.
It would be a change for the worse, and not for the better.
Last, but not least, these ways of spending Sunday inflict a
cruel injury on the souls of multitudes of people. Railway trains
and steamboats cannot be run on Sundays without employing
hundreds of persons. Clerks, porters, ticket-takers, policemen,
guards, engine-drivers, stokers, omnibus-drivers, must all work
on the Sabbath Day, if people will make Sunday a day for
travelling and excursions. Museums, exhibitions, and galleries
of pictures, cannot be opened on Sundays without servants and
attendants to take care of them and wait on those who visit
them. And have not all these unfortunate persons immortal
souls < \ Beyond doubt they have. Do they not all need a day
316 KNOTS UNTIED.
of rest as much as any one else ? Beyond doubt they do. But
Sunday is no Sunday to them, so long as these public desecra
tions of the Sabbath are permitted. Their life becomes a long
unbroken chain of work, work, unceasing work : in short, what
is play to others becomes death to them. Away with the idea
that a pleasure-seeking, exhibition-visiting, Continental Sabbath
is mercy to any one ! It is nothing less than an enormous
fallacy to call it so. Such a Sabbath is real mercy to nobody,
and is positive sacrifice to some.
I write these things with sorrow. I know well to how many
myriads of my fellow-countrymen they apply. I have spent
many a Sunday in large towns. I have seen with my own eyes
how the Day of the Lord is made by multitudes a day of worldli-
ness, a day of ungodliness, a day of carnal mirth, and too often
a day of sin. But the extent of the disease must not prevent us
exposing it : the truth must be told.
There is one general conclusion to be drawn from the conduct
of those who publicly desecrate the Sabbath in the way I have
described. They show plainly that they are at present "with
out God " in the world. They are like those of old who said,
"When will the Sabbath be gone?" "What a weariness is
it!" (Amos viii. 5; MaL i. 13.) It is an awful conclusion,
but it is impossible to avoid it. Scripture, history, and ex
perience all combine to teach us, that delight in the Lord s
Word, the Lord s service, the Lord s people, and the Lord s Day,
will always go together. Sunday railway excursionists and
Sunday pleasure-seekers are their own witnesses. They are
every week practically declaring, " We do not like God we do
not icant Him to reign over us"
It is not the slightest argument, in reply to what I have said,
that many great and learned men see no harm in travelling on
Sundays and visiting exhibitions. It matters nothing in religious
questions, " who does a thing : " the only point to be ascertained
is, " whether it be right." Let God be true and every man a
liar. We must never follow a multitude to do evil.
The public ways of profaning the Sabbath I have referred to
are likely to be often thrust on our notice, if we live many
years in England. Let us remember that they are an open
breach of God s commandment. Let us have nothing to do
with them ourselves, and let us use every lawful means in our
THE SABBATH. 317
power, both publicly and privately, to prevent others having
anything to do with them. Let us not mind the epithets of
Puritans, Pharisees, Methodists, bigoted and narrow-minded, or
be moved by the specious arguments of newspaper writers. If
they only studied their Bibles as much as politics, they would
not write as they do. Let us fall back on that old Book which
has stood the test of eighteen hundred years, and of which every
word is true. Let us take our stand on the Bible, and hold
fast its teaching. Whatever others may think lawful, let our
sentence ever be that one day in seven, and one whole day,
ought to be kept holy to God.
And now, in concluding this paper, I wish to address a parting
word to several classes of persons into whose hands it may fall.
I write as a friend to men s souls. I have no interest at heart
but that of true religion. I ask for a fair and patient hearing.
(1) I appeal first to all readers of this paper ivho are in the
habit of breaking the Sabbath. Whether you break it in public
or private, whether you break it in company or alone, I have
somewhat to say to you. Do not refuse to read it. Give me a
hearing.
I ask you to consider seriously, how you will answer for your
present conduct in the day of judgment. I put it solemnly to
your conscience. I ask you to think quietly and calmly, how
utterly unfit you are to appear before God. You cannot live
always : you must one day lie down and die. You cannot
escape the great assize in the world to come : you must stand
before the great white throne, and give account of all your
works. You have before you but two alternatives, an eternal
heaven, or an eternal hell. These are great realities, and you
know they are true. I repeat it deliberately : unless you are
prepared to take up some silly fable of man s invention, and to
be that poor credulous creature, a sceptic, you know these things
are true.
I^ow where is your fitness for the solemn change which is yet
before you ? Where is your preparedness for meeting the God
of the Bible, and reckoning with Him 1 Where is your readi
ness for an eternity in His company, and the society of saints
and angels 1 Where is your nieetness for a heaven, which is
nothing but an eternal Sabbath, an everlasting Sunday, a Lord s
318 KNOTS UNTIED.
Day without end 1 Yes ! I may well ask, Where ? You cannot
give an answer. You cannot give God one single day in seven !
It wearies you to spend one-seventh part of your time in
attempting to know anything about Him, before whose bar you
are going one day to stand ! His Bible wearies you ! His
ministers weary you ! His house wearies you ! His praises
weary you ! The excursion train is better ! The newspaper is
better ! The merry dinner-party is better ! Anything, in short,
anything is better than God ! Alas, what an awful state this
is to be in ! But, alas, how common !
Oh, Sabbath-breaker, unhappy Sabbath-breaker, consider your
ways, and be wise ! What harm has Sunday done the world,
that you should hate it so much 1 What harm has God done
you, that you should so obstinately turn your back on His laws?
What injury has religion done to mankind, that you should be
so afraid of having too much 1 ? Look at that body of yours, and
think how soon it will be dust and ashes. Look at that earth
on which you walk, and think how soon you will be six feet
beneath its surface. Look on the heavens above you, and think
of the mighty Being, who is the eternal God. Look into your
own heart, and think how much better it would be to be God s
friend than God s enemy. As ever you would lie down on your
dying-bed with comfort, as ever you would leave this world
with a good hope, break off from your Sabbath desecration,
and sin no more. Let the time past suffice you to have
robbed God of His Day. For the time to come give God His
own.
The very next Sunday after you read this paper, go to the
house of God, and hear the Gospel preached. Confess your
past sin at the throne of grace, and ask pardon through that
blood which "cleanses from all sin." Arrange your time on
Sunday so that you may have leisure for quiet, sober meditation
on eternal things. Avoid the company that would lead you to
talk only of this world. Take down your long-neglected Bible,
and study its pages. Murder no man s soul by obliging him to
work on Sunday in order that you may play. Do it, do it, do
it, without a iveek s delay ! It may be hard at first, but it is
worth a struggle. Do it, and it will be well for you both in
time and eternity.
(2) I appeal, in the next place, to all readers of this paper,
THE SABBATH. 319
*
who either belong to the working-classes, or profess to take an
interest in their condition. Give me a hearing.
I ask you, then, never to be taken in and deluded by those
who want the sanctity of the Lord s Day to be more publicly
invaded than it is, and yet tell you they are "the friends of
the working-classes." Believe me, however well-meaning and
fair-spoken such persons may be, they are not their real
friends. They are in reality their worst enemies : they are
taking the surest course to add to their burdens. They do
not mean it, very likely, but in reality they are doing them
a cruel injury.
Be assured that if English Sundays are ever turned into a
day of play and amusement, they will soon become a day of
labour and work. It is vain to suppose that it can be avoided :
it never has been in other countries ; it never would be in our
own land. Once establish the principle that galleries and
museums and crystal palaces are to be thrown open on
Sundays, and you let in the thin edge of the wedge. The
enemy would have got inside the walls ; the sacredness of the
day of rest would be entirely gone. Soon, very soon, shops
would be opened ; farmers would insist on cultivating the
land ; factories would go on working ; contractors would press
forward their operations. The working-classes would have
lost their Sabbath, and with it they would have lost their
best friend.
If men want to secure the working-classes a little more time
for rest and relaxation, they should not try to take that time
out of Sunday. Let them take a little piece out of one of the
six working-days, if possible, but not a bit out of the Day of
God. As the world has got six days for its business, and God
has only left Himself one for His, it is only fair and right that
the world should give up some of its time, before we begin
robbing God of His,
I do trust that the working - classes in England will
not be deceived about this Sabbath question. Of all people
on earth they are the most interested in it. None have so
much to lose in this matter as they, and none have so little to
gain.
(3) I appeal, in the next place, to all readers of this paper
icho profess to reverence the Sabbath, and have no wish to see
320 KNOTS UNTIED.
its character changed. I have only one thing to say to you,
but it deserves serious attention.
I ask you, then, to consider whether you may not be more
strict in keeping the Sabbath Day holy than you have been
hitherto. I am sadly afraid there is much laxity in many
quarters on this point. I fear that many who have no thought
of infringing the Fourth Commandment, are culpably incon
siderate and careless as to the way in which they obey its
precepts. I fear that the world gets into the Sundays of many
a respectable church-going family far more than it ought to do.
I fear that many keep the Sabbath themselves, but never give
their servants a chance of keeping it holy. I fear that many
who keep the Lord s Day with much outward propriety when
they are at home, arc often grievous Sabbath-breakers when
they go abroad. I fear that hundreds of English travellers do
things on Sundays on the Continent, which they would never
do in their own land.
This is a sore evil. It weakens the hands of all who defend
the cause of the Sabbath, to an enormous extent : it supplies
the enemies of the Lord s Day with an argument which they
know too well how to use. Let us all remember this. If we
really love the Lord s Day, let us prove our love by our manner
of using it. Wherever we are, whether at home or abroad,
whether in Protestant or Roman Catholic countries, let our con
duct on Sunday be such as becomes the day. Let us never forget
that the eyes of the Lord are in every place, and that the Fourth
Commandment is just as binding on us in Italy, Switzerland,
Germany, or France, as it is in our own country. Last, but not
least, let us remember that the Fourth Commandment speaks of
our " man-servant and maid-servant," as well as ourselves.
(4) I appeal, in the last place, to all who lore the Lord Jesus
Christ in sincerity, and are zealous in His cause. I have one
thing to say to you in connection with the Sabbath question,
which I commend to your most serious attention.
I ask you, then, to consider whether it does not become the
solemn duty of all true Christians to take far more effectual
measures than we have done hitherto, to preserve the holiness
of the Lord s Day ? For my own part I am satisfied that it is
our duty, and that we must go to work in a very different way
from that hitherto adopted.
THE SABBATH. 321
We all complain of Sabbath desecration in large towns : we
sorrow over the crowds who every Sunday spend their time in
places of sensual amusement, or fill the steamboats and railway
trains. They are all evidently in a deplorable state of spiritual
ignorance ; they are a growing evil, which threatens mischief :
but are we taking the right means to remedy the evil 1 I say
unhesitatingly that we are not.
We besiege the House of Commons with petitions when the
advocates of these Sabbath-breaking crowds demand an exten
sion of their present licence to sin. But is that enough ? No :
it is not !
We form societies to defend the Lord s Day, and propose
measure after measure in Parliament to stop Sunday trading.
But is that enough 1 No : it is not !
The truth must be spoken : we must begin lower down.
We cannot make people religious by Acts of Parliament alone.
We must teach right as well as forbid wrong : we must try to
prevent evil as well as repress it. We must strike at the root
of the evils we deplore. We must endeavour to evangelize
the masses of men and women who now break their Sabbaths
every week. We must show them a better way. We must
divert this fountain of Sabbath-breaking into different channels,
and not content ourselves with damming up its waters when
they overflow.
Are there not many parishes in our large towns where you
may now find 12,000 or 15,000 people under one clergyman,
and with one church to go to 1 Have we any right to wonder if
a large proportion of this population regularly break the Sabbath
every week ? The bulk of the people in such a parish know
nothing hardly about the way to "keep the Sunday holy."
They have no place of worship to go to, if they have a mind
to keep it. To expect such a population to keep the Sabbath
holy, is preposterous and absurd : they are quite as much to be
pitied as to be blamed. We have surely little right to find
fault with them for not honouring the Lord s Day, while we
leave them in utter ignorance of its meaning.
What then ought we to do ? We ought to break up these
large overgrown parishes into districts of a manageable size,
containing not more than 3,000 people at the very most. We
ought at once to put a minister of the Gospel and two lay
322 KNOTS UNTIED.
agents in every one of these districts, and give them the
spiritual oversight of the people. We must not wait to build
a fine church. We must send a man who is able to preach
anywhere, in a garret, a coach-house, an alley, or even in the
street, and give him abundant liberty to work, unfettered by
precedent and routine. This is the best antidote for the evils
over which we mourn. The preached Gospel applied to the
conscience, and not pains and penalties, the preached Gospel,
and not fines and imprisonment, the preached Gospel carried
home to every house in a parish, this is the grand remedy for
Sabbath-breaking.
I know well that all this sounds impracticable and Utopian to
many ears. Ecclesiastical laws, rectorial rights, the want of
funds, the want of men, all these, and twenty other like objec
tions, will at once be started.
Be it so. All I say is that until something of this kind is
done, we shall never stop the Sabbath-breaking of great towns.
It will be a festering sore on the face of our country, which will
every now and then break out and lead to enormous mischief.
For my own part I see nothing in the proposal I have made
which might not easily be attained, if the subject was fairly
grappled with. Laws are repealed easily enough when public
opinion demands it, and if they are bad the sooner they
are repealed the better. Rectorial rights must never stand in
competition with the wants of immortal souls : they have suc
cumbed already to the Burial Acts in many cases, and why
not again 1 They have had to give way when it was needful
to provide for dead bodies ; we may surely require them to give
way when we want to provide for dead souls. Men, I believe,
of the right sort are to be found, if the Bishops will only
encourage them to come forward. Money, I am convinced, will
never be wanting for a good cause, if a case is really made out.
And after all we had better sacrifice fifty Canonries than leave
our great town parishes in their present condition.
I commend these things to the attention of all who love the
Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Let London, Manchester,
Liverpool, Glasgow, and other large towns be thoroughly
evangelized, and you will strike a deadly blow at the root of
all Sabbath-breaking. Leave them alone, or go on at the rate
we go at present, and my firm conviction is that we shall never
THE SABBATH. 323
be free from a Sabbath question agitation. It will return
periodically, like an ague fit, until the sources which now supply
it are dried up.
The plain truth is, that the Sabbath-breaking of the present
day is one among many proofs of the low state of vital religion,
and the awful want of union among British Christians. We
have wasted our time on petty internal quarrels, and neglected
the mighty work of converting souls. We have wrangled and
squabbled about matter of mint, anise, and cummin, and for
gotten our Master s business. We have allowed vast town
populations to grow up in semi-heathen ignorance, and are now
reaping the fruit of our gross neglect in their Sabbath-breaking
propensities. In short, while the doctors have been disputing,
the disease has been spreading and the patient dying.
I pray God that we may all learn wisdom, and amend our
ways before it be too late. We want less party spirit and sec
tarianism, and more work for Christ. We want a return to the
old paths of the Apostles in every branch of the Church ; we
want a generation of ministers whose first ambition is to go into
every room in their parish, and tell the story of the cross of
Christ.
I am not sanguine in my expectations. Routine and pre
cedent seem to bind men now-a-days with iron chains. But I
deliberately repeat once more, that unless our large towns are
more thoroughly evangelized, we shall never be long without a
struggle TO KEEP THE SABBATH HOLY.
NOTE.
/ take the liberty of recommending to the attention of my brethren in the
ministry, the following extract from the Charge of the Venerable
Bishop of Calcutta, in the year 1838 :
" Honour especially in your public and private instructions the primaeval
law of the Sabbath ; the chief vestige of our Paradisaical state ; the one
command inscribed on the order of creation ; the grand external symbol of
revealed religion ; a prominent branch of the first table of the moral law,
and standing on the same footing as the love of God and our neighbour ; the
theme of the Prophets exhortations in their descriptions of the Evangelical
age : vindicated indeed from the uncommanded austerities of the Pharisees,
but honoured by the constant practice of our blessed Saviour ; transferred
by the Lord and His Apostles, after the resurrection, to that great day of the
Church s triumph, but remaining the same in its apportionment of time, its
spiritual character, and its Divine obligation on the whole human race, and
324 KNOTS UNTIED.
handed down and commended by the constant and unvaried usage of the
Church from the very birth of Christianity to the present hour."
The following extracts from a speech of the late Lord Macaiday xptakfor
themselves :
" I have not the smallest doubt that, if we and our ancestors had, during
the last three centuries, worked just as hard on the Sundays as on the week
days, we should have been at this moment a poorer people and a less civilized
people than we are ; that there would have been less production than there
has been, that the wages of the labourer would have been lower than they
are, and that some other nation would have been now making cotton stuffs
and woollen stuffs and cutlery for the whole world. Of course I do not
mean to say that a man will not produce more in a week by working seven
days than by working six days. But I very much doubt whether, at the end
of a year, he will generally have produced more by working seven days a week
than by working six days a week ; and I firmly believe that, at the end of
twenty years, he will have produced much less by working seven days a
week than by working six days a week.
"We are not poorer in England, but richer, because we have, through
many ages, rested from our labour one day in seven. That day is not lost.
While industry is suspended, while the plough lies in the furrow, while the
Exchange is silent, while no smoke ascends from the factory, a process is
going on quite as important to the wealth of nations as any process which is
performed on more busy days. Man, the machine of machinery, the machine
compared with which all the contrivances of the Watts and Arkwrights are
worthless, is repairing and winding up, so that he returns to his labour on
the Monday with clearer intellect, with livelier spirits, with renewed corporal
vigour." Macaulay s Speech on the Ten Hours Bill. Speeches, pp. 450,
433, 454.
The famous Blackstone says, "The keeping one day in seven holy, as a
time of relaxation and refreshment, as well as for public worship, is of admir
able service to a State, considered merely as a civil institution." Slacfatone s
Commentaries, vol. iv., p. 63.
"
XV.
PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES.
Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees and of the &wMwees. " MATT. xvi. 6.
EVERY word spoken by the Lord Jesus is full of deep instruction
for Christians. It is the voice of the Chief Shepherd. It is
the Great Head of the Church speaking to all its members, the
King of kings speaking to His subjects, the Master of the
house speaking to His servants, the Captain of our salvation
speaking to His soldiers. Above all, it is the voice of Him who
said, " I have not spoken of Myself : the Father which sent Me,
He gave Me a commandment what I should say and what I
should speak." (John xii. 49.) The heart of every believer in
the Lord Jesus ought to burn within him when he hears his
Master s words : he ought to say, " This is the voice of my
beloved." (Cant. ii. 8.)
And every kind of word spoken by the Lord Jesus is of the
greatest value. Precious as gold are all His words of doctrine
and ^ precept ; precious are all His parables and prophecies ;
precious are all His words of comfort and of consolation;
precious, not least, are all His words of caution and of warning.
We are not merely to hear Him when He says, " Come unto
Me, all ye that labour, and are heavy laden ; " we are to hear
Him also when He says, " Take heed and beware,"
I am going to direct attention to one of the most solemn and
emphatic warnings which the Lord Jesus ever delivered : " Take
heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the
Sadducees." Upon this text I wish to erect a beacon for all
who desire to be saved, and to preserve some souls, if possible,
from making shipwreck. The times caU loudly for such
beacons : the spiritual shipwrecks of the last twenty-five years
325
326 KNOTS UNTIED.
have been deplorably numerous. The watchmen of the Church
ought to speak out plainly now, or for ever hold their peace.
I. First of all, I ask my readers to observe icho they were to
whom the learning of the text ivas addressed.
Our Lord Jesus Christ was not speaking to men who were
worldly, ungodly, and unsanctified, but to His own disciples,
companions, and friends. He addressed men who, with the
exception of the apostate Judas Iscariot, were right-hearted in
the sight of God. He spoke to the twelve Apostles, the first
founders of the Church of Christ, and the first ministers of the
Word of salvation. And yet even to them He addresses the
solemn caution of our text : " Take heed and beware."
There is something very remarkable in this fact. We might
have thought that these Apostles needed little warning of this
kind. Had they not given up all for Christ s sake ? They had.
Had they not endured hardship for Christ s sake 1 They had.
Had they not believed Jesus, followed Jesus, loved Jesus,
when almost all the world was unbelieving ? All these things
are true ; and yet to them the caution was addressed : " Take
heed and beware." We might have imagined that at any rate
the disciples had but little to fear from the " leaven of the
Pharisees and of the Sadducees." They were poor and unlearned
men, most of them fishermen or publicans ; they had no lean
ings in favour of the Pharisees and the Sadducees ; they were
more likely to be prejudiced against them than to feel any draw
ing towards them. All this is perfectly true ; yet even to them
there comes the solemn warning : "Take heed and beware."
There is useful counsel here for all who profess to love the
Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. It tells us loudly that the most
eminent servants of Christ are not beyond the need of warnings,
and ought to be always on their guard. It shows us plainly
that the holiest of believers ought to Avalk humbly with his
God, and to watch and pray, lest he fall into temptation, and be
overtaken in a fault. Kone is so holy, but that he may fall,
not finally, not hopelessly, but to his own discomfort, to the
scandal of the Church, and to the triumph of the world : none
is so strong but that he may for a time be overcome. Chosen
as believers are by God the Father, justified as they are by the
blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ, sanctified as they are
PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES. 327
by the Holy Ghost, believers are still only men : they are yet
in the body, and yet in the world. They are ever near tempta
tion : they are ever liable to err, both in doctrine and in
practice. Their hearts, though renewed, are very feeble ; their
understanding, though enlightened, is still very dim. They
ought to live like those who dwell in an enemy s land, and
every day to put on the armour of God. The devil is very
busy : he never slumbers or sleeps. Let us remember the falls
of Noah, and Abraham, and Lot, and Moses, and David, and
Peter ; and remembering them, be humble, and take heed lest
we fall.
I may be allowed to say that none need warnings so much as
the ministers of Christ s Gospel. Our office and our ordination
are no security against errors and mistakes. It is, alas, too true,
that the greatest heresies have crept into the Church of Christ
by means of ordained men. Neither Episcopal ordination, nor
Presbyterian ordination, nor any other ordination, confers any
immunity from error and false doctrine. Our very familiarity
with the Gospel often begets in us a hardened state of mind.
We are apt to read the Scriptures, and preach the Word, and
conduct public worship, and carry 011 the service of God, in a
dry, hard, formal, callous spirit. Our very familiarity with
sacred things, except we watch our hearts, is likely to lead us
astray. " Nowhere," says an old writer, "is a man s soul in
more danger than in a priest s office." The history of the
Church of Christ contains many melancholy proofs that the
most distinguished ministers may for a time fall away. Who
has not heard of Archbishop Cranmer recanting and going back
from those opinions he had defended so stoutly, though, by
God s mercy, raised again to witness a glorious confession at
last 1 Who has not heard of Bishop Jewel signing documents
that he most thoroughly disapproved, and of which signature he
afterwards bitterly repented 1 Who does not know that many
others might be named, who, at one time or another, have been
overtaken by faults, have fallen into errors, and been led astray ?
And who does not know the mournful fact that many of them
never came back to the truth, but died in hardness of heart, and
held their errors to the last 1
These things ought to make us humble and cautious. They
tell us to distrust our own hearts, and to pray to be kept from
328 KNOTS UNTIED.
falling. In these days, when we are specially called upon to
cleave firmly to the doctrines of the Protestant Keformation, let
us take heed that our zeal for Protestantism does not puff us up,
and make us proud. Let us never say in our self-conceit, "I
shall never fall into Popery or Neologianism : those views will
never suit me." Let us remember that many have begun well
and run well for a season, and yet afterwards turned aside out
of the right way. Let us take heed that we are spiritual men
as well as Protestants, and real friends of Christ as well as
enemies of Antichrist. Let us pray that we may be kept from
error, and never forget that the twelve Apostles themselves
were the men to whom the Great Head of the Church addressed
these words : " Take heed and beware."
II. I propose, in the second place, to explain what were
those dangers against which our Lord warned the Apostles.
"Take heed," He says, "and beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees and of the Sadducees."
The danger against which He warns them is false doctrine.
He says nothing about the sword of persecution, or the open
breach of the Ten Commandments, or the love of money, or the
love of pleasure. All these things no doubt were perils and
snares to which the souls of the Apostles were exposed ; but
against these things our Lord raises no warning voice here.
His warning is confined to one single point : " The leaven of
the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." We are not left to con
jecture what our Lord meant by the word "leaven." The Holy
Ghost, a few verses after the very text on which I am now
dwelling, tells us plainly that by leaven was meant the
" doctrine " of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Let us try to understand what we mean when we speak of
the " doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."
(a) The doctrine of the Pharisees may be summed up in
three words, they were formalists, tradition-worshippers, and
self-righteous. They attached such weight to the traditions of
men, that they practically regarded them as of more importance
than the inspired writings of the Old Testament. They valued
themselves upon excessive strictness in their attention to all the
ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic law. They thought
much of being descended from Abraham, and said in their
PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES. 329
hearts, "We have Abraham to our father." They fancied
because they had Abraham for their father that they were not
in peril of hell like other men, and that their descent from him
was a kind of title to heaven. They attached great value to
washings and ceremonial purifyings of the body, and believed
that the very touching of the dead body of a fly or gnat would
defile them. They made a great ado about the outward parts
of religion, and such things as could be seen of men. They
made broad their phylacteries, and enlarged the fringes of their
garments. They prided themselves on paying great honour to
dead saints, and garnishing the sepulchres of the righteous.
They were very zealous to make proselytes. They thought
much of having power, rank, and pre-eminence, and of being
called by men, " Rabbi, Kabbi." These things, and many such
like things, the Pharisees did. Every well-informed Christian
can find these things in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St.
Mark. (See Matthew, chaps, xv. and xxiii. ; Mark, chap, vii.)
All this time, be it remembered, they did not formally deny
any part of the Old Testament Scripture. But they brought in,
over and above it, so much of human invention, that they
virtually put Scripture aside, and buried it under their ow r n
traditions. This is the sort of religion of which our Lord says
to the Apostles, " Take heed and beware."
(6) The doctrine of the Sadducees, on the other hand, may
be summed up in three words, free-thinking, scepticism, and
rationalism. Their creed was one far less popular than that of
the Pharisees, and, therefore, we find them less often mentioned
in the New Testament Scriptures. So far as we can judge
from the New Testament, they appear to have held the doctrine
of degrees of inspiration ; at all events they attached exceeding
value to the Pentateuch above the other parts of the Old Testa
ment, if indeed they did not altogether ignore the latter. They
believed that there was no resurrection, no angel, and no spirit,
and tried to laugh men out of their belief in these things, by
supposing hard cases, and bringing forward difficult questions.
We have an instance of their mode of argument in the case
which they propounded to our Lord of the woman who had
had seven husbands, when they asked, "In the resurrection,
whose wife shall she be of the seven ? " And in this way they
probably hoped, by rendering religion absurd, and its chief
330 KNOTS UNTIED.
doctrines ridiculous, to make men altogether give up the faith
they had received from the Scriptures.
All this time, be it remembered, we may not say that the
Sadducees were downright infidels : this they were not. We
may not say they denied revelation altogether : this they did
not do. They observed the law of Moses. Many of them
were found among the priests in the times described in the Acts
of the Apostles. Caiaphas who condemned our Lord was a
Sadducee. But the practical effect of their teaching was to
shake men s faith in any revelation, and to throw a cloud of
doubt over men s minds, which was only one degree better than
infidelity. And of all such kind of doctrine, free-thinking,
scepticism, rationalism, our Lord says, " Take heed and
beware."
Now the question arises, Why did our Lord Jesus Christ
deliver this warning ? He knew, no doubt, that within forty
years the schools of the Pharisees and the Sadducees would be
completely overthrown. He that knew all things from the
beginning, knew perfectly well that in forty years Jerusalem,
with its magnificent temple, would be destroyed, and the Jews
scattered over the face of the earth. Why then do we find
Him giving this warning about " the leaven of the Pharisees
and of the Sadducees ? "
I believe that our Lord delivered this solemn warning for the
perpetual benefit of that Church which He came on earth to
found. He spoke with a prophetic knowledge. He knew well
the diseases to which human nature is always liable. He
foresaw that the two great plagues of His Church upon earth
would always be the doctrine of the Pharisees and the doctrine
of the Sadducees. He knew that these would be the upper and
nether mill-stones, between which His truth would be per
petually crushed and bruised until He came the second time.
He knew that there always would be Pharisees in spirit, and
Sadducees in spirit, among professing Christians. He knew
that their succession would never fail, and their generation
never become extinct, and that though the names of Pharisees
and Sadducees were no more, yet their principles would always
exist. He knew that during the time that the Church existed,
until His return, there would always be some that would add to
the Word, and some that would subtract from it, some that
PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES. 331
would stifle it, by adding to it other things, and some that
would bleed it to death, by subtracting from its principal truths.
And this is the reason why we find Him delivering this solemn
warning : "Take heed and beware of the leaven of. the Pharisees
and of the Sadducees."
And now comes the question, Had not our Lord Jesus Christ
good reason to give this warning ? I appeal to all who know
anything of Church history, was there not indeed a cause 1 I
appeal to all who remember what took place soon after the
Apostles were dead. Do we not read that in the primitive
Church of Christ there rose up two distinct parties, one ever
inclined to err, like the Arians, in holding less than the truth,
the other ever inclined to err, like the relic-worshippers and
saint-worshippers, in holding more than the truth, as it is in
Jesus ? Do we not see the same thing coming out in after
times, in the form of Romanism on the one side and Socinianism
on the other? Do we not read in the history of our own
Church of two great parties, the Non-jurors on the one side,
and the Latitudinarians on the other? These are ancient
things. In a short paper like this it is impossible for me to
enter more fully into them. They are things well known to all
who are familiar with records of past days. There always have
been these two great parties, the party representing the prin
ciples of the Pharisee, and the party representing the principles
of the Sadducee. And therefore our Lord had good cause to
say of these two great principles, " Take heed and beware."
But I desire to bring the subject even nearer at the present
moment. I ask my readers to consider whether warnings like
this are not especially needed in our own times. We have,
undoubtedly, much to be thankful for in England. We have
made great advances in arts and sciences in the last three
centuries, and have much of the form and show of morality and
religion. But I ask anybody who can see beyond his own
door, or his own fireside, whether we do not live in the midst
of dangers from false doctrine ?
We have amongst us, on the one side, a school of men who,
wittingly or unwittingly, are paving the way into the Church
of Rome, a school that professes to draw its principles from
primitive tradition, the writings of the Fathers, and the voice
of the Church, a school that talks and writes so much about
332 KNOTS UNTIED.
the Church, the ministry, and the sacraments, that it makes
them like Aaron s rod, swallow up everything else in Chris
tianity, a school that attaches vast importance to the outward
form and ceremonial of religion, to gestures, postures, bowings,
crosses, piscinas, sedilia, credence-tables, rood-screens, albs,
tunicles, copes, chasubles, altar-cloths, incense, images, banners,
processions, floral decorations, and many other like things, about
which not a word is to be found in the Holy Scriptures as
having any place in Christian worship. I refer, of course, to
the school of Churchmen called Kitualists. When we examine
the proceedings of that school, there can be but one conclusion
concerning them. I believe whatever be the meaning and
intention of its teachers, however devoted, zealous, and self-
denying many of them are, that upon them has fallen tho
mantle of the Pharisees.
We have, on the other hand, a school of men who, wittingly
or unwittingly, appear to pave the way to Socinianism, a
school which holds strange views about the plenary inspiration
of Holy Scripture, strange views about the doctrine of sacrifice,
and the Atonement of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,
strange views about the eternity of punishment, and God s love
to man, a school strong in negatives, but very weak in
positives, skilful in raising doubts, but impotent in laying
them, clever in unsettling and unscrewing men s faith, but
powerless to offer any firm rest for the sole of our foot. And,
whether the leaders of this school mean it or not, I believe that
on them has fallen the mantle of the Sadducees.
These things sound harsh. It saves a vast deal of trouble to
shut our eyes, and say, " I see no danger," and because it is not
seen, therefore not to believe it. It is easy to stop our ears and
say, "I hear nothing," and because we hear nothing, therefore
to feel no alarm. But we know well who they are that rejoice
over the state of tilings we have to deplore in some quarters of
our own Church. We know what the Roman Catholic thinks ;
we know what the Socinian thinks. The Roman Catholic
rejoices over the rise of the Tractarian party ; the Socinian
rejoices over the rise of men who teach such views as those set
forth in modern days about the atonement and inspiration.
They would not rejoice as they do if they did not see their
work being done, and their cause being helped forward. The
PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES. 333
danger, I believe, is far greater than we are apt to suppose.
The books that are read in many quarters are most mischievous,
and the tone of thought on religious subjects, among many
classes, and especially among the higher ranks, is deeply
unsatisfactory. The plague is abroad. If we love life, we
ought to search our own hearts, and try our own faith, and
make sure that we stand on the right foundation. Above all,
we ought to take heed that we ourselves do not imbibe the
poison of false doctrine, and go back from our first love.
I feel deeply the paiufulness of speaking out on these subjects.
I know well that plain speaking about false doctrine is very
unpopular, and that the speaker must be content to find himself
thought very uncharitable, very troublesome, and very narrow-
minded. Thousands of people can never distinguish differences
in religion. To the bulk of men a clergyman is a clergyman,
and a sermon is a sermon ; and as to any difference between one
minister and another, or one doctrine and another, they are
utterly unable to understand it. I cannot expect such people
to approve of any warning against false doctrine. I must make
up my mind to meet with their disapprobation, and must bear
it as I best can.
But I will ask any honest-minded, unprejudiced Bible reader
to turn to the New Testament and see what he will find there.
He will find many plain warnings against false doctrine :
"Beware of false prophets," "Beware lest any man spoil you
through philosophy and vain deceit," " Be not carried about
with divers and strange doctrines," " Believe not every spirit,
but try the spirits whether they be of God." (Matt. vii. 15 ;
Col. ii. 8 ; Heb. xiii. 9 ; 1 John iv. 1.) He will find a large
part of several inspired Epistles taken up with elaborate explana
tions of true doctrine and warnings against false teaching. I
ask whether it is possible for a minister who takes the Bible
for his rule of faith to avoid giving warnings against doctrinal
error ?
Finally, I ask any one to mark what is going on in England
at this very day ? I ask whether it is not true that hundreds
have left the Established Church and joined the Church of
Rome within the last thirty years 1 I ask whether it is not
true that hundreds remain within our pale, who in heart are
little better than Romanists, and who ought, if they were
334 KNOTS UNTIED.
consistent, to walk in the steps of Newman and Manning, and
go to their own place 1 I ask again whether it is not true that
scores of young men, both at Oxford and Cambridge, are spoiled
and ruined by the withering influence of scepticism, and have
lost all positive principles in religion ? Sneers at religious
newspapers, loud declarations of dislike to "parties," high-
sounding, vague phrases about " deep thinking," broad views,
new light, free handling of Scripture, and the effete weakness
of certain schools of theology, make up the whole Christianity
of many of the rising generation. And yet, in the face of
these notorious facts, men cry out, "Hold your peace about
false doctrine. Let false doctrine alone ! " I cannot hold my
peace. Faith in the Word of God, love to the souls of men,
the vows I took when I was ordained, alike constrain me to
bear witness against the errors of the day. And I believe that
the saying of our Lord is eminently a truth for the times :
" Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."
III. The third thing to which I wish to call attention is tltc
peculiar name by which our Lord Jesus Christ speaks of the
doctrines of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
The words which our Lord used were always the wisest and
the best that could be used. He might have said, " Take heed
and beware of the doctrine, or of the teaching, or of the opinions,
of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." But He does not say
so : He uses a word of a peculiar nature. He says, " Take heed
and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."
Now we all know what is the true meaning of the word
" leaven." It is what we commonly call yeast, the yeast
which is added to the lump of dough in making a loaf of bread.
This yeast, or leaven, bears but a small proportion to the lump
into which it is thrown ; just so, our Lord would have us know,
the first beginning of false doctrine is but small compared to the
body of Christianity. It works quietly and noiselessly ; just
so, our Lord would have us know, false doctrine works secretly
in the heart in which it is once planted. It insensibly changes
the character of the whole mass with which it is mingled ; just
so, our Lord would have us know, the doctrines of the Pharisees
and Sadducees turn everything upside down, when once admitted
into a Church or into a man s heart. Let us mark these points :
PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES. 335
they throw light on many things that we see in the present
day. It is of vast importance to receive the lessons of wisdom
that this word "leaven" contains in itself.
False doctrine does not meet men face to face, and proclaim
that it is false. It does not blow a trumpet before it, and
endeavour openly to turn us away from the truth as it is in
Jesus. It does not come before men in broad day, and summon
them to surrender. It approaches us secretly, quietly, insidiously,
plausibly, and in such a way as to disarm man s suspicion, and
throw him off his guard. It is the wolf in sheep s clothing, and
Satan in the garb of an angel of light, who have always proved
the most dangerous foes of the Church of Christ.
I believe the most powerful champion of the Pharisees is
not the man who bids you openly and honestly come out and
join the Church of Rome : it is the man who says that he agrees
on all points with you in doctrine. He would not take any
thing away from those Evangelical views that you hold ; he
would not have you make any change at all \ all he asks you
to do is to add a little more to your belief, in order to make
your Christianity perfect. "Believe me," he says, "we do not
want you to give up anything. We only want you to hold a
few more clear views about the Church and the sacraments.
We want you to add to your present opinions a little more
about the office of the ministry, and a little more about Epis
copal authority, and little more about the Prayer-book, and a
little more about the necessity of order and of discipline. We
only want you to add a little more of these things to your system
of religion, and you will be quite right." But when men speak
to you in this way, then is the time to remember what our
Lord said, and " to take heed and beware." This is the leaven
of the Pharisees, against which we are to stand upon our guard.
Why do I say this ? I say it because there is no security
against the doctrine of the Pharisees, unless we resist its prin
ciples in their beginnings. Beginning with a " little more
about the Church," you may one day place the Churcli
in the room of Christ. Beginning with a " little more
about the ministry," you may one day regard the minister as
"the mediator between God and man." Beginning with a
"little more about the sacraments," you may one day altogether
give up the doctrine of justification by faith without the deeds
336 KNOTS UNTIED.
of the law. Beginning with a "little more reverence for the
Prayer-book," you may one day place it above the holy Word
of God Himself. Beginning with a "little more honour to
bishops," you may at last refuse salvation to every one who
does not belong to an Episcopal Church. I only tell an old
story : I only mark out roads that have been trodden by hun
dreds of members of the Church of England in the last few
years. They began by carping at the Reformers, and have
ended by swallowing the decrees of the Council of Trent. They
began by crying up Laud and the Non-jurors, and have ended
by going far beyond them, and formally joining the Church of
Rome. I believe that when we hear men asking us to " add a
little more " to our good old plain Evangelical views, we should
stand upon our guard. We should remember our Lord s caution :
" Of the leaven of the Pharisees, take heed and beware."
I consider the most dangerous champion of the Sadducee
school is not the man who tells you openly that he wants you
to lay aside any part of the truth, and to become a free-thinker
and a sceptic. It is the man who begins with quietly insinuat
ing doubts as to the position that we ought to take up about
religion, doubts whether we ought to be so positive in saying
" This is truth, and that falsehood," doubts whether we ought
to think men wrong who differ from us on religious opinions,
since they may after all be as much right as we are. It is the
man who tells us we ought not to condemn anybody s views,
lest we err on the side of want of charity. It is the man who
always begins talking in a vague way about God being a God
of love, and hints that we ought to believe perhaps that all men,
whatever doctrine they profess, will be saved. It is the man who
is ever reminding us that we ought to take care how we think
lightly of men of powerful minds, and great intellects (though
they are Deists and sceptics), who do not think as we do, and
that, after all, "great minds are all more or less taught of
God ! " It is the man who is ever harping on the difficulties
of inspiration, and raising questions whether all men may not
be found saved in the end, and whether all may not be right in
the sight of God. It is the man who crowns this kind of talk
by a few calm sneers against what he is pleased to call " old-
fashioned views," and "narrow-minded theology," and "bigotry,"
and the " want of liberality and charity," in the present day.
PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES. 337
But when men begin to speak to us in this kind of way, then
is the time to stand upon our guard. Then is the time to
remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and "to take
heed and beware of leaven."
Once more, why do I say this *? I say it because there is no
security against Sadduceeism, any more than against Pharisee-
ism, unless we resist its principles in the bud. Beginning with
a little vague talk about "charity," you may end in the doctrine
of universal salvation, fill heaven with a mixed multitude of
wicked as well as good, and deny the existence of hell.
Beginning with a few high-sounding phrases about intellect and
the inner light in man, you may end with denying the work of
the Holy Ghost, and maintaining that Homer and Shakespeare
were as truly inspired as St. Paul, and thus practically casting
aside the Bible. Beginning with some dreamy, misty idea
about "all religions containing more or less truth," you may
end with utterly denying the necessity of missions, and main
taining that the best plan is to leave everybody alone. Begin
ning with dislike to "Evangelical religion," as old-fashioned,
narrow, and exclusive, you may end by rejecting every leading
doctrine of Christianity, the atonement, the need of grace,
and the divinity of Christ. Again I repeat that I only tell an
old story : I only give a sketch of a path which scores have
trodden in the last few years. They were once satisfied with
such divinity as that of Newton, Scott, Cecil, and Romaine ;
they are now fancying they have found a more excellent way
in the principles which have been propounded by theologians
of the Broad school ! I believe there is no safety for a man s
soul unless he remembers the lesson involved in those solemn
words, "Beware of the leaven of the Sadducees."
Let us beware of the insidiousness of false doctrine. Like
the fruit of which Eve and Adam ate, it looks at first sight
pleasant and good, and a thing to be desired. Poison is not
written upon it, and so people are not afraid. Like counter
feit coin, it is not stamped "bad:" it passes current from the
very likeness it bears to the truth.
Let us beware of the very small beginnings of false doctrine.
Every heresy began at one time with some little departure from
the truth. There is only a little seed of error needed to create
a great tree. It is the little stones that make up the mighty
338 KNOTS UNTIED.
building. It was the little timbers that made the great ark
that carried ISToah and his family over a deluged world. It is
the little leaven that leavens the whole lump. It is the little
flaw in one link of the chain cable that wrecks the gallant ship,
and drowns the crew. It is the omission or addition of one
little item in the doctor s prescription that spoils the whole
medicine, and turns it into poison. We do not tolerate quietly
a little dishonesty, or a little cheating, or a little lying : just so,
let us never allow a little false doctrine to ruin us, by thinking-
it is but a "little one," and can do no harm. The Galatians
seemed to be doing nothing very dangerous when they "ob
served days and months, and times and years ; " yet St. Paul
says, "I am afraid of you." (GaL iv. 10, 11.)
Finally, let us beware of supposing that we at any rate are
not in danger. " Our views are sound : our feet stand firm :
others may fall aAvay, but we are safe ! " Hundreds have
thought the same, and have come to a bad end. In their self-
confidence they tampered with little temptations and little
forms of false doctrine; in their self-conceit they went near
the brink of danger ; and now they seem lost for ever. They
appear given over to a strong delusion, so as to believe a lie.
Some of them have exchanged the Prayer-book for the Breviary,
and are praying to the Virgin Mary, and bowing down to
images. Others of them are casting overboard one doctrine
after another, and bid fair to strip themselves of every sort of
religion but a few scraps of Deism. Very striking is the vision
in Pilgrim s Progress, which describes the hill Error as " very
steep on the farthest side ; " and " when Christian and Hopeful
looked down they saw at the bottom several men dashed all to
pieces by a fall they had from the top." Never, never let us
forget the caution to beware of "leaven ;" and if we think we
stand, let us " take heed lest we fall."
IV. I propose, in the fourth and last place, to suggest some
safe-guards and antidotes against the dangers of the present day,
the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of the Sadducees.
I feel that we all need more and more the presence of the
Holy Ghost in our hearts, to guide, to teach, and to keep us
sound in the faith. "We all need to watch more, and to pray
to be held up, and preserved from falling away. But still, there
PHABISEES AND SADPITCEES. 339
are certain great truths, which, in a day like this, we are specially
bound to keep in mind. There are times when some common
epidemic invades a land,- when medicines, at all times valuable,
become of peculiar value. There are places where a peculiar
malaria prevails, in which remedies, in every place valuable, are
more than ever valuable in consequence of it. So I believe
there are times and seasons in the Church of Christ when we
are bound to tighten our hold upon certain great leading truths,
to grasp them" with more than ordinary firmness in our hands,
to press them to our hearts, and not to let them go. Such
doctrines I desire to set forth in order, as the great antidotes to
the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. When Saul
and Jonathan were slain by the archers, David ordered the
children of Israel to be taught the use of the bow.
(a) For one thing, if we would be kept sound in the faith,
we must take heed to our doctrine about the total corruption of
human nature. The corruption of human nature is no slight
thing. It is no partial, skin-deep disease, but a radical and
universal corruption of man s will, intellect, affections, and
conscience. We are not merely poor and pitiable sinners in
God s sight: we are guilty sinners; we are blameworthy sinners;
we deserve justly God s wrath and God s condemnation. I
believe there are very few errors and false doctrines of which
the beginning may not be traced up to unsound views about
the corruption of human nature. Wrong views of a disease
will always bring with them wrong views of the remedy.
Wrong views of the corruption of human nature will always
carry with them wrong views of the grand antidote and cure of
that corruption.
(b) For another thing, we must take heed to our doctrine
about the inspiration and authority of the Holy Scriptures. Let
us boldly maintain, in the face of all gainsayers, that the whole
of the Bible is given by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that
all is inspired completely, not one part more than another, and
that there is an entire gulf between the Word of God and any
other book in the world. We need not be afraid of difficulties
in the way of the doctrine of plenary inspiration. There may
be many things about it far too high for us to comprehend : it
is a miracle, and all miracles are necessarily mysterious. But
if we are not to believe anything until we can entirely explain
340 KXOTS UNTIED.
it, there are very few tilings indeed that we shall believe. We
need not be afraid of all the assaults that criticism brings to
bear upon the Bible. From the days of the Apostles the Word
of the Lord has been incessantly " tried," and has never failed
to come forth as gold, uninjured, and unsullied. We need not
be afraid of the discoveries of science. Astronomers may sweep
the heavens with telescopes, and geologists may dig down into
the heart of the earth, and never shake the authority of the
Bible : " The voice of God and the work of God s hands never
will be found to contradict one another." We need not be
afraid of the researches of travellers. They will never discover
anything that contradicts God s Bible. I believe that if a
Layard were to go over all the earth and dig up a hundred
buried Ninevehs, there would not be found a single inscription
which would contradict a single fact in the Word of God.
Furthermore, we must boldly maintain that this Word of
God is the only rule of faith and of practice, that whatsoever
is not written in it cannot be required of any man as needful to
salvation, and that however plausibly new doctrines may be
defended, if they be not in the Word of God they cannot be
worth our attention. It matters nothing who says a thing,
whether he be bishop, archdeacon, dean, or presbyter. It
matters nothing that the thing is well said, eloquently, attract
ively, forcibly, and in such a way as to turn the laugh against
you. We are not to believe it except it be proved to us by Holy
Scripture.
Last, but not least, we must use the Bible as if we believed
it was given by inspiration. We must use it with reverence,
and read it with all the tenderness with which we would read
the words of an absent father. We must not expect to find, in
a book inspired by the Spirit of God, no mysteries. We must
rather remember that in nature there are many things we cannot
understand ; and that as it is in the book of nature, so it will
always be in the book of Revelation. We should draw near to
the Word of God in that spirit of piety recommended by Lord
Bacon many years ago. " Remember," he says, speaking of the
book of nature, " that man is not the master of that book, but
the interpreter of that book." And as we deal with the book
of nature, so we must deal with the book of God. We
must draw near to it, not to teach, but to learn, not like
PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES. 341
the master of it, but like a humble scholar, seeking to under
stand it.
(c) For another thing, we must take heed to our doctrine
respecting the atonement and priestly office of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ. We must boldly maintain that the death
of our Lord upon the cross was no common death. It was not
the death of one who only died like Cranmer, Ridley, and
Latimer, as a martyr. It was not the death of one who only
died to give us a mighty example of self-sacrifice and self-denial.
The death of Christ was an offering up unto God of Christ s own
body and blood, to make satisfaction for man s sin and trans
gression. It was a sacrifice and propitiation; a sacrifice typified
in every offering of the Mosaic law, a sacrifice of the mightiest
influence upon all mankind. Without the shedding of that
blood there could not be there never was to be^-any remission
of sin.
Furthermore, we must boldly maintain that this crucified
Saviour ever sitteth at the right hand of God, to make inter
cession for all that come to God by Him; that He there
represents and pleads for them that put their trust in Him; and
that He has deputed His office of Priest and Mediator to no
man or set of men on the face of the earth. We need none
besides. We need no Virgin Mary, no angels, no saint, no
priest, no person ordained or unordained, to stand between us
and God, but the one Mediator, Christ Jesus.
Furthermore, we must boldly maintain that peace of con
science is not to be bought by confession to a priest, and by
receiving a man s absolution from sin. It is to be had only by
going to the great High Priest, Christ Jesus ; by confession
before Him, not before man ; and by absolution from Him only,
who alone can say, " Thy sins be forgiven thee : go in peace."
Last, but not least, we must boldly maintain that peace with
God, once obtained by faith in Christ, is to be kept up, not by
mere outward ceremonial acts of worship, not by receiving the
sacrament of the Lord s Supper every day, but by the daily
habit of looking to the Lord Jesus Christ by faith, eating by
faith His body, and drinking by faith His blood ; that eating and
drinking of which our Lord says that he who eats and drinks
shall find His " body meat indeed, and His blood drink indeed."
Holy John Owen declared, long ago, that if there was any one
342 KNOTS UNTIED.
point more than another that Satan wished to overthrow, it was
the Priestly office of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Satan
knew well, he said, that it was the " principal foundation of
faith and consolation of the Church." Right views upon that
office are of essential importance in the present day, if men
would not fall into error.
(d) One more remedy I must mention. We must take heed
to our doctrine about the work of God the Holy Ghost. Let us
settle it in our minds that His work is no uncertain invisible
operation upon the heart : and that where He is, He is not
hidden, not unfelt, not unobserved. We do not believe that
the dew, when it falls, cannot be felt, or that where there is life
in a man it cannot be seen and observed by his breath. So is it
with the influence of the Holy Ghost. No man has any right
to lay claim to it, except its fruits its experimental effects
can be seen in his life. Where He is, there will ever be a new
creation, and a new man. Where He is, there will ever be new
knowledge, new faith, new holiness, new fruits in the life, in
the family, in the world, in the Church. And where these new
things are not to be seen we may well say, with confidence,
there is no work of the Holy Ghost. These are times in which
we all need to be upon our guard about the doctrine of the
work of the Spirit. Madame Guyon said, long ago, that the
time would perhaps come when men might have to be martyrs
for the work of the Holy Ghost. That time seems not far
distant. At any rate, if there is one truth in religion that
seems to have more contempt showered upon it than another, it
is the work of the Spirit.
I desire to impress the immense importance of these four
points upon all who read this paper : (a) clear views of the sin-
fulness of human nature ; (b) clear views of the inspiration of
Scripture ; (c) clear views of the Atonement and Priestly office
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ; (d) and clear views of
the work of the Holy Ghost. I believe that strange doctrines
about the Church, the ministry, and the sacraments, about
the love of God, the death of Christ, and the eternity of
punishment, will find no foothold in the heart which is
sound on these four points. I believe that they are four great
safe-guards against the leaven of the Pharisees and of the
Sadducees.
PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES. 343
I will now conclude this paper with a few remarks by way of
practical application. My desire is to make the whole subject
useful to those into whose hands these pages may fall, and to
supply an answer to the questions which may possibly arise in
some hearts, What are we to do 1 What advice have you got
to offer for the times ?
(1) In the first place, I will ask every reader of this paper to
find out whether he has saving personal religion for his own soul.
This is the principal thing after all. It will profit no man to
belong to a sound visible Church, if he does not himself belong
to Christ. It will avail a man nothing to be intellectually
sound in the faith, and to approve sound doctrine, if he is not
himself sound at heart. Is this the case with you 1 Can you
say that your heart is right in the sight of God ? Is it renewed
by the Holy Ghost? Does Christ dwell in it by faith? 0,
rest not, rest not, till you can give a satisfactory answer to
these questions ! The man who dies unconverted, however
sound his views, is as truly lost for ever as the worst Pharisee
or Sadducee that ever lived.
(2) In the next place, let me beseech every reader of this
paper who desires to be sound in the faith, to study diligently
the Bible. That blessed Book is given to be a light to our feet,
and a lantern to our path. No man who reads it reverently,
prayerfully, humbly, and regularly, shall ever be allowed to
miss the way to heaven. By it every sermon, and every
religious book, and every ministry, ought to be weighed and
proved. Would you know what is truth 1 Do you feel con
fused and puzzled by the war of words which you near on every
side about religion ? Do you want to know what you ought to
believe, and what you ought to be and do, in order to be saved ?
Take down your Bible, and cease from man. Head your Bible
with earnest prayer for the teaching of the Holy Ghost ; read it
with honest determination to abide by its lessons. Do so
steadily and perseveringly, and you shall see light : you shall
be kept from the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and
be guided to eternal life. The way to do a thing is to do it.
Act upon this advice without delay.
(3) In the next place, let me advise every reader of this
paper who has reason to hope that he is sound in faith and
heart, to take heed to the proportion of truths. I mean by that
344 KNOTS UNTIED.
to impress the importance of giving each several truth of
Christianity the same place and position in our hearts which
is given to it in God s Word. The first things must not be put
second, and the second things must not be put first in our religion.
The Church must not be put above Christ ; the sacraments
must not be put above faith and the work of the Holy Ghost.
Ministers must not be exalted above the place assigned to them
by Christ ; means of grace must not be regarded as an end
instead of a means. Attention to this point is of great moment :
the mistakes which arise from neglecting it are neither few nor
small. Here lies the immense importance of studying the whole
Word of God, omitting nothing, and avoiding partiality in
reading one part more than another. Here again lies the value
of having a clear system of Christianity in our minds. Well
would it be for the Church of England if all its members read
the Thirty-nine Articles, and marked the beautiful order in
which those Articles state the main truths which men ought to
believe.
(4) In the next place, let me entreat every true-hearted
servant of Christ not to be deceived by the specious guise under
which false doctrines often approach our souls in the present
day. Beware of supposing that a teacher of religion is to be
trusted, because, although he holds some unsound views, he yet
"teaches a great deal of truth." Such a teacher is precisely the
man to do you harm : poison is always most dangerous when it
is given in small doses and mixed with wholesome food. Beware
of being taken in by the apparent earnestness of many of the
teachers and upholders of false doctrine. Kemember that zeal
and sincerity and fervour are no proof whatever that a man is
working for Christ, and ought to be believed. Peter no doubt
was in earnest when he bade our Lord spare Himself, and not
go to the cross ; yet our Lord said to him, " Get thee behind
Me, Satan." Saul no doubt was in earnest when he went to
and fro persecuting Christians ; yet he did it ignorantly, and his
zeal was not according to knowledge. The founders of the
Spanish Inquisition no doubt were in earnest, and in burning
God s saints alive thought they were doing God service ; yet
they were actually persecuting Christ s members and walking in
the steps of Cain. It is an awful fact that " Satan himself is
transformed into an angel of light." (2 Cor. xi. 14.) Of all
PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES. 345
the delusions prevalent in these latter days, there is none
greater than the common notion that " if a man is in earnest
about his religion he must be a good man ! " Beware of being
carried away by this delusion : beware of being led astray by
" earnest-minded men ! " Earnestness is in itself an excellent
thing ; but it must be earnestness in behalf of Christ and His
whole truth, or else it is worth nothing at all. The things that
are highly esteemed among men are often abominable in the
sight of God.
(5) In the next place, let me counsel every true servant of
Christ to examine his own heart frequently and carefully as to
his state before God. This is a practice which is useful at all
times : it is specially desirable at the present day. When the
great plague of London was at its height, people remarked the
least symptoms that appeared on their bodies in a way that they
never remarked them before. A spot here, or a spot there,
which in time of health men thought nothing of, received close
attention when the plague was decimating families, and striking
down one after another ! So ought it to be with ourselves, in
the times in which we live. We ought to watch our hearts with
double watchfulness. We ought to give more time to medita
tion, self-examination, and reflection. It is a hurrying, bustling
age : if we would be kept from falling, we must make time for
being frequently alone with God.
(6) Last of all, let me urge all true believers to contend
earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. We have no
cause to be ashamed of that faith. I am firmly persuaded that
there is no system so life-giving, so calculated to awaken the
sleeping, lead on the inquiring, and build up the saints, as that
system which is called the Evangelical system of Christianity.
Wherever it is faithfully preached, and efficiently carried out,
and consistently adorned by the lives of its professors, it is the
power of God. It may be spoken against and mocked by some ;
but so it was in the days of the Apostles. It may be weakly
set forth and defended by many of its advocates ; but, after all,
its fruits and its results are its highest praise. No other system
of religion can point to such fruits. Nowhere are so many
souls converted to God as in those congregations where the
Gospel of Jesus Christ is preached in all its fulness, without
any admixture of the Pharisee or Sadducee doctrine. We are
346 KNOTS UNTIED.
not called upon, beyond all doubt, to be nothing but con
troversialists ; but we never ought to be ashamed to testify to
the truth as it is in Jesus, and to stand up boldly for Evangelical
religion. We have the trutli, and we need not be afraid to say
so. The judgment-day will prove who is right, and to that day
we may boldly appeal
XVI.
DIVERS AND STRANGE DOCTRINES.
" Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good
thing that the heart be established with grace ; not with meats, which
have not profited them that have been occupied therein." HEB. xiii. 9.
THE text which heads this paper is an Apostolic caution against
false doctrine. It forms part of a warning which St. Paul
addressed to Hebrew Christians. It is a caution just as much
needed now as it was eighteen hundred years ago. Never, I
think, was it so important for Christian ministers to cry aloud
continually, " Be not carried about."
That old enemy of mankind, the devil, has no more subtle
device for ruining souls than that of spreading false doctrine.
"A murderer and a liar from the beginning," he never ceases
going to and fro in the earth, " seeking whom he may devour."
Outside the Church he is ever persuading men to main
tain barbarous customs and destructive superstitions. Human
sacrifice to idols, gross, revolting, cruel, disgusting worship of
abominable false deities, persecution, slavery, cannibalism,
child-murder, devastating religious wars, all these are a part of
Satan s handiwork, and the fruit of his suggestions. Like a
pirate, his object is to " sink, burn, and destroy." Inside the
Church he is ever labouring to sow heresies, to propagate errors,
to foster departures from the faith. If he cannot prevent the
waters flowing from the Fountain of Life, he tries hard to poison
them. If he cannot destroy the medicine of the Gospel, he
strives to adulterate and corrupt it. No wonder that he is called
" Apollyon, the destroyer."
The Divine Comforter of the Church, the Holy Ghost, has
always employed one great agent to oppose Satan s devices.
That agent is the Word of God. The Word expounded and
unfolded, the Word explained and opened up, the Word made
347
348 KNOTS UNTIED.
clear to the head and applied to the heart, the Word is the
chosen weapon by which the devil must be confronted and con
founded. The Word was the sword which the Lord Jesus
wielded in the temptation. To every assault of the Tempter,
He replied, " It is written." The Word is the sword which His
ministers must use in the present day, if they would success
fully resist the devil. The Bible, faithfully and freely expounded,
is the safe-guard of Christ s Church.
I desire to remember this lesson, and to invite attention to
the text which stands at the head of this paper. We live in an
age when men profess to dislike dogmas and creeds, and are
filled with a morbid dislike to controversial theology. He who
dares to say of one doctrine that "it is true," and of another
that " it is false," must expect to be called narrow-minded and
uncharitable, and to lose the praise of men. Nevertheless, the
Scripture was not written in vain. Let us examine the mighty
lessons contained in St. Paul s words to the Hebrews. They
are lessons for us as well as for them.
I. First, we have here a broad warning : "Be not carried
about with divers and strange doctrines."
II. Secondly, we have here a valuable prescription : "It is good
that the heart be established with grace, not with meats."
III. Lastly, we have \icreaiiinstructivefact: Meats "have
not profited them which have been occupied therein."
On each of these points I have somewhat to say. If we
patiently plough up this field of truth, we shall find that there
is precious treasure hidden in it.
I. First comes the broad warning: "Be not carried about
with divers and strange doctrines."
The meaning of these words is not a hard thing which we
cannot understand. " Be not tossed to and fro," the Apostle
seems to say, "by every blast of false teaching, like ships with
out compass or rudder. False doctrines will arise as long as the
world lasts, in number many, in minor details varying, in one
point alone always the same, strange, new, foreign, and
departing from the Gospel of Christ. They do exist now. They
will always be found within the visible Church. Remember
this, and be not carried away." Such is St. Paul s warning.
DIVERS AND STRANGE DOCTRINES. 349
The Apostle s warning does not stand alone. Even in the
midst of the Sermon on the Mount there fell from the loving
lips of our Saviour a solemn caution : " Beware of false prophets,
which come unto you in sheep s clothing, but inwardly they are
ravening wolves." (Matt. vii. 15.) Even in St. Paul s last
address to the Ephesian elders, though he finds no time to
speak about the sacraments, he does find time to warn his
friends against false doctrine : " Of your own selves shall men
arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after
them." (Acts xx. 30.) What says the Second Epistle to the
Corinthians 1 "I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent
beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be
corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." (2 Cor. xi. 3.)
What says the Epistle to the Galatians ? " I marvel that ye are
so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of
Christ unto another Gospel." " Who hath bewitched you that
ye should not obey the truth ?" " Having begun in the Spirit,
are ye now made perfect by the flesh." " How turn ye again
to weak and beggarly elements?" "Ye observe days, and months,
and times, and years. I am afraid of you." " Stand fast in the
liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled
again in the yoke of bondage." (Gal. i. 6 ; iii. 1,3; iv. 9, 10, 1 1 ;
v. 1.) What says the Epistle to the Ephesians? " Be no more
children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind
of doctrine." (Eph. iv. 14.) What says the Epistle to the
Colossians 1 " Beware lest any man spoil you through philo
sophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men." (Col. ii. 8.)
What says the First Epistle to Timothy ? " The Spirit speaketh
expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the
faith." (1 Tim. iv. 1.) What says the Second Epistle of
Peter? "There shall be false teachers among you, who privily
shall bring in damnable heresies." (2 Peter ii. 1.) What says
the First Epistle of John 1 " Believe not every spirit. Many
false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John iv. 1.)
What says the Epistle of Jude ? " Contend earnestly for the
faith once delivered to the saints. For there are certain men
crept in unawares." (Jude 3, 4.) Let us mark well these
texts. These things were written for our learning.
What shall we say to these texts ? How they may strike
others I cannot say. I only know how they strike me. To
350 KNOTS UNTIED.
tell us, as some do, in the face of these texts, that the early
Churches were a model of perfection and purity, is absurd.
Even in Apostolic days, it appears, there were abundant errors
both in doctrine and practice. To tell us, as others do, that
clergymen ought never to handle controversial subjects, and
never to warn their people against erroneous views, is senseless
and unreasonable. At this rate we might neglect not a little
of the New Testament. Surely the dumb dog and the sleeping-
shepherd are the best allies of the wolf, the thief, and the
robber. It is not for nothing that St. Paul says, " If thou put
the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a
good minister of Jesus Christ." ( 1 Tim. iv. 5.)
A plain warning against false doctrine is specially needed in
England in the present day. The school of the Pharisees, and
the school of the Sadducees, those ancient mothers of all
mischief, were never more active than they are now. Between
men adding to the truth on one side, and men taking away
from it on the other, between those who bury truth under
additions, and those who mutilate it by subtractions, between
superstition and infidelity, between Romanism and Neology,
between Ritualism and Rationalism, between these upper and
nether mill-stones the Gospel is well nigh crushed to death !
Strange views are continually propounded by clergymen
about subjects of the deepest importance. About the atone
ment, the divinity of Christ, the inspiration of the Bible, the
reality of miracles, the eternity of future punishment, about
the Church, the ministerial office, the sacraments, the con
fessional, the honour due to the Virgin, prayers for the dead,
about all these things there is nothing too monstrous to be
taught by some English ministers in these latter days. By the
pen and by the tongue, by the press and by the pulpit, the
country is incessantly deluged with a flood of erroneous opinions.
To ignore the fact is mere affectation. Others see it, if we
pretend to be ignorant of it. The danger is real, great, and
unmistakable. Never was it so needful to say, " Be not carried
about."
Many things combine to make the present inroad of false
doctrine peculiarly dangerous. There is an undeniable zeal in
some of the teachers of error : their " earnestness " (to use an
unhappy cant phrase) makes many think they must be right.
DIVERS AND STKANGE DOCTEINES. 351
There is a great appearance of learning and theological know
ledge : many fancy that such clever and intellectual men must
surely be safe guides. There is a general tendency to free-
thought and free inquiry in these latter days : many like to
prove their independence of judgment, by believing novelties.
There is a wide-spread desire to appear charitable and liberal-
minded : many seem half ashamed of saying that anybody can
be in the wrong. There is a quantity of half-truth taught by
the modern false teachers : they are incessantly using Scriptural
terms and phrases in an uuscriptural sense. There is a morbid
craving in the public mind for a more sensuous, ceremonial,
sensational, showy worship : men are impatient of inward,
invisible heart-work. There is a silly readiness in every direc
tion to believe everybody who talks cleverly, lovingly, and
earnestly, and a determination to forget that Satan is often
"transformed into an angel of light." (2 Cor. ii. 14.) There
is a wide-spread "gullibility" among professing Christians:
every heretic who tells his story plausibly is sure to be believed,
and everybody who doubts him is called a persecutor arid a
narrow-minded man. All these things are peculiar symptoms
of our times. I defy any observing man to deny them. They
tend to make the assaults of false doctrine in our day peculiarly
dangerous. They make it more than ever needful to cry aloud,
" Be not carried about."
Does any one ask me, What is the best safe-guard against
false doctrine ? I answer in one word, " The Bible : the Bible
regularly read, regularly prayed over, regularly studied." We
must go back to the old prescription of our Master : " Search
the Scriptures." (John v. 39.) If we want a weapon to wield
against the devices of Satan, there is nothing like " the sword
of the Spirit, the Word of God." But to wield it successfully,
we must read it habitually, diligently, intelligently, and prayer
fully. This is a point on which, I fear, many fail. In an age
of hurry and bustle, few read their Bibles as much as they
should. More books perhaps are read than ever, but less of the
one Book which makes man wise unto salvation. Rome and
Xeology could never have made such havoc in the Church in
fhe last fifty years, if there had not been a most superficial
knowledge of the Scriptures throughout the land. A Bible-
reading laity is the strength of a Church.
352 KNOTS UNTIED.
" Search the Scriptures." Mark how the Lord Jesus Christ
and His Apostles continually refer to the Old Testament, as a
document just as authoritative as the New. Mark how they
quote texts from the Old Testament, as the voice of God, as if
every word was given by inspiration. Mark how the greatest
miracles in the Old Testament are all referred to in the New,
as unquestioned and unquestionable facts. Mark how all the
leading events in the Pentateuch are incessantly named as
historical events, whose reality admits of no dispute. Mark
how the atonement, and substitution, and sacrifice, run through
the whole Bible from first to last, as essential doctrines of
revelation. Mark how the resurrection of Christ, the greatest
of all miracles, is proved by such an overwhelming mass of
evidence, that he who disbelieves it may as well say he will
believe 110 evidence at all. Mark all these things, and you will
find it very hard to be a Rationalist ! Great are the difficulties
of infidelity : it requires more credulity to be an infidel than a
Christian. But greater still are the difficulties of Rationalism.
Free handling of Scripture, results of modern criticism,
broad and liberal theology, all these are fine, swelling, high-
sounding phrases, which please some minds, and look very
grand at a distance. But the man who looks below the surface
of things will soon find that there is no sure standing-ground
between ultra-Rationalism and Atheism.
" Search the Scriptures." Mark what a conspicuous absence
there is in the New Testament of what may be called the
sacramental system, and the whole circle of Ritualistic theology.
Mark how extremely little there is said about the effects of
baptism. Mark how very seldom the Lord s Supper is mentioned
in the Epistles. Find, if you can, a single text in which New
Testament ministers are called sacrificing priests, or the Lord s
Supper is called a sacrifice, or private confession to ministers
is recommended and practised. Turn, if you can, to one single
verse in which sacrificial vestments are named as desirable, or
in which lighted candles and pots of flowers on the Lord s
Table, or processions, and incense, and flags, and banners,
and turning to the east, and bowing down to the bread and
wine, or prayer to the Virgin Mary and the angels, arl
sanctioned. Mark these things well, and you will find it
very hard to be a Ritualist ! You may find your authority
DIVERS AND STRANGE DOCTRINES. 353
for Ritualism in garbled quotations from the Fathers, in long
extracts from monkish, mystical, or Popish writers ; but you
certainly will not find it in the Bible. Between the plain
Bible, honestly and fairly interpreted, and extreme Ritualism,
there is a gulf which cannot IDC passed.
If we would not be carried about by " divers and strange
doctrines," we must remember the words of our Lord Jesus
Christ : " Search the Scriptures." Ignorance of the Bible is
the root of all error. Knowledge of the Bible is the best
antidote against modern heresies.
II. I now proceed to examine St. Paul s valualle pre
scription: "It is good that the heart be established with
grace ; not with meats."
There are two words in this prescription which require a little
explanation. A right understanding of them is absolutely
essential to a proper use of the Apostle s advice. One of
these words is " meats," and the other is "grace."
To see the full force of the word "meats," we must remember
the immense importance attached by many Jewish Christians to
the distinctions of the ceremonial law about food. The flesh
of some animals and birds, according to Leviticus, might be
eaten, and that of others might not be eaten. Some meats
were, consequently, called " clean," and others were called
" unclean." To eat certain kinds of flesh made a Jew
ceremonially unholy before God, and no strict Jew would
touch and eat such food on any account. Now were these
distinctions still to be kept up after Christ ascended into
heaven, or were they done away by the Gospel 1 ? Were
heathen converts under any obligation to attend to the
ceremonial of the Levitical law about food 1 ? Were Jewish
Christians obliged to be as strict about the meats they ate
as they were before Christ died, and the veil of the temple
was rent in twain ? Was the ceremonial law about meats
entirely done away, or was it not 1 Was the conscience of
a believer in the Lord Jesus to be troubled with fear lest
his food should defile him 1
Questions like these appear to have formed one of the great
subjects of controversy in the Apostolic times. As is often the
case, they assumed a place entirely out of proportion to their
354 KNOTS UNTIED.
real importance. The Apostle Paul found it needful to handle
the subject in no less than three of his Epistles to the Churches.
"Meat," he says, "commends us not to God." "The king
dom of God is not meat and drink." " Let no man judge you
in meat and drink." (1 Cor. viii. 8; Rom. xiv. 17; Col.
ii. 16.) Nothing shows the fallen nature of man so clearly as
the readiness of morbid and scrupulous consciences to turn
trifles into serious things. At last the controversy seems to
have spread so far and obtained such dimensions, that "meats"
became an expression to denote anything ceremonial added to
the Gospel as a thing of primary importance, any Ritual trifle
thrust out of its lawful place and magnified into an essential of
religion. In this sense, I believe, the word must be taken in
the text now before us. By " meats " St. Paul means ceremonial
observances, either wholly invented by man, or else built on
Mosaic precepts which have been abrogated and superseded by
the Gospel. It is an expression which was well understood in
the Apostolic days.
The word " grace," on the other hand, seems to be employed
as a comprehensive description of the whole Gospel of Jesus
Christ. Of that glorious Gospel, grace is the main feature,
grace in the original scheme grace in the execution grace in
the application to man s soul. Grace is the fountain of life
from which our salvation flows. Grace is the agency through
which our spiritual life is kept up. Are we justified ? it is by
grace. Are we called 1 it is by grace. Have we forgiveness 1
it is through the riches of grace. Have we good hope 1 it is
through grace. Do we believe ? it is through grace. Are we
elect ? it is by the election of grace. Are we saved 1 it is by
g race . "VVhy should I say more ? The time would fail me to
exhibit fully the part that grace does in the whole work of
redemption. Xo wonder that St. Paul says to the Romans,
" We are not under the law, but under grace ; " and tells Titus,
" The grace of God, which bringeth salvation, hath appeared
unto all men." (Rom. iii. 24; Gal. i. 15; Ephes. i. 7;
2 Thess. ii. 16 ; Acts xviii. 27 ; Rom. i. 5 ; Ephes. ii. 5 ; Rom.
vi. 15; Titus ii. 11.)
Such are the two great principles which St. Paul puts in
strong contrast in the prescription we are now considering.
He places opposite to one another "meats" and "grace,"
DIVERS AND STRANGE DOCTRINES. 355
Ceremonialism and the Gospel Ritualism and the free love
of God in Christ Jesus. And then he lays down the great
principle that it is by " grace," and " not meats," that the heart
must be established.
Now " establishment of heart " is one of the great wants of
many professing Christians. Specially is it longed after by
those whose knowledge is imperfect, and whose conscience is
half enlightened. Such persons often feel in themselves much
indwelling sin, and at the same time see very indistinctly
God s remedy and Christ s fulness. Their faith is feeble,
their hope dim, and their consolations small. They want to
realize more sensible comfort. They fancy they ought to feel
more and see more. They are not at ease. They cannot
attain to joy and peace in believing. Whither shall they
turn 1 What shall set their consciences at rest ? Then comes
the enemy of souls, and suggests some short-cut road to estab
lishment. He hints at the value of some addition to the simple
plan of the Gospel, some man-made device, some exaggeration
of a truth, some flesh-satisfying invention, some improvement
on the old path, and whispers, " Only use this, and you shall
be established." Plausible offers flow in at the same time from
every quarter, like quack medicines. Each has its own patrons
and advocates. On every side the poor unstable soul hears
invitations to move in some particular direction, and then shall
come perfect establishment.
" Come to us," says the Roman Catholic. " Join the Catholic
Church, the Church on the Rock, the one, true, holy Church ; the
Church that cannot err. Come to her bosom, and repose your soul
on her protection. Come to us, and you will find establishment."
"Come to us," says the extreme Ritualist. "You need
higher and fuller views of the priesthood and the sacraments,
of the Real Presence in the Lord s Supper, of the soothing
influence of daily service, daily masses, auricular confession, and
priestly absolution. Come and take up sound Church views,
and you will find establishment."
"Come to us," says the violent Libcrationist. "Cast off the
trammels and fetters of established Churches. Come out from
all alliance with the State. Enjoy religious liberty. Throw away
forms and Prayer-books. Use our shibboleth. Join our party.
Cast in your lot with us, and you will s^on be established."
356 KNOTS UNTIED.
" Come to us," say the Plymouth Brethren. " Shake off all
the bondage of creeds and Churches and systems. We will
soon show you higher, deeper, more exalting, more enlightened
views of truth. Join the Brethren, and you will soon be
established."
"Come to us," says the Kationalist. "Lay aside the old
worn-out clothes of effete schemes of Christianity. Give your
reason free scope and play. Begin a freer mode of handling
Scripture. Be no more a slave to an ancient old-world book.
Break your chains, and you shall be established."
Every experienced Christian knows well that such appeals
are constantly made to unsettled minds in the present day.
Who has not seen that, when boldly and confidently made, they
produce a painful effect on some people ? Who has not observed
that they often beguile unstable souls, and lead them into
misery for years 1
" What saith the Scripture ? " This is the only sure guide.
Hear what St. Paul says. Heart establishment is not to be
obtained by joining this party or that. It comes "by grace,
and not by meats." Other things have a "show of wisdom,"
perhaps, and give a temporary satisfaction "to the flesh."
(Col. ii. 23.) But they have no healing power about them
in reality, and leave the unhappy man who trusts them nothing
bettered, but rather worse.
A clearer knowledge of the Divine scheme of grace, its eternal
purposes, its application to man by Christ s redeeming work,
a firmer grasp of the doctrine of grace, of God s free love in
Christ, of Christ s full and complete satisfaction for sin, of
justification by simple faith, a more intimate acquaintance
with Christ the Giver and Fountain of grace, His offices, His
sympathy, His power, a more thorough experience of the
inward work of grace in the heart, this, this, this is the grand
secret of heart-establishment. This is the old path of peace.
This is the true panacea for restless consciences. It may seem
at first too simple, too easy, too cheap, too commonplace, too
plain. But all the wisdom of man will never show the heavy-
laden a better road to heart-rest. Secret pride and self-
righteousness, I fear, are too often the reason why this good
old road is not used.
I believe there never was a time when it was more needful
DIVERS AND STRANGE DOCTRINES. 357
to uphold the old Apostolic prescription than it is in the present
day. Never were there so many unestahlishecl and unsettled
Christians wandering about, and tossed to and fro, from want
of knowledge. Never was it so important for faithful ministers
to set the trumpet to their mouths and proclaim everywhere,
" Grace, grace, grace, not meats, establishes the heart."
From the days of the Apostles there have never been wanting
quack spiritual doctors, who have professed to heal the wounds
of conscience with man-made remedies. In our own beloved
Church there have always been some who have in heart turned
back to Egypt, and, not content with the simplicity of our
worship, have hankered after the ceremonial fleshpots of the
Church of Kome. Laud, of unhappy memory, did a little in
this way ; but his doings were nothing compared to those of
some clergymen in the present day. To hear the sacraments
incessantly exalted, and preaching cried down, to see the
Lord s Supper turned into an idol under the specious pretext of
making it more honourable, to find plain Prayer-book worship
overlaid with so many new-fangled ornaments and ceremonies
that its essentials are quite buried, how common is all this !
These things were once a pestilence that walked in darkness.
They are now a destruction that wastes in noonday. They are
the joy of our enemies, the sorrow of the Church s best children,
the damage of English Christianity, the plague of our times.
And to what may they all be traced ? To neglect or forgetful-
ness of St. Paul s simple prescription: Grace, and not meats,
establishes the heart."
Let us take heed that in our own personal religion, grace is
alL Let us have clear systematic views of the Gospel of the
grace of God. Nothing else will do good in the hour of sick
ness, in the day of trial, on the bed of death, and in the
swellings of Jordan. Christ dwelling in our hearts by faith,
Christ s free grace the only foundation under the soles of our
feet, this alone will give peace, Once let in self, and forms,
and man s inventions, as a necessary part of our religion, and
we are on a quicksand. We may be amused, excited, or kept
quiet for a time, like children with toys, by a religion of
"meats." Such a religion has "a show of wisdom." But
unless our religion be one in which "grace" is all, we shall
never feel established.
358 KNOTS UNTIED.
III. In the last place, I proceed to examine the instructive
fact which St. Paul records. He says, " Meats have not profited
them that have been occupied therein."
We have no means of knowing whether the Apostle, in using
this language, referred to any particular Churches or individuals.
Of course it is possible that he had in view the Judaizing
Christians of Antioch and Galatia, or the Ephesians of whom
he speaks to Timothy in his pastoral Epistle, or the Colossians
who caused him so much inward conflict, or the Hebrew
believers in every Church, without exception. It seems to me
far more probable, however, that he had no particular Church
or Churches in view. I rather think that he makes a broad,
general, sweeping statement about all who in any place had
exalted ceremonial at the expense of the doctrines of "grace."
And he makes a wide declaration about them all. They have
got no good from their favourite notions. They have not been
more inwardly happy, more outwardly holy, or more generally
useful. Their religion has been most unprofitable to them.
Man-made alterations of God s precious medicine for sinners,
man-made additions to Christ s glorious Gospel, however
speciously defended and plausibly supported, do no real good
to those that adopt them. They confer no increased inward
comfort ; they bring no growth of real holiness ; they give no
enlarged usefulness to the Church and the world. Calmly,
quietly, and mildly, but firmly, decidedly, and unflinchingly,
the assertion is made, " Meats have not profited them that have
been occupied therein."
The whole stream of Church history abundantly confirms the
truth of the Apostle s position. Who has not heard of the
hermits and ascetics of the early centuries ? Who has not heard
of the monks and nuns and recluses of the Romish Church in
the middle ages ? Who has not heard of the burning zeal, the
devoted self-denial, of Romanists like Xavier and Ignatius
Loyola? The earnestness, the fervour, the self-sacrifice of all
these classes, are matters beyond dispute. But none who read
carefully and intelligently the records of their lives, yea, some
of the best of them, can fail to see that they had no solid peace
or inward rest of soul. Their very feverish restlessness is
enough to show that their consciences were not at ease. None
can fail to see that, with all their furious zeal and self-denial,
DIVERS AND STRANGE DOCTRINES. 359
they never did much good to the world. They gathered round
themselves admiring partisans. They left a high reputation for
self-denial and sincerity. They made men wonder at them
while they lived, and sometimes canonize them when they died.
But they did nothing to convert souls. And what is the reason
of this 1 They attached an overweening importance to man-made
ritual and ceremonial, and made less than they ought to have
done of the Gospel of the grace of God. Their principle was
to make much of " meats," and little of " grace." Hence they
verified the words of St. Paul, " Meats do not profit them that
are occupied therein."
The very history of our own times bears a striking testimony
to the truth of St. Paul s assertion. In the last twenty-five
years some scores of clergymen have seceded from the Church
of England, and joined the Church of Rome. They wanted
more of what they called Catholic doctrine and Catholic
ceremonial. They honestly acted up to their principles, and
went over to Rome. They were not all weak, and illiterate,
and second-rate, and inferior men ; several of them were men of
commanding talents, whose gifts would have won for them a
high position in any profession. Yet what have they gained
by the step they have taken "? What profit have they found in
leaving " grace " for "meats," in exchanging Protestantism for
Catholicism ? Have they attained a higher standard of holi
ness 1 Have they procured for themselves a greater degree of
usefulness? Let one of themselves supply an answer. Mr.
Ffoulkes, a leading man in the party, within the last few years
has openly declared that the preaching of some of his fellow
" perverts " is not so powerful as it was when they were English
Churchmen, and that the highest degree of holy living he has
ever seen is not within the pale of Rome, but in the quiet
parsonages and unpretending family-life of godly English clergy
men ! Intentionally or not intentionally, wittingly or un
wittingly, meaning it or not meaning it, nothing can be more
striking than the testimony Mr. Ffoulkes bears to the truth of
the Apostle s assertion : "Meats do not profit " even those who
make much ado about them. The religious system which
exalts ceremonial and man-made ritual does no real good to
its adherents, compared to the simple old Gospel of the grace
of God.
360 KNOTS UNTIED.
Let us turn now, for a few moments, to the other side of the
picture, and see what "grace" has done. Let us hear how
profitable the doctrines of the Gospel have proved to those who
have clung firmly to them, and have not tried to mend and
improve and patch them up by adding, as essentials, the
" meats " of man-made ceremonial.
It was " grace, and not meats," that made Martin Luther do
the work that he did in the world. The key to all his success
was his constant declaration of justification by faith, without
the deeds of the law. This was the truth which enabled him
to break the chains of Rome, and let light into Europe.
It was " grace, and not meats," that made our English
martyrs, Latimer and Hooper, exercise so mighty an influence
in life, and shine so brightly in death. They saw clearly, and
taught plainly, the true priesthood of Christ, and salvation only
by grace. They honoured God s grace, and God put honour on
them.
It was "grace, and not meats," that made Eomaine and
Venn, and their companions, turn the world upside down in
England, one hundred years ago. In themselves they were not
men of extraordinary learning or intellectual power. But they
revived and brought out again the real pure doctrines of grace.
It was " grace, and not meats," that made Simeon and Bishop
Daniel Wilson and Bickersteth such striking instruments of
usefulness in the first half of the present century. God s free
grace was the great truth on which they relied, and continually
brought forward. For so doing God put honour on them.
They made much of God s grace, and the God of grace made
much of them.
The list of ministerial biographies tells a striking tale. Who
are ^ those who have shaken the world, and left their mark on
their generation, and aroused consciences, and converted sinners,
and edified saints 1 Not those who have made asceticism, and
ceremonials, and sacraments, and services, and ordinances the
main thing ; but those who have made most of God s free grace !
In a day of strife, and controversy, and doubt, and perplexity,
men forget this. Facts are stubborn things. Let us look
calmly at them, and be not moved by those who tell us that
daily services, frequent communions, processions, incense, bow
ings, crossings, confessions, absolutions, and the like, are the
DIVERS AND STRANGE DOCTRINES. 361
secret of a prosperous Christianity. Let us look at plain facts.
Facts in old history, and facts in modern days, facts in every
part of England, support the assertion of St. Paul. The
religion of "meats "does "not profit those that are occupied
therein." It is the religion of grace that brings inward peace,
outward holiness, and general usefulness.
Let me wind up this paper with a few words of practical
application. We are living in an age of peculiar religious
danger. I am quite sure that the advice I am going to offer
deserves serious attention.
(1) In the first place, let us not be surprised at the rise and
progress of false doctrine. It is a thing as old as the old
Apostles. It began before they died. They predicted that
there would be plenty of it before the end of the world. It is
wisely ordered of God for the testing of our grace, and to prove
who has real faith. If there were no such thing as false
doctrine or heresy upon earth, I should begin to think the Bible
was not true.
(2) In the next place, let us make up our minds to resist
false doctrine, and not to be carried away by fashion and bad
example. Let us not flinch because all around us, high and
low, rich and poor, are swept away, like geese in a flood, before
a torrent of semi-Popery. Let us be firm and stand our ground.
Let us resist false doctrine, and contend earnestly for the
faith once delivered to the saints. Let us not be ashamed of
showing our colours and standing out for New Testament truth.
Let us not be stopped by the cuckoo cry of "controversy." The
thief likes dogs that do not bark, and watchmen that give no
alarm. The devil is a thief and a robber. If we hold our
peace, and do not resist false doctrine, we please him and
displease God.
(3) In the next place, let us try to preserve the Old Protest
ant principles of the Church of England, and to hand them
down uninjured to our children s children. Let us not listen
to those faint-hearted Churchmen who would have us forsake
the ship, and desert the Church of England in her time of need.
The Church of England is worth fighting for. She has done
good service in days gone by, and she may yet do more, if we
can keep her free from Popery and infidelity. Once re-admit
362 KNOTS UNTIED.
and sanction the Popish mass and auricular confession, and the
Church of England will be ruined. Then let us fight hard for
the Church of England being kept a Protestant Church. Let
us read our Thirty-nine Articles every year with attention, and
learn from these Articles what are real Church principles. Let
us arm our memories with these Articles, and be able to quote
them. Before the edge and point of these Articles, fairly
interpreted, ultra-Ritualists and ultra-Rationalists can never
stand.
(4) In the last place, let us make sure work of our own per
sonal salvation. Let us seek to know and feel that we ourselves
are "saved."
The day of controversy is always a day of spiritual peril.
Men are apt to confound orthodoxy with conversion, and to
fancy that they must go to heaven if they know how to answer
Papists. Yet mere earnestness without knowledge, and mere
head-knowledge of Protestantism, alike save none. Let us
never forget this.
Let us not rest till we feel the blood of Christ sprinkled on
our consciences, and have the witness of the Spirit within us
that we are born again. This is reality. This is true religion.
This will last. This will never fail us. It is the possession of
grace in the heart, and not the intellectual knowledge of it, that
profits and saves the soul.
XVII.
THE FALLIBILITY OF MINISTERS.
"But when Peter ivas come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face,
because he was to be blamed.
"For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles :
but ivhen they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing
them which were of the circumcision.
"And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that
Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
"But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of
the Gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew,
livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why com-
pellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews ?
" We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the
faith of Jesus Christ, even ive have believed in Jesus Christ, that we
might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the
law: for by the works of the law shall no Jlesh be justified. "-
GALATIANSli. 11-16.
HAVE we ever considered what the Apostle Peter once did at
Antioch 1 It is a question that deserves serious consideration.
What the Apostle Peter did at Home we are often told,
although we have hardly a jot of authentic information about
it. Roman Catholic writers furnish us with many stories about
this. Legends, traditions, and fables abound on the subject.
But unhappily for these writers, Scripture is utterly silent upon
the point. There is nothing in Scripture to show that the
Apostle Peter ever was at Rome at all !
But what did the Apostle Peter do at Antioch? This is the
point to which I want to direct attention. This is the subject
of the passage from the Epistle to the Galatians, which heads
this paper. On this point, at any rate, the Scripture speaks
clearly and unmistakably.
363
364 KNOTS UNTIED.
The six versos of the passage before us are striking on many
accounts. They are striking, if we consider the event which
they describe : here is one Apostle rebuking another ! They
are striking, when we consider who the two men are : Paul, the
younger, rebukes Peter, the elder ! They are striking, when we
remark the occasion : this was no glaring fault, no flagrant sin,
at first sight, that Peter had committed ! Yet the Apostle Paul
says, " I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."
He does more than this : he reproves Peter publicly for his
error before all the Church at Antioch. He goes even further :
he writes an account of the matter, which is now read in two
hundred languages all over the world.
It is my firm conviction that the Holy Ghost means us to
take particular notice of this passage of Scripture. If Chris
tianity had been an invention of man, these things would never
have been recorded. An impostor, like Mahomet, would have
hushed up the difference between two Apostles. The Spirit of
truth has caused these verses to be written for our learning, and
we shall do well to take heed to their contents.
There are three great lessons from Antioch, which I think we
ought to learn from this passage.
I. The first lesson is, that great ministers may make great
mistakes.
II. The second is, that to keep the truth of Christ in Hi*
CI lurch is even more important than to keep peace.
III. The third is, that there is no doctrine about which ire
ought to be so jealous as justification by faith without
the deeds of the law.
I. The first great lesson we learn from Antioch is, that
great ministers may make great mistakes.
What clearer proof can we have than that which is set before
us in this place ; Peter, without doubt, was one of the greatest
in the company of the Apostles. He was an old disciple. Ho
was a disciple who had had peculiar advantages and privileges.
He had been a constant companion of the Lord Jesus. He had
heard the Lord preach, seen the Lord work miracles, enjoyed
the benefit of the Lord s private teaching, been numbered among
the Lord s intimate friends, and gone out and come in with
Him all the time He ministered upon earth. He was the
THE FALLIBILITY OF MINISTERS. 365
Apostle to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven were
given, and by whose hand those keys were first used. He was
the first who opened the door of faith to the Jews, by preaching
to them on the day of Pentecost. He was the first who opened
the door of faith to the Gentiles, by going to the house of
Cornelius, and receiving him into the Church. He was the
first to rise up in the Council of the fifteenth of Acts, and say,
"Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the
disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear ? "
And yet here this very Peter, this same Apostle, plainly falls
into a great mistake. The Apostle Paul tells us, " I withstood
him to the face." He tells us "that he was to be blamed."
He says "he feared them of the circumcision." He says of
him and his companions, that " they walked not uprightly
according to the truth of the Gospel." He speaks of their
" dissimulation." He tells us that by this dissimulation even
Barnabas, his old companion in missionary labours, "was carried
away."
What a striking fact this is. This is Simon Peter ! This is
the third great error of his, which the Holy Ghost has thought
fit to record ! Once we find him trying to keep back our Lord,
us far as he could, from the great work of the cross, and
severely rebuked. Then we find him denying the Lord three
times, and with an oath. Here again we find him endangering
the leading truth of Christ s Gospel. Surely we may say,
"Lord, what is man?" The Church of Rome boasts that the
Apostle Peter is her founder and first Bishop. Be it so : grant
it for a moment. Let us only remember, that of all the
Apostles there is not one, excepting, of course, Judas Iscariot,
of whom we have so many proofs that he was a fallible man.
Upon her own showing, the Church of Rome was founded by
the most fallible of the Apostles.*
* It is curious to observe the shifts to which some writers have been reduced
in order to explain away the plain meaning of the verses which head this
paper. Some have maintained that Paul did not really rebuke Peter, but
only feignedly, for show and appearance sake ! Others have maintained that
it was not Peter the Apostle who was rebuked, but another Peter, one of the
seventy ! Such interpretations need no remark. They are simply absurd.
The truth is that the plain honest meaning of the verses strikes a heavy blow
at the favourite lloman Catholic doctrine of the primacy and superiority of
Peter over the rest of the Apostles.
366 KNOTS UNTIED.
But it is all meant to teach us that even the Apostles them
selves, when not writing under the inspiration of the Holy
Ghost, were at times liable to err. It is meant to teach us that
the best men are weak and fallible so long as they are in the
body. Unless the grace of God holds them up, any one of
them may go astray at any time. It is very humbling, but it
is very true. True Christians are converted, justified, and
sanctified. They are living members of Christ, beloved children
of God, and heirs of eternal life. They are elect, chosen, called,
and kept unto salvation. They have the Spirit. But they are
not infallible.
Will not rank and dignity confer infallibility ? Xo : they
will not ! It matters nothing what a man is called. He may
be a Czar, an Emperor, a King, a Prince. He may be a Pope
or a Cardinal, an Archbishop or a Bishop, a Dean or an Arch
deacon, a Priest or a Deacon. He is still a fallible man.
Neither the crown, nor the diadem, nor the anointing oil, nor
the mitre, nor the imposition of hands, can prevent a man
making mistakes.
Will not numbers confer infallibility 1 Xo : they will not !
You may gather together princes by the score, and bishops by
the hundred ; but, when gathered together, they are still liable
to err. You may call them a council, or a synod, or an assembly,
or a conference, or what you please. It matters nothing.
Their conclusions are still the conclusions of fallible mm. Their
collective wisdom is still capable of making enormous mistakes.
Well says the Twenty-first Article of the Church of England,
" General councils may err, and sometimes have erred, even in
things pertaining unto God."
The example of the Apostle Peter at Antioch is one that does
not stand alone. It is only a parallel of many a case that we
find written for our learning in Holy Scripture. Do we not
remember Abraham, the father of the faithful, following the
advice of Sarah, and taking Hagar for a wife? Do we not
remember Aaron, the first high priest, listening to the children
of Israel, and making a golden calf ? Do we not remember
Nathan the prophet telling David to build a temple ? Do we
not remember Solomon, the wisest of men, allowing his wives
to build their high places 1 Do we not remember Asa, the good
king of Judah, seeking not to the Lord, but to the physicians ?
THE FALLIBILITY OF MINISTERS. 367
Do we not remember Jehoshaphat, the good king, going down to
help wicked Ahab ? Do we not remember Hezekiah, the good
king, receiving the ambassadors of Babylon? Do we not
remember Josiah, the last of Judah s good kings, going forth to
fight with Pharaoh? Do we not remember James and John
wanting fire to come down from heaven ? These things deserve
to be remembered. They were not written without cause. They
cry aloud, No infallibility 1
And who does not see, when he reads the history of the
Church of Christ, repeated proofs that the best of men can err ?
The early fathers were zealous according to their knowledge,
and ready to die for Christ. But many of them countenanced
monkery, and nearly all sowed the seeds of many superstitions.
The Reformers were honoured instruments in the hand of
God for reviving the cause of truth on earth. Yet hardly one
of them can be named who did not make some great mistake.
Martin Luther held pertinaciously the doctrine of consubstan-
tiation. Melanchthon was often timid and undecided. Calvin
permitted Servetus to be burned. Cranmer recanted and fell
away for a time from his first faith. Jewel subscribed
to Popish doctrines for fear of death. Hooper disturbed the
Church of England by over-scrupulosity about vestments. The
Puritans, in after times, denounced toleration as Abaddon and
Apollyon. Wesley and Toplady, last century, abused each
other in most shameful language. Irving, in our own day, gave
way to the delusion of speaking in unknown tongues. All
these things speak with a loud voice. They all lift up a beacon
to the Church of Christ. They all say, " Cease ye from man ; "
" Call no man master ; " " Call no man father upon earth ; "
"Let no man glory in man;" "He that glorieth, let him
glory in the Lord." They all cry, No infallibility !
The lesson is one that we all need. We are all naturally
inclined to lean upon man whom we can see, rather than upon
God whom we cannot see. We naturally love to lean upon the
ministers of the visible Church, rather than upon the Lord
Jesus Christ, the great Shepherd, and Bishop, and High Priest,
who is invisible. We need to be continually warned and set
upon our guard.
I see this tendency to lean on man everywhere. I know no
branch of the Protestant Church of Christ which does not
368 KNOTS UNTIED.
require to be cautioned upon the point. It is a snare, for
example, to the English Episcopalian to make idols of Bishop
Pearson and the "Judicious Hooker." It is a snare to the
Scotch Presbyterian to pin his faith on John Knox, the Cove
nanters, and Dr. Chalmers. It is a snare to the Methodists in
our day to worship the memory of John Wesley. It is a snare
to the Independent to see no fault in any opinion of Owen and
Doddridge. It is a snare to the Baptist to exaggerate the
wisdom of Gill, and Fuller, and Robert Hall. All these are
snares, and into these snares how many fall !
We all naturally love to have a Pope of our own. We are
far too ready to think, that because some great minister or some
learned man says a thing, or because our own minister, whom we
love, says a thing, it must be right, without examining whether
it is in Scripture or not. Most men dislike the trouble of
thinking for themselves. They like following a leader. They
are like sheep, when one goes over the gap all the rest
follow. Here at Antioch even Barnabas was carried away.
We can well fancy that good man saying, " An old Apostle, like
Peter, surely cannot be wrong. Following him, I cannot err."
And now let us see what practical lessons we may learn from
this part of our subject.
(a) For one thing, let us learn not to put implicit confidence
in any man s opinion, merely because he lived man]] hundred
years ago. Peter was a man who lived in the time of Christ
Himself, and yet he could err.
There are many who talk much in the present day about
" the voice of the primitive Church." They would have us
believe that those who lived nearest the time of the Apostles,
must of course know more about truth than we can. There is
no foundation for any such opinion. It is a fact that the most
ancient writers in the Church of Christ are often at variance
with one another. It is a fact that they often changed their
own minds, and retracted their own former opinions. It is a
fact that they often wrote foolish and weak things, and often
showed great ignorance in their explanations of Scripture. It
is vain to expect to find them free from mistakes. Infallibility
is not to be found in the early fathers, but in the Bible.
(b) For another thing, let us learn not to put implicit con
fidence in any man s opinion, merely because of his otfice as a
THE FALLIBILITY OF MINISTERS. 3G9
minister. Peter was one of the very chiefest Apostles, and yet
he could err.
This is a point on which men have continually gone astray.
It is the rock on which the early Church struck. Men soon
took up the saying, " Do nothing contrary to the mind of the
Bishop ! " But what are bishops, priests, and deacons 1 What
are the best of ministers but men, dust, ashes, and clay, men
of like passions with ourselves, men exposed to temptations, men
liable to weaknesses and infirmities ? What saith the Scripture,
" Who is Paul and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye
believed, even as the Lord gave to every man ?" (1 Cor. iii. 5.)
Bishops have often driven the truth into the wilderness, and
decreed that to be true which was false. The greatest errors have
been begun by ministers. Hophni and Phinehas, the sons of
the High Priest, made religion to be abhorred by the children
of Israel. Annas and Caiaphas, though in the direct line of
descent from Aaron, crucified the Lord. Arius, that great
heresiarch, was a minister. It is absurd to suppose that
ordained men cannot go wrong. We should follow them so far
as they teach according to the Bible, but no further. We
should believe them so long as they can say, "Thus it is
written," " Thus saith the Lord ; " but further than this we
are not to go. Infallibility is not to be found in ordained men,
but in the Bible.
(c) For another thing, let us learn not to place implicit con
fidence in any man s opinion, merely because of his learning.
Peter was a man who had miraculous gifts, and could speak
with tongues, and yet he could err.
This is a point, again, on which many go wrong. This is the
rock on which men struck in the middle ages. Men looked on
Thomas Aquinas, and Duns Scotus, and Peter Lombard, and
many of their companions, as almost inspired. They gave
epithets to some of them in token of their admiration. They
talked of "the irrefragable" doctor, "the seraphic" doctor,
" the incomparable " doctor, and seemed to think that what
ever these doctors said must be true ! But what is the most
learned of men, if he be not taught by the Holy Ghost 1 What
is the most learned of all divines but a mere fallible child of
Adam at his very best ] Vast knowledge of books and great
ignorance of God s truth may go side by side. They have done
2 A
KNOTS UNTIED.
so, they may do so, and they will do so, in all times. I will
engage to say that the two volumes of Robert M Cheyne s
Memoirs and Sermons have done more positive good to the souls
of men, than any one folio that Origen or Cyprian ever wrote.
I doubt not that the one volume of Pile/rim s Progress, written
by a man who knew hardly any book but his Bible, and was
ignorant of Greek and Latin, will prove in the last day to
liave done more for the benefit of the world than all the works
of the schoolmen put together. Learning is a gift that ought
not to be despised. It is an evil day when books are not valued
in the Church. But it is amazing to observe how vast a man s
intellectual attainments may be, and yet how little he may
know of the grace of God. I have no doubt the authorities of
Oxford in the last century knew more of Hebrew, Greek, and
Latin, than Wesley, Whitefield, Berridge, or Venn. But they
knew little of the Gospel of Christ. Infallibility is not to be
found among learned men, but in the Bible.
(d) For another thing, let us take care that we do not place
implicit confidence on our own minister s opinion, however godly
he may be, Peter was a man of mighty grace, and yet he
could err.
Your minister may be a man of God indeed, and worthy of
all honour for his preaching and practice; but do not make a
Pope of him. Do not place his word side by side with the
Word of God. Do not spoil him by flattery. Do not let him
suppose he can make no mistakes. Do not lean your whole
weight on his opinion, or you may find to your cost that he
can err.
It is written of Joash, King of Judah, that he " did that
which was right in the sight of the Lord all the days of
Jehoiada the priest." (2 Chron. xxiv. 2.) Jehoiada died, and
then died the religion of Joash. Just so your minister may die,
and then your religion may die too ; may change, and your
religion may change ; may go away, and your religion may go.
Oh, be not satisfied with a religion built upon man ! Be not
content with saying, "I have hope, because my own minister
has told me such and such things." Seek to be able to say, " I
have hope, because I find it thus and thus written in the
Word of God." If your peace is to be solid, you must go your
self to the Fountain of all Truth. If your comforts are to be
THE FALLIBILITY OF MINISTERS. 371
lasting, you must visit the well of life yourself, and draw fresh
water for your own soul. Ministers may depart from the faith.
The visible Church may be broken up. But he who has the
Word of God written in his heart has a foundation beneath his
feet which will never fail him. Honour your minister as a
faithful ambassador of Christ. Esteem him very highly in love
for his work s sake. But never forget that infallibility is not to
be found in godly ministers, but in the Bible.
The things I have mentioned are worth remembering. Let
us bear them in mind, and we shall have learned one lesson
from Antioch.
II. I now pass on to the second lesson that we learn from
Antioch. That lesson is, that to keep Gospel truth in tltc
CJiurch is of even greater importance titan to keep peace.
I suppose no man knew better the value of peace and unity
than the Apostle Paul. He was the Apostle who wrote to the
Corinthians about charity. He Avas the Apostle who said, " Be
of the same mind one toward another ; " " Be at peace among
yourselves ; " " Mind the same things ; " " The servant of God
must not strive ; " " There is one body and there is one Spirit,
even as ye are called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one
faith, one baptism." He was the Apostle who said, " I become
all things to all men, that by all means I may save some."
(Rom. xii. 16 ; 1 Thess. v. 13 ; Phil. iii. 16 ; Eph. iv. 5 1 Cor.
ix. 22.) Yet see how he acts here ! He withstands Peter to
the face. He publicly rebukes him. He runs the risk of all
the consequences that might follow. He takes the chance of
everything that might be said by the enemies of the Church at
Antioch. Above all, he writes it down for a perpetual memorial,
that it never might be forgotten, that, wherever the Gospel is
preached throughout the world, this public rebuke of an erring-
Apostle might be known and read of all men.
Now, why did he do this 1 ? Because he dreaded false doctrine,
because he knew that a little leaven leaveneth the whole
lump, because he would teach us that we ought to contend
for the truth jealously, and to fear the loss of truth more than
the loss of peace.
St. Paul s example is one we shall do well to remember in
the present clay. Many people will put up with anything in
372 KNOTS UNTIED,
religion, if they may only have a quiet life. They have a
morbid dread of what they call " controversy." They are filled
with a morbid fear of what they style, in a vague way, "party
spirit," though they /never define clearly what party spirit is.
They are possessed with a morbid desire to keep the peace, and
make all things smooth and pleasant, even though it be at the
expense of truth. So long as they have outward calm, smooth
ness, stillness, and order, they seem content to give up every
thing else. I believe they would have thought with Ahab that
Elijah was a troubler of Israel, and would have helped the
princes of Judah when they put Jeremiah in prison, to stop his
mouth. I have no doubt that many of these men of whom I
speak, would have thought that Paul at Antioch was a very
imprudent man, and that he went too far !
I believe this is all wrong. We have no right to expect
anything but the pure Gospel of Christ, unmixed and un
adulterated, the same Gospel that was taught by the Apostles,
to do good to the souls of men. I believe that to maintain
this pure truth in the Church men should be ready to make any
sacrifice, to hazard peace, to risk dissension, and run the chance
of division. Tliey should no more tolerate false doctrine than
they would tolerate sin. They should withstand any adding to
or taking away from the simple message of the Gospel of
Christ.
For the truth s sake, our Lord Jesus Christ denounced the
Pharisees, though they sat in Moses seat, and were the appointed
and authorized teachers of men. " Woe unto you, Scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites," He says, eight times over, in the twenty-
third chapter of Matthew. And who shall dare to breathe a
suspicion that our Lord was wrong ?
For the truth s sake, Paul withstood and blamed Peter,
though a brother. Where was the use of unity when pure
doctrine was gone 1 And who shall dare to say he was
wrong 1
For the truth s sake, Athanasius stood out against the world
to maintain the pure doctrine about the divinity of Christ, and
waged a controversy with the great majority of the professing
Church. And who shall dare to say he was wrong 1
For the truth s sake, Luther broke the unity of the Church
in which he was born, denounced the Pope and all his ways,
THE FALLIBILITY OF MINISTERS. 373
and laid the foundation of a new teaching. And who shall
dare to say that Luther was wrong ?
For the truth s sake, Cranmer, Bidley, and Latimer, the
English Reformers, counselled Henry VIII. and Edward VI.
to separate from Rome, and to risk the consequences of division.
And who shall dare to say that they were wrong 1
For the truth s sake, Whitefield and Wesley, a hundred years
ago, denounced the mere barren moral preaching of the clergy
of their day, and went out into the highways and byways to
save souls, knowing well that they would be cast out from the
Church s communion. And who shall dare to say that they
were wrong 1
Yes ! peace without truth is a false peace ; it is the very
peace of the devil. Unity without the Gospel is a worthless
unity ; it is the very unity of hell. Let us never be ensnared
by those who speak kindly of it. Let us remember the words
of our Lord Jesus Christ : " Think not that I came to send
peace upon earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword."
(Matt. x. 34.) Let us remember the praise He gives to one of
the Churches in the Revelation : " Thou canst not bear them
which are evil. Thou hast tried them which say they are
Apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars." (Rev. ii. 2.)
Let us remember the blame He casts upon another: "Thou
sufferest that woman Jezebel to teach." (Rev. ii. 20.) Never
let us be guilty of sacrificing any portion of truth upon the
altar of peace. Let us rather be like the Jews, who, if they
found any manuscript copy of the Old Testament Scriptures
incorrect in a single letter, burned the whole copy, rather than
run the risk of losing one jot or tittle of the Word of God.
Let us be content with nothing short of the whole Gospel of
Christ.
In what way are we to make practical use of the general
principles which I have just laid down 1 I will give my readers
one simple piece of advice. I believe it is advice which deserves
serious consideration.
I warn, then, every one who loves his soul, to be very jealous as
to the preaching he regularly hears, and the place of worship he
regularly attends. He who deliberately settles down under any
ministry which is positively unsound, is a very unwise man. I
will never hesitate to speak my mind on this point. I know
3*74 KNOTS UNTIED.
well that many think it a shocking thing for a man to forsake
his parish church. I cannot see with the eyes of such people.
I draw a wide distinction between teaching which is defective
and teaching which is thoroughly false, between teaching
which errs on the negative side and teaching which is positively
unscriptural. But I do believe, if false doctrine is unmistakably
preached in a parish church, a parishioner who loves his soul is
quite right in not going to that parish church. To hear un
scriptural teaching fifty-two Sundays in every year is a serious
thing. It is a continual dropping of slow poison into the mind.
I think it almost impossible for a man wilfully to submit him
self to it, and not take harm. I see in the iN"ew Testament we
are plainly told to " prove all things," and " hold fast that which
is good." (1 Thess. v. 21.) I see in the Book of Proverbs
that we are commanded to " cease to hear the instruction which
causeth to err from the paths of knowledge." (Prov. xix. 27.)
If these words do not justify a man in ceasing to worship at a
church, if positively false doctrine is preached in it, I know not
what words can.
Does any one mean to tell us that to attend the parish church
is absolutely needful to an Englishman s salvation 1 If there is
such an one, let him speak out, and give us his name. Does
any one mean to tell us that going to the parish church will
save any man s soul, if he dies unconverted and ignorant of
Christ 1 If there is such an one, let him speak out, and give us
his name. Does any one mean to tell us that going to the
parish church will teach a man anything about Christ, or con
version, or faith, or repentance, if these subjects are hardly ever
named in the parish church, and never properly explained ? If
there is such an one, let him speak out, and give us his name.
Does any one mean to say that a man who repents, believes in
Christ, is converted and holy, will lose his soul, because he has
forsaken his parish church and learned his religion elsewhere ?
If there is such an one, let him speak out, and give us his
name. For my part I abhor such monstrous and extravagant
ideas. I see not a jot of foundation for them in the Word of
God. I trust that the number of those who deliberately hold
them is exceedingly small.
There are not a few parishes in England where the religious
teaching is little better than Popery. Ought the laity of such
THE FALLIBILITY OF MINISTERS. 375
parishes to sit still, be content, and take it quietly? They
ought not. And why ? Because, like St. Paul, they ought to
prefer truth to peace.
There are not a few parishes in England where the religious
teaching is little better than morality. The distinctive doctrines
of Christianity are never clearly proclaimed. Plato, or Seneca,
or Confucius, or-Socinus, could have taught almost as much.
Ought the laity in such parishes to sit still, be content, and take
it quietly? They ought not. And why? Because, like St.
Paul, they ought to prefer truth to peace.
I am using strong language in dealing with this part of my
subject : I know it. I am trenching on delicate ground : I
know it. I am handling matters which are generally let alone,
and passed over in silence : I know it. I say what I say from
a sense of duty to the Church of which I am a minister. I
believe the state of the times, and the position of the laity in
some parts of England, require plain speaking. Souls are
perishing, in many parishes, in ignorance. Honest members of
the Church of England, in many districts, are disgusted and
perplexed. This is no time for smooth words. I am not
ignorant of those magic expressions, " the parochial system,
order, division, schism, unity, controversy," and the like. I
know the cramping, silencing influence which they seem to
exercise on some minds. I too have considered those expres
sions calmly and deliberately, and on each of them I am
prepared to speak my mind.
(a) The parochial system of England is an admirable thing
in theory. Let it only be well administered, and worked by
truly spiritual ministers, and it is calculated to confer the
greatest blessings on the nation. But it is useless to expect
attachment to the parish church, when the minister of the
parish is ignorant of the Gospel or a lover of the world. In
such a case we must never be surprised if men forsake their
parish church, and seek truth wherever truth is to be found.
If the parochial minister does not preach the Gospel and live
the Gospel, the conditions on which he claims the attention of
his parishioners are virtually violated, and his claim to be heard
is at an end. It is absurd to expect the head of a family to
endanger the souls of his children, as well as his own, for the
sake of " parochial order." There is no mention of parishes in
376 KNOTS UNTIED.
the Bible, and we have no right to require men to live and die
in ignorance, in order that they may be able to say at last, " I
always attended my parish church."
(b) Divisions and separations are most objectionable in
religion. They weaken the cause of true Christianity. They
give occasion to the enemies of all godliness to blaspheme.
But before we blame people for them, we must be careful that
we lay the blame where it is deserved. False doctrine and heresy
are even worse than schism. If people separate themselves
from teaching which is positively false and unscriptural, they
ought to be praised rather than reproved. In such cases
separation is a virtue and not a sin. It is easy to make sneering
remarks about " itching ears," and " love of excitement ; " but
it is not so easy to convince a plain reader of the Bible that it
is his duty to hear false doctrine every Sunday, when by a little
exertion he can hear truth. The old saying must never be
forgotten, " He is the schismatic who causes the schism."
(c) Unity, quiet, and wder among professing Christians are
mighty blessings. They give strength, beauty, and efficiency
to the cause of Christ. But even gold may be bought too dear.
Unity which is obtained by the sacrifice of truth is worth
nothing. It is not the unity which pleases God. The Church
of Rome boasts loudly of a unity which does not deserve the
name. It is unity which is obtained by taking away the Bible
from the people, by gagging private judgment, by encouraging
ignorance, by forbidding men to think for themselves. Like
the exterminating warriors of old, the Church of Borne " makes
a solitude and calls it peace." There is quiet and stillness
enough in the grave, but it is not the quiet of health, but of
death. It was the false prophets who cried "Peace," when
there was no peace.
(d) Controversy in religion is a hateful thing. It is hard
enough to fight the devil, the worjd, and the flesh, without
private differences in our own camp. But there is one thing
which is even worse than controversy, and that is false doctrine
tolerated, allowed, and permitted without protest or molestation.
It was controversy that won the battle of Protestant Reforma
tion. If the views that some men hold were correct, it is plain
we never ought to have had any Reformation at all I For the
sake of peace, we ought to have gone on worshipping the
THE FALLIBILITY OF MINISTERS. 377
Virgin, and bowing down to images and relics to this very day !
Away with such trifling ! There are times when controversy is
not only a duty but a benefit. Give me the mighty thunder
storm rather than the pestilential malaria. The one walks in
darkness and poisons us in silence, and we are never safe. The
other frightens and alarms for a little season. But it is soon
over, and it clears the air. It is a plain Scriptural duty to
" contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints."
(Jude 3.)
I am quite aware that the things I have said are exceedingly
distasteful to many minds. I believe many are content with
teaching which is not the whole truth, and fancy it will be "all
the same " in the end. I am sorry for them. I am convinced
that nothing but the -whole truth is likely, as a general rule, to do
good to souls. I am satisfied that those who wilfully put up
with anything short of the whole truth, will find at last that
their souls have received much damage. Three things there are
which men never ought to trifle with, a little poison, a little
false doctrine, and a little sin.
I am quite aware that when a man expresses such opinions as
those I have just brought forward, there are many ready to say,
"He is no Churchman." I hear such accusations unmoved.
The day of judgment will show who were the true friends of
the Church of England and who were not. I have learned in
the last thirty-two years that if a clergyman leads a quiet life,
lets alone the unconverted part of the world, and preaches so as
to offend none and edify none, he will be called by many " a
good Churchman." And I have also learned that if a man
studies the Articles and Homilies, labours continually for the
conversion of souls, adheres closely to the great principles of the
Reformation, bears a faithful testimony against Popery, and
preaches as Jewel and Latimer used to preach, he will probably
be thought a firebrand and " troubler of Israel," and called no
Churchman at all ! But I can see plainly that they are not the
best Churchmen who talk most loudly about Churclmianship.
I remember that none cried " Treason " so loudly as Athaliah.
(2 Kings xi. 14.) Yet she was a traitor herself. I have observed
that many who once talked most about Churchmanship have
ended by forsaking the Church of England, and going over to
Rome. Let men say what they will. They are the truest
378 KNOTS UNTIED.
friends of the Church of England who labour must for the
preservation of truth.
I lay these things before the readers of this paper, and invite
their serious attention to them. I charge them never to forget
that truth is of more importance to a Church than peace. I
ask them to be ready to carry out the principles I have laid
down, and to contend zealously, if needs be, for the truth. If
we do this, w r e shall have learned something from Antioch.
III. But I pass on to the third lesson from Antioch. That
lesson is, that there is no doctrine about which we ouyht to
be so jealous as justification by faith without the deeds of the
law.
The proof of this lesson stands out most prominently in the
passage of Scripture which heads this paper. What one article
of the faith had the Apostle Peter denied at Antioch ? None.
What doctrine had he publicly preached which was false 1
None. What, then, had he done 1 He had done this. After
once keeping company with the believing Gentiles as " fellow-
heirs and partakers of the promise of Christ in the Gospel "
(Ephes. iii. 6), he suddenly became shy of them and withdrew
himself. He seemed to think they were less holy and accept
able to God than the circumcised Jews. He seemed to imply
that the believing Gentiles were in a lower state than they who
had kept the ceremonies of the law of Moses. He seemed, in a
word, to add something to simple faith as needful to give man
an interest in Jesus Christ. He seemed to reply to the ques
tion, " What shall I do to be saved 1 " not merely " Believe on
the Lord Jesus Christ," but "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,
and be circumcised, and keep the ceremonies of the law."
Such conduct as this the Apostle Paul would not endure for
a moment. Nothing so moved him as the idea of adding any
thing to the Gospel of Christ. " I withstood him," he says,
" to the face." He not only rebuked him, but he recorded the
whole transaction fully, when by inspiration of the Spirit he
wrote the Epistle to the Galatians.
I invite special attention to this point. I ask men to observe
the remarkable jealousy which the Apostle Paul shows about
this doctrine, and to consider the point about which such a stir
was made. Let us mark in this passage of Scripture the
THE FALLIBILITY OF MINISTERS. 379
immense importance of justification by faith without the deeds
of the law. Let us learn here what mighty reasons the
Reformers of the Church of England had for calling it, in our
Eleventh Article, " a most wholesome doctrine and very full of
comfort."
(a) This is the doctrine which is essentially necessary to our
own personal comfort. No man on earth is a real child of God,
and a saved soul, till he sees and receives salvation by faith in
Christ Jesus. No man will ever have solid peace and true
assurance, until he embraces with all his heart the doctrine that
" we are accounted righteous before God for the merit of our
Lord Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works and
deservings." One reason, I believe, why so many professors in
this day are tossed to and fro, enjoy little comfort, and feel
little peace, is their ignorance on this point. They do not see
clearly justification by faith without the deeds of the law.
(b) This is the doctrine which tlie great enemy of souls hates,
and labours to overthrow. He knows that it turned the world
upside down at the first beginning of the Gospel, in the
days of the Apostles. He knows that it turned the world
upside down again at the time of the Reformation. He is
therefore always tempting men to reject it. He is always trying
to seduce Churches and ministers to deny or obscure its truth.
No wonder that the Council of Trent directed its chief attack
against this doctrine, and pronounced it accursed and heretical.
No wonder that many who think themselves learned in these
days denounce the doctrine as theological jargon, and say that
all " earnest-minded people " are justified by Christ, whether
they have faith or not ! The plain truth is that the doctrine
is all gall and wormwood to unconverted hearts. It just meets
the wants of the awakened soul. But the proud unhumbled
man who knows not his own sin, and sees not his own weakness,
cannot receive its truth.
(c) This is the doctrine, the absence of which accounts for
half the errors of the Roman Catholic CJmrch. The beginning
of half the unscriptural doctrines of Popery may be traced up
to rejection of justification by faith. No Romish teacher, if he
is faithful to his Church, can say to an anxious sinner, " Believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ and tliou shalt be saved." He cannot
do it without additions and explanations, which completely
380 KNOTS UNTIED.
destroy the good news. He dare not give the Gospel medicine,
without adding something which destroys its efficacy, and
neutralizes its power. Purgatory, penance, priestly absolution,
the intercession of saints, the worship of the Virgin, and many
other man-made services of Popery, all spring from this source.
They are all rotten props to support Aveary consciences. But
they are rendered necessary by the denial of justification by
faith.
(d) This is the doctrine which is absolutely essential to a
minister s success among his people. Obscurity on this point
spoils all. Absence of clear statements about justification will
prevent the utmost zeal doing good. There may be much that
is pleasing and nice in a minister s sermons, much about Christ
and sacramental union with Him, much about self-denial,
much about humility, much about charity. But all this will
profit little, if his trumpet gives an uncertain sound about
justification by faith without the deeds of the law.
(e) This is the doctrine which is absolutely essential to the
prosperity of a CJmrch. No Church is really in a healthy
state, in which this doctrine is not prominently brought forward.
A Church may have good forms and regularly ordained
ministers, and the sacraments properly administered, but a
Church will not see conversion of souls going on under its
pulpits, when this doctrine is not plainly preached. Its schools
may be found in every parish. Its ecclesiastical buildings may
strike the eye all over the land. But there will be no blessing
from God on that Church, unless justification by faith is
proclaimed from its pulpits. Sooner or later its candlestick
will be taken away.
Why have the Churches of Africa and the East fallen to
their present state ? Had they not bishops ? They had. Had
they not forms and liturgies? They had. Had they not
synods and councils? They had. But they cast away the
doctrine of justification by faith. They lost sight of that
mighty truth, and so they fell.
Why did our own Church do so little in the last century, and
why did the Independents, and Methodists, and Baptists do so
much more ? Was it that their system was better than ours ?
No. Was it that our Church was not so well adapted to meet
the wants of lost souls? No. But their ministers preached
THE FALLIBILITY OF MINISTERS. 381
justification by faith, and our ministers, in too many cases, did
not preach the doctrine at all.
Why do so many English people go to Dissenting chapels in
the present day 1 Why do we so often see a splendid Gothic
parish church as empty of worshippers as a barn in July, and
a little plain brick building, called a meeting-house, filled to
suffocation? Is it that people in general have an abstract
dislike to Episcopacy, the Prayer-book, the surplice, and the
establishment 1 Not at all ! The simple reason is, in the vast
majority of cases, that people do not like preaching in which
justification by faith is not fully proclaimed. When they
cannot hear it in the parish church they will seek it elsewhere.
Xo doubt there are exceptions. No doubt there are places where
a long course of neglect has thoroughly disgusted people with the
Church of England, so that they will not even hear truth from
its ministers. But I believe, as a general rule, when the parish
church is empty and the meeting-house full, it will be found on
inquiry that there is a cause.
If these things be so, the Apostle Paul might well be jealous
for the truth, and withstand Peter to the face. He might well
maintain that anything ought to be sacrificed, rather than
endanger the doctrine of justification in the Church of Christ.
He saw with a prophetical eye coming things. He left us all
an example that we should do well to folloAV. Whatever we
tolerate, let us never allow any injury to be done to that blessed
doctrine, that we are justified by faith without the deeds of
the law.
Let us always beware of any teaching which either directly
or indirectly obscures justification by faith. All religious
systems which put anything between the heavy-laden sinner
and Jesus Christ the Saviour, except simple faith, are dangerous
and unscriptural. All systems which make out faith to be any
thing complicated, anything but a simple, childlike dependence,
the hand which receives the soul s medicine from the
physician, are unsafe and poisonous systems. All systems
which cast discredit on the simple Protestant doctrine which
broke the power of Borne, carry about with them a plague-spot,
and are dangerous to souls.
Baptism is a sacrament ordained by Christ Himself, and to
be used with reverence and respect by all professing Christians.
382 KNOTS UNTIED.
When it is used rightly, worthily, and with faith, it is capable
of being the instrument of mighty blessings to the soul. But
when people are taught that all who are baptized are as a
matter of course born again, and that all baptized persons should
be addressed as " children of God," I believe their souls are in
great danger. Such teaching about baptism appears to me to
overthrow the doctrine of justification by faith. They only are
children of God who have faith in Christ Jesus. And all men
have not faith.
The Lord s Supper is a sacrament ordained by Christ Him
self, and intended for the edification and refreshment of true
believers. But when people are taught that all persons ought
to come to the Lord s Table, whether they have faith or not ;
and that all alike receive Christ s body and blood who receive the
bread and wine, I believe their souls are in great danger. Such
teaching appears to me to darken the doctrine of justification by
faith. No man eats Christ s body and drinks Christ s blood ex
cept the justified man. And none are justified until they believe.
Membership of the Church of England is a great privilege.
No visible Church on earth, in my opinion, offers so many
advantages to its members, when rightly administered. But
when people are taught that because they are members of the
Church, they are as a matter of course members of Christ, I
believe their souls are in great danger. Such teaching appears to
me to overthrow the doctrine of justification by faith. They only
are joined to Christ who believe. And all men do not believe.
Whenever we hear teaching which obscures or contradicts
justification by faith, we may be sure there is a screw loose
somewhere. We should watch against such teaching, and be
upon our guard. Once let a man get wrong about justification,
and he will bid a long farewell to comfort, to peace, to lively
hope, to anything like assurance in Ids Christianity. An error
here is a worm at the root.
(1) In conclusion, let me first of all ask every one who reads
this paper, to arm himself with a thorough knowledge of the
written Word of God. Unless we do this we are at the mercy
of any false teacher. We shall not see through the mistakes of
an erring Peter. We shall not be able to imitate the faithful
ness of a courageous Paul. An ignorant laity will always be
THE FALLIBILITY OF MINISTERS. 383
the bane of a Church. A Bible-reading laity may save a
Church from ruin. Let us read the Bible regularly, daily, and
with fervent prayer, and become familiar with its contents. Let
us receive nothing, believe nothing, follow nothing, which is not
in the Bible, nor can be proved by the Bible. Let our rule of
faith, our touch-stone of all teaching, be the written Word of God.
(2) In the next place, let me recommend every member of
the Church of England to make himself acquainted with the
Thirty-nine Articles of his own Church. They are to be found
at the end of most Prayer-books. They will abundantly repay
an attentive reading. They are the true standard by which
Churchmanship is to be tried, next to the Bible. They are the
test by which Churchmen should prove the teaching of their
ministers, if they want to know whether it is " Church teach
ing" or not. I deeply lament the ignorance of systematic
Christianity which prevails among many who attend the services
of the Church of England. It would be well if such books as
Archbishop Usher s Body of Divinity were more known and
studied than they are. If Dean Lowell s Catechism had ever
been formally accredited as a formulary of the Church of
England, many of the heresies of the last twenty years could
never have lived for a day.* But unhappily many persons
really know no more about the true doctrines of their own
communion, than the heathen or Mahometans. It is useless to
expect the laity of the Church of England to be zealous for the
maintenance of true doctrine, unless they know what their own
Church has denned true doctrine to be.
(3) In the next place, let me entreat all who read this paper
to be always ready to contend for the faith of Christ, if needful.
I recommend no one to foster a controversial spirit. I want no
man to be like Goliath, going up and down, saying, " Give me
a man to fight with." Always feeding upon controversy is poor
work indeed. It is like feeding upon bones. But I do say
that no love of false peace should prevent us striving jealously
against false doctrine, and seeking to promote true doctrine
wherever we possibly can. True Gospel in the pulpit, true
Gospel in every religious society we support, true Gospel in
* Dean Nowell was Prolocutor of the Convocation which drew up the
Thirty-nine Articles in the form in which we now have them, in the year
1562. His Catechism was approved and allowed by Convocation.
384 KNOTS UNTIED.
the books we read, true Gospel in the friends we keep company
with, let this he our aim, and never let us he ashamed to let-
men see that it is so.
(4) In the next place, let me entreat all who read this paper
to keej) a jcalom watch over their own hearts in these contro
versial times. There is much need of this caution. In the
heat of the battle we are apt to forget our own inner man.
Victory in argument is not always victory over the world or
victory over the devil. Let the meekness of St. Peter in taking
a reproof, be as much our example as the boldness of St. Paul
in reproving. Happy is the Christian who can call the person
who rebukes him faithfully, a "beloved brother." (2 Peter iii.
15.) Let us strive to be holy in all manner of conversation,
and not least in our tempers. Let us labour to maintain an
uninterrupted communion with the Father and with the Son,
and to keep up constant habits of private prayer and Bible-
reading. Thus we shall be armed for the battle of life, and
have the sword of the Spirit well fitted to our hand when the
day of temptation comes.
(5) In the last place, let me entreat all members of the
Church of England who know what real praying is, to pray
daily for the Church to which they belong. Let us pray that
the Holy Spirit may be poured out upon it, and that. its candle
stick may not be taken away. Let us pray for those parishes
in which the Gospel is now not preached, that the darkness
may pass away, and the true light shine in them. Let us pray
for those ministers who now neither know nor preach the truth,
that God may take away the veil from their hearts, and show
them a more excellent way. Nothing is impossible. The
Apostle Paul was once a persecuting Pharisee ; Luther was
once an unenlightened monk ; Bishop Latimer was once a
bigoted Papist ; Thomas Scott was once thoroughly opposed to
evangelical truth. Nothing, I repeat, is impossible. The Spirit
can make clergymen preach that Gospel which they now labour
to destroy. Let us therefore be instant in prayer.
I commend the matters contained in this paper to serious
attention. Let us ponder them well in our hearts. Let us
carry them out in our daily practice. Let us do this, and we
shall have learned something from the story of St. Peter at
Antioch.
XVIII.
APOSTOLIC FEARS.
" I fear, lest, by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve by his subtilty,
so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in
Christ." 2 COR. xi. 3.
THE text which heads this page, contains one part of the ex
perience of a very famous Christian. Xo servant of Christ
perhaps has left such a mark for good on the world as the
Apostle St. Paul. When he was born, the whole Roman
Empire, excepting one little corner, was sunk in the darkest
heathenism ; when he died, the mighty fabric of heathenism
was shaken to its very centre, and ready to fall. And none of
the agents whom God used to produce this marvellous change
did more than Saul of Tarsus, after his conversion. Yet even
in the midst of his successes and usefulness we find him crying-
out, " I fear."
There is a melancholy ring about these words which demands
our attention. They show a man of many cares and anxieties.
He who supposes that St. Paul lived a life of ease, because he
was a chosen Apostle, wrought miracles, founded Churches,
and wrote inspired Epistles, has yet much to learn. Nothing
can be more unlike the truth ! The eleventh chapter of the
second Epistle to the Corinthians tells a very different tale. It
is a chapter which deserves attentive study. Partly from the
opposition of the heathen philosophers and priests, whose craft
was in danger, partly from the bitter enmity of his own un
believing countrymen, partly from false or weak brethren,
partly from his own thorn in the flesh, the great Apostle of
the Gentiles was like his Master, "a man of sorrows and
acquainted with grief." (Isa. liii. 3.)
But of all the burdens which St. Paul had to carry, none
seems to have weighed him down so much as that to which he
386 KNOTS UNTIED.
refers, when he writes to the Corinthians, "the care of all the
Churches." (2 Cor. xi. 28.) The scanty knowledge of many
primitive Christians, their weak faith, their shallow experience,
their dim hope, their low standard of holiness, all these
things made them peculiarly liable to be led astray by false
teachers, and to depart from the faith. Like little children,
hardly able to walk, they required to be treated with immense
patience. Like exotics in a hothouse, they had to be watched
with incessant care. Can we doubt that they kept their
Apostolic founder in a state of constant tender anxiety ? Can
we wonder that he says to the Colossians, " What great conflict
I have for you " ? and to the Galatians, " I marvel that ye are
so soon removed from Him who called you into the grace of
Christ unto another Gospel ; " " foolish Galatians, who
hath bewitched you?" (Col. ii. 1; Gal. i. 6; iii. 1.) No
attentive reader can study the Epistles without seeing this
subject repeatedly cropping up. And the text I have placed
at the head of this paper is a sample of what I mean : " I
fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve by his
subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity
that is in Christ." That text contains three important lessons,
which I wish to press on the attention of all my readers. I
believe in my conscience they are lessons for the times.
I. First, the text shows us a spiritual disease to which ice
are all liable, and which we ought to fear. That
disease is corruption of our minds : " I fear, lest
your minds be corrupted."
II. Secondly, the text shows us an example ivhich we ought
to remember, as a beacon: "The serpent beguiled
Eve by his subtilty."
III. Thirdly, the text shows us a point about which we ought
specially to be on our guard. That point is corruption
" from the simplicity that is in Christ."
The text is a deep mine, and is not without difficulty. But
let us go down into it boldly, and we shall find it contains much
precious metal.
I. First, then, there is a spiritual disease, which we ought to
fear : " Corruption of mind."
APOSTOLIC PEAKS. 387
I take " corruption of mind " to mean injury of our minds
by the reception of false and unscriptural doctrines in religion.
And I believe the sense of the Apostle to be, "I fear lest your
minds should imbibe erroneous and unsound views of Chris
tianity. I fear lest you should take up, as truths, principles
which are not the truth. I fear lest you should depart from
the faith once delivered to the saints, and embrace views which
are practically destructive to the Gospel of Christ.
The fear expressed by the Apostle is painfully instructive,
and at first sight may create surprise. Who would have thought
that under the very eyes of Christ s own chosen disciples,
while the blood of Calvary was hardly yet dry, while the age of
miracles had not yet passed away, who would have thought
that in a day like this there was any danger of Christians
departing from the faith ? Yet nothing is more certain than
that " the mystery of iniquity " began already to work before
the Apostles were dead. (2 Thess. ii. 7.) " Even now," says
St. John, "There are many Antichrists." (1 John ii. 18.)
And no fact in Church history is more clearly proved than
this, that false doctrine has never ceased to be the plague of
Christendom for the last eighteen centuries. Looking forward
with the eye of a prophet, St. Paul might well say, " I fear : "
"I fear not merely the corruption of your morals, but of
your minds."
The plain truth is that false doctrine has been the chosen
engine which Satan has employed in every age to stop the
progress of the Gospel of Christ. Finding himself unable to
prevent the Fountain of Life being opened, he has laboured
incessantly to poison the streams which flow from it. If he
could not destroy it, he has too often neutralized its usefulness
by addition, subtraction, or substitution. In a word, he has
" corrupted men s minds."
(a) False doctrine soon overspread the Primitive Church
after the death of the Apostles, whatever some may please to
say of primitive purity. Partly by strange teaching about the
Trinity and the Person of Christ, partly by an absurd multi
plication of new-fangled ceremonies, partly by the introduction
of monasticism and a man-made asceticism, the light of the
Church was soon dimmed and its usefulness destroyed. Even
in Augustine s time, as the preface to the English Prayer-book
388 KNOTS UNTIED.
tells us, " Ceremonies were grown to such a number that the
estate of Christian people was in worse case concerning this
matter than were the Jews. " Here was the corruption of men s
minda.
(b) False doctrine in the middle ages so completely over
spread the Church, that the truth as it is in Jesus was well nigh
buried or drowned. During the last three centuries before the
Keformation, it is probable that very few Christians in Europe
could have answered the question, "What must I do to be
saved ? " Popes and Cardinals, Abbots and Priors, Arch
bishops and Bishops, Priests and Deacons, Monks and Nuns,
were, with a few rare exceptions, steeped in ignorance and
superstition. They were sunk into a deep sleep, from which
they were only partially roused by the earthquake of the Re
formation. Here, again, was the " corruption of men s minds."
(c) False doctrine, since the days of the Reformation, has
continually been rising up again, and marring the work which
the Reformers began. Neologianism in some districts of
Europe, Socinianism in others, formalism and indifferentism
in others, have withered blossoms which once promised to bear
good fruit, and made Protestantism a mere barren form. Here,
again, has been the " corruption of the mind."
(d) False doctrine, even in our own day and under our own
eyes, is eating out the heart of the Church of England and peril
ling her existence. One school of Churchmen does not hesitate
to avow its dislike to the principles of the Reformation, and com
passes sea and land to Romanize the Establishment. Another
school, with equal boldness, speaks lightly of inspiration, sneers
at the very idea of a supernatural religion, and tries hard to
cast overboard miracles as so much lumber. Another school
proclaims liberty to every shade and form of religious opinion,
and tells us that all teachers are equally deserving our confid
ence, however heterogeneous and contradictory their opinions,
if they are only clever, earnest, and sincere. To each and all
the same remark applies. They illustrate the " corruption of
men s minds."
In the face of such facts as these, we may well lay to heart
the words of the Apostle in the text which heads the paper.
Like him we have abundant cause to feel afraid. Never, I
think, was there such need for English Christians to stand on
APOSTOLIC FEARS. 389
their guard. Never was there such need for faithful ministers
to cry aloud and spare not. " If the trumpet give an uncertain
sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle?" (1 Cor.
xiv. 8.)
I charge every loyal member of the Church of England to
open his eyes to the peril in which his own Church stands,
and to beware lest it takes damage through apathy and a morbid
love of peace. Controversy is an odious thing ; but there are
days when it is a positive duty. Peace is an excellent thing ;
but, like gold, it may be bought too dear. Unity is a mighty
blessing ; but it is worthless if it is purchased at the cost of
truth. Once more I say, Open your eyes and be on your
guard.
The nation that rests satisfied with its commercial prosperity,
and neglects its national defences, because they are troublesome
or expensive, is likely to become a prey to the first Alaric, or
Attila, or Tamerlane, or Napoleon, who chooses to attack it.
The Church which is " rich, and increased with goods," may
think it has " need of nothing," because of its antiquity, orders,
and endowments. It may cry " Peace, peace," and natter itself
it shall see no evil. But if it is not careful about the mainten
ance of sound doctrine among its ministers and members, it
must never be surprised if its candlestick is taken away.
I deprecate, from the bottom of my heart, despondency or
cowardice at this crisis. All I say is, let us exercise a godly
fear. I do not see the slightest necessity for forsaking the old
ship, and giving it up for lost. Bad as things look inside our
ark, they are not a whit better outside. But I do protest
against that careless spirit of slumber which seems to seal the
eyes of many Churchmen, and to blind them to the enormous
peril in which we are placed by the rise and progress of false
doctrine in these days. I protest against the common notion
so often proclaimed by men in high places, that unity is of more
importance than sound doctrine, and peace more valuable than
truth. And I call on every reader who really loves the Church
of England to recognize the dangers of the times, and to do his
duty, manfully and energetically, in resisting them by united
action and by prayer. It was not for nothing that our Lord
said, "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy
one." (Luke xxii. 36.) Let us not forget St. Paul s words,
390 KNOTS UNTIED.
" Watch ye : stand fast in the faith. Quit you like men : be
strong." (1 Cor. xvi. 13.) Our noble Reformers bought the
truth at the price of their own blood, and handed it down to us.
Let us take heed that we do not basely sell it for a mess of
pottage, under the specious names of unity and peace.
II. Secondly, the text shows us an example ice shall do well
to remember, as a beacon : " The serpent beguiled Eve by his
subtilty."
I need hardly remind my readers that St. Paul in this place
refers to the story of the fall in the third chapter of Genesis, as
a simple historical fact. He does not afford the least counten
ance to the modern notion that the book of Genesis is nothing
more than a pleasing collection of myths and fables. He does
not hint that there is no such being as the devil, and that there
was not any literal eating of the forbidden fruit, and that it
was not really in this way that sin entered into the world. On
the contrary, he narrates the story of the third of Genesis as a
veracious history of a thing that really took place.
You should remember, moreover, that this reference does not
stand alone. It is a noteworthy fact that several of the most
remarkable histories and miracles of the Pentateuch are expressly
mentioned in the New Testament, and always as historical
facts. Cain and Abel, Noah s ark, the destruction of Sodom,
Esau s selling his birthright, the destruction of the first-born in
Egypt, the passage of the Red Sea, the brazen serpent, the
manna, the water flowing from the rock, Balaam s ass speaking,
all these things are named by the writers of the New Testa
ment, and named as matters of fact and not as fables. Let
that never be forgotten. Those who are fond of pouring
contempt on Old Testament miracles, and making light of the
authority of the Pentateuch, would do well to consider whether
they know better than our Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles.
To my mind, to talk of Genesis as a collection of myths and
fables, in the face of such a text of Scripture as we have before
us in this paper, sounds alike unreasonable and profane. Was
St. Paul mistaken or not, when he narrated the story of the
temptation and the fall? If he was, he was a weak-minded,
credulous person, and may have been mistaken on fifty other
subjects. At this rate there is an end of all his authority as a
APOSTOLIC FEARS. 391
writer ! From such a monstrous conclusion we may well tuin
away with scorn. But it is well to remember that much
infidelity begins with irreverent contempt of the Old Testa
ment.
The point, after all, which the Apostle would have us mark
in the history of Eve s fall, is the " subtilty " with which the
devil led her into sin. He did not tell her flatly that he
wished to deceive her and do her harm. On the contrary, he
told her that the thing forbidden was a thing that was " good
for food, and pleasant to the eyes, and to be desired to make one
wise." (Gen. iii. 6.) He did not scruple to assert that she
might eat the forbidden fruit and yet " not die." He blinded
her eyes to the sinfulness and danger of transgression. He
persuaded her to believe that to depart from God s plain com
mand was for her benefit and not for her ruin. In short, " he
beguiled her by his subtilty."
Now this "subtilty," St. Paul tells us, is precisely what we
have to fear in false doctrine. We are not to expect it to
approach our minds in the garment of error, but in the form of
truth. Bad coin would never obtain currency if it had not
some likeness to good. The wolf would seldom get into the
fold if he did not enter it in sheep s clothing. Popery and
infidelity would do little harm if they went about the world
under their true names. Satan is far too wise a general to
manage a campaign in such a fashion as this. He employs
fine words and high-sounding phrases, such as "Catholicity,
Apostolicity, Unity, Church order, sound Church views, free
thought, broad sense, kindly judgment, liberal interpretation of
Scripture," and the like, and thus effects a lodgment in unwary
minds. And this is precisely the "subtilty" which St. Paul
refers to in the text. We need not doubt that he had read his
Master s solemn words in the Sermon on the Mount : " Beware
of false prophets, which come to you in sheep s clothing, but
inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matt. vii. 15.)
I ask your special attention to this point. Such is the sim
plicity and innocence of many Churchmen in this day, that they
actually expect false doctrine to .look false, and will not under
stand that the very essence of its mischievousness, as a rule, is
its resemblance to God s truth. A young Churchman, for
instance, brought up from his cradle to hear nothing but Evan-
392 KNOTS UNTIED.
gelical teaching, is suddenly invited some day to hear a sermon
preached by some eminent teacher of semi-Romish, or semi-
sceptical opinions. He goes into the church, expecting in his
simplicity to hear nothing but heresy from the beginning to the
end. To his amazement he hears a clever, eloquent sermon,
containing a vast amount of truth, and only a few homoeopathic
drops of error. Too often a violent reaction takes place in his
simple, innocent, unsuspicious mind. He begins to think his
former teachers were illiberal, narrow, and uncharitable, and
his confidence in them is shaken, perhaps for ever. Too often,
alas ! it ends with his entire perversion, and at last he is
enrolled in the ranks of the Ritualists or the Broad Church
men ! And what is the history of the whole case 1 Why, a
foolish forgetfulness of the lesson St. Paul puts forward in this
text. "As the serpent beguiled Eve by his subtilty," so Satan
beguiles unwary souls in the nineteenth century by approach
ing them under the garb of truth.
I beseech every reader of this paper to remember this part of
my subject, and to stand upon his guard. What more common
than to hear it said of some false teacher in this day, " He is
so good, so devoted, so kind, so zealous, so laborious, so humble,
so self-denying, so charitable, so earnest, so fervent, so clever,
so evidently sincere, there can be no danger and no harm in
hearing him. Besides, he preaches so much real Gospel : no
one can preach a better sermon than he does sometimes ! I
never can and never will believe he is unsound." Who does
not hear continually such talk as this ? What discerning eye
can fail to see that many Churchmen expect unsound teachers
to be open vendors of poison, and cannot realize that they often
appear as "angels of light," and are far too wise to be always
saying all they think, and showing their whole hand and mind.
But so it is. Never was it so needful to remember the words,
"The serpent beguiled Eve by his subtilty."
I leave this part of my subject with the sorrowful remark
that we have fallen upon times when siispicum on the subject
of sound doctrine is not only a duty but a virtue. It is not
the avowed Pharisee and Sadducee that we have to fear, but
the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. It is the "show of
wisdom " with which Ritualism is invested that makes it so
dangerous to many minds. (Col. ii. 23.) It seems so good,
APOSTOLIC FEARS. 393
and fair, and zealous, and holy, and reverential, and devout, and
kind, that it carries away many well-meaning people like a
flood. He that would be safe must cultivate the spirit of a
sentinel at a critical post. He must not mind being laughed at
and ridiculed, as one who "has a keen nose for heresy." In
days like these he must not be ashamed to suspect danger. And
if any one scoffs at him for so doing, he may well be content to
reply, "The serpent beguiled Eve by his subtilty."
III. The third and last lesson of the text remains yet to be
considered. It shows us a point about which ice ought to be
especially on our guard. That point is called " The simplicity
that is in Christ."
Now the expression before us is somewhat remarkable, and
stands alone in the New Testament. One thing at any rate is
abundantly clear : the word simplicity means that which is
single and unmixed, in contradistinction to that which is mixed
and double. Following out that idea, some have held that the
expression means "singleness of affection towards Christ ;"-
we are to fear lest we should divide our affections between
Christ and any other. This is no doubt very good theology ;
but I question whether it is the true sense of the text.
I prefer the opinion that the expression means the simple,
unmixed, unadulterated, unaltered doctrine of Christ, the
simple " truth as it is in Jesus," on all points, without addi
tion, subtraction, or substitution. Departure from the simple
genuine prescription of the Gospel, either by leaving out any
part or adding any part, was the thing St. Paul would have the
Corinthians specially dread. The expression is full of meaning,
and seems specially written for our learning in these last days.
We are to be ever jealously on our guard, lest we depart from
and corrupt the simple Gospel which Christ once delivered to
the saints.
The expression before us is exceedingly instructive. The
principle it contains is of unspeakable importance. If we love
our souls and would keep them in a healthy state, we must
endeavour to adhere closely to the simple doctrine of Clirist, in
every jot, tittle, and particular. Once add to it or take away
anything from it, and you risk spoiling the Divine medicine,
and may even turn it into poison. Let your ruling principle
394 KNOTS UNTIED.
be, " No other doctrine but that of Christ ; nothing less, and
nothing more ! " Lay firm hold on that principle, and never
let it go. Write it on the table of your heart, and never
forget it.
(1) Let us settle it, for example, firmly in our minds, that
there is no way of peace but the simple way marked out by
Christ. True rest of conscience and inward peace of soul will
never come from anything but direct faith in Christ Himself
and His finished work. Peace by auricular confession, or
bodily asceticism, or incessant attendance at Church services, or
frequent reception of the Lord s Supper, is a delusion and a
snare. It is only by coming straight to Jesus Himself, labour
ing and heavy laden, and by believing, trusting communion
with Him, that souls find rest. In this matter let iis stand fast
in " the simplicity that is in Christ."
(2) Let us settle it next in our minds that there is no other
priest who can be in any way a Mediator between yourself and
God but Jesus Christ. He Himself has said, and His word
shall not pass away, "No man cometh unto the Father but
by Me." (John xiv. 6.) No sinful child of Adam, whatever
be his orders, and however high his ecclesiastical title, can ever
occupy Christ s place, or do what Christ alone is appointed to
do. The priesthood is Christ s peculiar office, and it is one
which He has never deputed to another. In this matter also
let us stand fast in "the simplicity that is in Christ."
(3) Let us settle it next in our minds that there is no sacri
fice for sin except the one sacrifice of Christ upon the cross.
Listen not for a moment to those who tell you that there is
any sacrifice in the Lord s Supper, any repetition of Christ s
offering on the cross, or any oblation of His body and blood,
under the form of consecrated bread and wine. The one sacri
fice for sins which Christ offered was a perfect and complete
sacrifice, and it is nothing short of blasphemy to attempt to
repeat it. "By one offering He has perfected for ever them
that are sanctified." (Heb. x. 14.) In this matter also let us
stand fast in the "simplicity that is in Christ."
(4) Let us settle it next in our minds that there is no other
rule of faith, and judge of controversies, but that simple one to
which Christ always referred, the written Word of God. Let
no man disturb our souls by such vague expressions as " the
APOSTOLIC FEARS. 395
voice of the Church, primitive antiquity, the judgment of the
early Fathers," and the like tall talk. Let our only standard
of truth be the Bible, God s Word written. " What saith the
Scripture?" "What is written?" "How readest thou?"
"To the law and the testimony!" "Search the Scriptures."
(Rom. iv. 3; Luke x. 26; Isa. viii. 20; John v. 39.) In this
matter also let us stand fast in the "simplicity that is in
Christ."
(5) Let us settle it next in our minds that there are no other
means of grace in the Church which have any binding authority,
excepting those well-known and simple ones which Christ and
the Apostles have sanctioned. Let us regard with a jealous
suspicion all ceremonies and forms of man s invention, when
they are invested with such exaggerated importance as to thrust
into the background God s own appointments. It is the in
variable tendency of man s inventions to supersede God s
ordinances. Let us beware of making the Word of God of
none effect by human devices. In this matter also let us stand
fast in the " simplicity that is in Christ.
(6) Let us settle it next in our minds that no teaching about
the sacraments is sound which gives them a power of which
Christ says nothing. Let us beware of admitting that either
baptism or the Lord s Supper can confer grace "ex opere
operato" that is, by their mere outward administration, inde
pendently of the state of heart of those who receive them. Let
us remember that the only proof that baptized people and
communicants have grace, is the exhibition of grace in their
lives. The fruits of the Spirit are the only evidences that we
are born of the Spirit and one with Christ, and not the mere
reception of the sacraments. In this matter also let us stand
fast in the "simplicity that is in Christ."
(7) Let us settle it next in our minds that no teaching about
the Holy Ghost is safe which cannot be reconciled with the
simple teaching of Christ. They are not to be heard who assert
that the Holy Ghost actually dwells in all baptized people,
without exception, by virtue of their baptism, and that this
grace within such people only needs to be "stirred up." The
simple teaching of our Lord is, that He dwells only in those who
are His believing disciples, and that the world neither knows,
nor sees, nor can receive the Holy Spirit. (John xiv. 17.)
396 KNOTS UNTIED.
His indwelling is the special privilege of Christ s people, and
where He is He will be seen. On this point also let us stand
fast in the " simplicity that is in Christ."
(8) Finally, let us settle it in our minds that no teaching can
be thoroughly sound, in which truth is not set forth in the
proportion of Clirist and the Apostles. Let us beware of any
teaching in which the main thing is an incessant exaltation of
the Church, the ministry, or the sacraments, while such grand
verities as repentance, faith, conversion, holiness, are comparat
ively left in a subordinate and inferior place. Place such
teaching side by side with the teaching of the Gospels, Acts,
and Epistles. Count up texts. Make a calculation. Mark
how little comparatively is said in the New Testament about
baptism, the Lord s Supper, the Church, and the ministry ; and
then judge for yourself what is the proportion of truth. In this
matter also, I say once more, let us stand fast in the " simplicity
that is in Christ."
The simple doctrine and rule of Christ, then nothing added,
nothing taken away, nothing substituted this is the mark at
which we ought to aim. This is the point from which depart
ure ought to be dreaded. Can we improve on His teaching 1
Are we wiser than He 1 Can we suppose that He left anything
of real vital importance unwritten, or liable to the vague reports
of human traditions ? Shall we take on ourselves to say that
we can mend or change for the better any ordinance of His
appointment 1 Can we doubt that in matters about which He
is silent we have need to act very cautiously, very gently, very
moderately, and must beware of pressing them on those who do
not see with our eyes ? Above all, must we not beware of
asserting anything to be needful to salvation of which Christ
has said nothing at all 1 I only see one answer to such ques
tions as these. We must beware of anything which has even the
appearance of departure from the " simplicity that is in Christ."
The plain truth is that we cannot sufficiently exalt the Lord
Jesus Christ as the great Head of the Church, and Lord of all
ordinances, no less than as the Saviour of sinners. I take it we
all fail here. We do not realize how high and great and glorious
a King the Son of God is, and what undivided loyalty we owe
to One who has not deputed any of His offices, or given His
glory to another. The solemn words which John Owen
APOSTOLIC FEARS. 30 7
addressed to the House of Commons, in a sermon on the
"Greatness of Christ," deserve to be remembered. I fear the
House of Commons hears few such sermons in the present day.
" Christ is the ivay : men without Him are Cains, wanderers,
vagabonds. He is the truth : men without Him are liars, like
the devil of old. He is the life : men without Him are dead in
trespasses and sins. He is the lif/ht : men without Him are in
darkness, and go they know not whither. He is the vine : men
that are not in Him are withered branches prepared for the fire.
He is the rock : men not built on Him are carried away with a
flood. He is the Alpha and Oinn/a, the first and the last, the
author and ender, the founder and finisher of our salvation.
He that hath not Him hath neither beginning of good nor shall
have end of misery. Oh, blessed Jesus, how much better were
it not to be than to be without Thee ! never to be born than
not to die in Thee ! A thousand hells come short of this,
eternally to want Jesus Christ." This witness is true. If
we can say Amen to the spirit of this passage it will be well with
our souls.
And now let me conclude this paper by offering a few part
ing words of counsel to any one into whose hands it may fall.
I offer them not as one who has any authority, but one who is
affectionately desirous to do good to his brethren. I offer them
especially to all who are members of the Church of England,
though I believe they will be found useful by all English
Christians. And I offer them as counsels which I find helpful
to my own soul, and as such I venture to think they will be
helpful to others.
(1) In the first place, if we would be kept from falling away
into false doctrine, let us arm our minds with a thorough knoiv-
ledya of God s Word. Let us read our Bibles from beginning
to end with daily diligence, and constant prayer for the teaching
of the Holy Spirit, and so strive to become thoroughly familiar
with their contents. Ignorance of the Bible is the root of all
error, and a superficial acquaintance with it accounts for many
of the sad perversions and defections of the present day. In
a hurrying age of railways and telegraphs, I am firmly per
suaded that many Christians do not give time enough to private
reading of the Scriptures. I doubt seriously whether English
398 KNOTS UNTIED.
people did not know their Bibles better two hundred years ago
than they do now. The consequence is, that they are "tossed to
and fro by, and carried about with, every wind of doctrine," and
fall an easy prey to the first clever teacher of error who tries to
influence their minds. I entreat my readers to remember this
counsel, and take heed to their ways. It is as true now as
ever, that the good textuary is the only good theologian, and
that a familiarity with great leading texts is, as our Lord proved
in the temptation, one of the best safe-guards against error.
Arm yourself then with the sword of the Spirit, and let your
hand become used to it. I am well aware that there is no royal
road to Bible knowledge. Without diligence and pains no one
ever becomes "mighty in the Scriptures." "Justification,"
said Charles Simeon, with his characteristic quaintness, "is by
faith, but knowledge of the Bible comes by works." But of
one thing I am certain : there is no labour which will be so
richly repaid as laborious regular daily study of God s Word.
(2) In the second place, if we would keep a straight path, as
Churchmen, in this evil day, let us be thoroughly acquainted
with the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. Those
Articles, I am bold to say, are the authorized Confession of the
Church of England, and the true test by which the teaching of
every clergyman ought to be tried. The "teaching of the
Prayer-book" is a common phrase in many mouths, and the
Prayer-book is often held up as a better standard of Church-
manship than the Articles. But I venture to assert that the
Articles, and not the Prayer-book, are the Church s standard of
Church doctrine. Let no one suppose that I think lightly of
the Prayer-book, because I say this. In loyal love to the
Liturgy, and deep admiration of its contents, I give place to no
man. Taken for all in all, it is an incomparable book of
devotion for the use of a Christian congregation. But the
Church s Prayer-book was never meant to be the Church s fixed
standard of Bible doctrine, in the same way that the Articles
are. This was not meant to be its office : this was not the
purpose for which it was compiled. It is a manual of devotion ;
it is not a Confession of faith. Let us value it highly ; but let
us not exalt it to the place which the Articles alone can fill, and
which common sense, statute law, and the express opinion of
eminent divines agree in assigning to them.
APOSTOLIC FEARS. 399
I entreat every reader of this paper to search the Articles, and
to keep up familiar acquaintance with them by reading them
carefully at least once a year. Settle it in your mind that no
man has a right to call himself a sound Churchman who
preaches, teaches, or maintains anything contrary to the
Church s Confession of faith. I believe the Articles in this day
are unduly neglected. I think it would be well if in all middle-
class schools connected with the Church of England, they
formed a part of the regular system of religious instruction.
Like the famous Westminster Confession in Scotland, they
would be found a mighty barrier against the tendency to return
to Rome.
(3) The third and last counsel which 1 venture to offer is
this : Let us make ourselves thoroughly acquainted icith the
history of the English Reformation. My reason for offering
this counsel is my firm conviction that this highly important
part of English history has of late years been undeservedly
neglected. Thousands of Churchmen now-a-days have a most
inadequate notion of the amount of our debt to our martyred
Reformers. They have no distinct conception of the state of
darkness and superstition in which our fathers lived, and of the
light and liberty which the Reformation brought in. And the
consequence is that they see no great harm in the Romanizing
movement of the present day, and have very indistinct ideas
of the real nature and work of Popery. It is high time that
a better state of things should begin. Of one thing I am
thoroughly convinced : a vast amount of the prevailing apathy
about the Romanizing movement of the day may be traced up
to gross ignorance, both of the true nature of Popery and of the
Protestant Reformation.
Ignorance, after all, is one of the best friends of false
doctrine. More light is one of the great wants of the day, even
in the nineteenth century. Thousands are led astray by Popery
or infidelity from sheer want of reading and information. Once
more I repeat, if men would only study with attention the
Bible, the Articles, and the History of the Reformation, I
should have little fear of their " minds being corrupted from
the simplicity that is in Christ." They might not, perhaps
be "converted" to God, but at any rate they would not be
" perverted " from the Church of England.
XIX.
IDOLATRY.
" Flee from idolatry ." 1 COR. x. 14.
THE text which heads this page may seem at first sight to be
hardly needed in England. In an age of education and
intelligence like this, we might almost fancy it is waste of
time to tell an Englishman to " flee from idolatry."
I am bold to say that this is a great mistake. I believe that
we have come to a time when the subject of idolatry demands
a thorough and searching investigation. I believe that idolatry
is near us, and about us, and in the midst of us, to a very
fearful extent. The Second Commandment, in one word, is in
peril. "The plague is begun."
Without further preface, I propose in this paper to consider
the four following points :
I. The definition of idolatry. WHAT is IT ?
II. The cause of idolatry. WHENCE COMES IT ?
III. Tlie form idolatry assumes in the visible Church of
Christ. WHERE is IT?
IV. The ultimate abolition of idolatry. WHAT WILL END IT ?
I feel that the subject is encompassed with many difficulties.
Our lot is cast in an age when truth is constantly in danger of
being sacrificed to toleration, charity, and peace falsely so
called. Nevertheless, I cannot forget, as a clergyman, that the
Church of England is a Church which has "given no uncertain
sound" on the subject of idolatry; and, unless I am greatly
mistaken, truth about idolatry is, in the highest sense, truth for
the times.
I. Let me, then, first of all, supply a definition of idolatry.
Let me show WHAT IT is.
400
IDOLATRY. 401
It is of the utmost importance that we should understand this.
Unless I make this clear, I can do nothing with the subject.
Vagueness and indistinctness prevail upon this point, as upon
almost every other in religion. The Christian who would not be
continually running aground in his spiritual voyage, must have his
channel well buoyed, and his mind well stored with clear definitions.
I say, then, that " idolatry is a worship in which the honour
due to God in Trinity, and to Him only, is given to some of His
creatures, or to some invention of His creatures" It may vary
exceedingly. It may assume exceedingly different forms,
according to the ignorance or the knowledge, the civilization
or the barbarism, of those who offer it. It may be grossly
absurd and ludicrous, or it may closely border on truth, and
admit of being most speciously defended. But whether in the
adoration of the idol of Juggernaut, or in the adoration of the
Host in St. Peter s at Kome, the principle of idolatry is in reality
the same. In either case the honour due to God is turned
aside from Him, and bestowed on that which is not God. And
whenever this is done, whether in heathen temples or in
professedly Christian churches, there is an act of idolatry.
It is not necessary for a man formally to deny God and
Christ, in order to be an idolater. Far from it. Professed
reverence for the God of the Bible, and actual idolatry, are
perfectly compatible. They have often gone side by side, and
they still do so. The children of Israel never thought of
renouncing God when they persuaded Aaron to make the golden
calf. "These be thy gods," they said (thy Eloliim), "which
brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." And the feast in
honour of the calf was kept as " a feast unto the Lord " (Jehovah).
(Exodus xxxii. 4, 5.) Jeroboam, again, never pretended to ask
the ten tribes to cast off their allegiance to the God of David and
Solomon. When he set up the calves of gold in Dan and Bethel,
he only said, " It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem:
behold thy gods, Israel (thy Eloliim), which brought thee up
out of the land of Egypt." (1 Kings xii. 28.) In both
instances, we should observe, the idol was not set up as
a rival to God, but under the pretence of being a help a
stepping-stone to His service. But, in both instances, a great
sin was committed. The honour due to God was given to a
visible representation of Him. The majesty of Jehovah was
2 o
.&02 KNOTS UNTIED.
oifencled. The second commandment was broken. There was,
in the eyes of God, a flagrant act of idolatry.
Let us mark this well. It is high time to dismiss from our
minds those loose ideas about idolatry, which are common in
this day. We must not think, as many do, that there are only
two sorts of idolatry, the spiritual idolatry of the man who
loves his wife, or child, or money more than God ; and the
open, gross idolatry of the man who bows down to an image of
wood, or metal, or stone, because he knows no better. We
may rest assured that idolatry is a sin which occupies a far
wider field than this. It is not merely a thing in Hindostan,
that we may hear of and pity at missionary meetings ; nor yet
is it a thing confined to our own hearts, that we may confess
before the Mercy-seat upon our knees. It is a pestilence that
walks in the Church of Christ to a much greater extent than
many suppose. It is an evil that, like the man of sin, " sits in
the very temple of God." (2 Thess. ii. 4.) It is a sin that we
all need to watch and pray against continually. It creeps into our
religious worship insensibly, and is upon us before We are aware.
Those are tremendous words which Isaiah spoke to the formal
Jew, not to the worshipper of Baal, remember, but to the man
who actually came to the temple (Isa. Ixvi. 3) : " He that killeth
an ox is as if he slew a man ; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he
cut off a dog s neck ; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered
swine s blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol."
This is that sin which God has especially denounced in His
Word. One commandment out of ten is devoted to the pro
hibition of it. Not one of all the ten contains such a solemn
declaration of God s character, and of His judgments against the
disobedient : " I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting
the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and
. fourth generation of them that hate Me. " (Exod. xx. 5.) ]S r ot one,
perhaps, of all the ten is so emphatically repeated and amplified,
and especially in the fourth chapter of the book of Deuteronomy.
This is the sin, of all others, to which the Jews seem to have
been most inclined before the destruction of Solomon s temple.
What is the history of Israel under their judges and kings but
a melancholy record of repeated falling away into idolatry 1
Again and again we read of "high places" and false gods.
Again and again we read of captivities and chastisements on
IDOLATRY. 403
account of idolatry. Again and again we read of a return to the
old sin. It seems as if the love of idols among the Jews was
naturally bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh. The
besetting sin of the Old Testament Church, in one word, wa.s
idolatry. In the face of the most elaborate ceremonial ordinances
that God ever gave to His people, Israel was incessantly turning
aside after idols, and worshipping the work of men s hands.
This is the sin, of all others, which has brought down the
heaviest judgments on the visible Church. It brought on Israel
the armies of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon. It scattered the
ten tribes, burned up Jerusalem, and carried Judah and Benjamin
into captivity. It brought on the Eastern Churches, in later
days, the overwhelming flood of the Saracenic invasion, and
tnirned many a spiritual garden into a wilderness. The desola
tion which reigns where Cyprian and Augustine once preached,
the living death in which the Churches of Asia Minor and Syria
are buried, are all attributable to this sin. All testify to the
same great truth which the Lord proclaims in Isaiah : " My glory
will I not give to another." (Isa. xlii. 8.)
Let us gather up these things in our minds, and ponder them
well. Idolatry is a subject which, in every Church of Christ
that would keep herself pure, should be thoroughly examined,
understood, and known. It is not for nothing that St. Paul lays
down the stern command, "Flee from idolatry."
II. Let me show, in the second place, the cause to which
idolatry may be traced. WHENCE COMES IT 1
To the man Avho takes an extravagant and exalted view of
human intellect and reason, idolatry may seem absurd. He fancies
it too irrational for any but weak minds to be endangered by it.
To a mere superficial thinker about Christianity, the peril of
idolatry may seem very small. Whatever commandments are
broken, such a man will tell us, professing Christians are not
very likely to transgress the second.
Now, both these persons betray a woful ignorance of human
nature. They do not see that there are secret roots of idolatry
within us all. The prevalence of idolatry in all ages among the
heathen must necessarily puzzle the one, the warnings of Protest
ant ministers against idolatry in the Church must necessarily
appear uncalled for to the other. Both are alike blind to its cause.
404 KNOTS UNTIED.
The cause of all idolatry is the natural corruption of man s
heart. That great family disease, with which all the children
of Adam are infected from their birth, shows itself in this, as it
does in a thousand other ways. Out of the same fountain from
which " proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit," and the like (Mark vii.
21, 22), out of that same fountain arise false views of God,
and false views of the worship due to Him; and therefore, when the
Apostle Paul tells the Galatians (Gal. v. 20) what are the "works
of the flesh," he places prominently among them "idolatry."
A religion of some kind man will have. God has not left
Himself without a witness in us all, fallen as we are. Like old
inscriptions hidden under mounds of rubbish, like the almost
obliterated under-writing of Palimpsest manuscripts,* even so
there is a dim something engraven at the bottom of man s heart,
however faint and half -erased, a something which makes him
feel he must have a religion and a worship of some kind. The
proof of this is to be found in the history of voyages and travels
in every part of the globe. The exceptions to the rule are so
few, if indeed there are any, that they only confirm its truth.
Man s worship in some dark corner of the earth may rise no
higher than a vague fear of an evil spirit, and a desire to pro
pitiate him ; but a worship of some kind man will have.
But then comes in the effect of the fall. Ignorance of God,
carnal and low conceptions of His nature and attributes, earthly
and sensual notions of the service which is acceptable to Him,
all characterize the religion of the natural man. There is a
craving in his mind after something he can see, and feel, and
touch in his Divinity. He would fain bring his God down to
his own crawling level. He would make his religion a thing of
sense and sight. He has no idea of the religion of heart, and
faith, and spirit. In short, just as he is willing to live on God s
earth, but, until renewed by grace, a fallen and degraded life,
so he has no objection to worship after a fashion, but, until
* "Palimpsest" is the name given to ancient parchment manuscripts which
have been twice written over, that is, the work of a comparatively modern
writer has been written over or across the work of an older writer. Before
the invention of cheap paper, the practice of so writing over an old manuscript
was not uncommon. The object of the practice, of course, was to save
expense. The misfortune was that the second writing was often far less
valuable than the first.
IDOLATRY. 405
renewed by the Holy Ghost, it is always with a fallen worship.
In one word, idolatry is a natural product of man s heart. It is
a weed which, like the earth uncultivated, the heart is always
ready to bring forth.
And now does it surprise us, when we read of the constantly
recurring idolatries of the Old Testament Church, of Poor, and
Baal, and Moloch, and Chemosh, and Ashtaroth, of high places
and hill altars, and groves and images, and this in the full
light of the Mosaic ceremonial 1 Let us cease to be surprised.
It can be accounted for. There is a cause.
Does it surprise us when we read in history how idolatry
crept in by degrees into the Church of Christ, how little by
little it thrust out Gospel truth, until, in Canterbury, men offered
more at the shrine of Thomas a Becket than they did at that
of the Virgin Mary, and more at that of the Virgin Mary than
at that of Christ 1 ? Let us cease to be surprised. It is all
intelligible. There is a cause.
Does it surprise us when we hear of men going over from
Protestant Churches to the Church of Rome, in the present day ?
Do we think it unaccountable, and feel as if we ourselves could
never forsake a pure form of worship for one like that of the
Pope ? Let us cease to be surprised. There is a solution for
the problem. There is a cause.
That cause is nothing else but the deep corruption of man s
heart. There is a natural proneness and tendency in us all to
give God a sensual, carnal worship, and not that which is com
manded in His Word. We are ever ready, by reason of our
sloth and unbelief, to devise visible helps and stepping-stones in
our approaches to Him, and ultimately to give these inventions
of our own the honour due to Him. In fact, idolatry is all
natural, down-hill, easy, like the broad way. Spiritual worship
is all of grace, all uphill, and all against the grain. Any worship
whatsoever is more pleasing to the natural heart, than worship
ping God in the way which our Lord Christ describes, "in spirit
and in truth." (John iv. 23.)
I, for one, am not surprised at the quantity of idolatry exist
ing, both in the world and in the visible Church. I believe it
perfectly possible that we may yet live to see far more of it than
some have ever dreamed of. It would never surprise me if some
mighty personal Antichrist were to arise before the end, mighty
406 KNOTS UNTIED.
in intellect, mighty in talents for government, aye, and mighty,
perhaps, in miraculous gifts too. It would never surprise me to
see such an one as him setting up himself in opposition to
Christ, and forming an infidel conspiracy and combination
against the Gospel. I believe that many would rejoice to do
him honour, who now glory in saying, " We will not have this
Christ to reign over us." I believe that many would make a
god of him, and reverence him as an incarnation of truth, and
concentrate their idea of hero-worship on his person. I advance
it as a possibility, and no more. But of this at least I am
certain, that no man is less safe from danger of idolatry than
the man who now sneers at every form of religion ; and that from
infidelity to credulity, from atheism to the grossest idolatry,
there is but a single step. Let us not think, at all events, that
idolatry is an old-fashioned sin, into which we are never likely
to fall. " Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he
fall." We shall do well to look into our own hearts : the seeds
of idolatry are all there. We should remember the words of St.
Paul : " Flee from idolatry."
III. Let me show, in the third place, the forms ivhich idolatry
has assumed, and does assume, in the visible Church, WHERE
is IT?
I believe there never was a more baseless fabric than the
theory which obtains favour with many, that the promises of
perpetuity and preservation from apostacy, belong to the visible
Church of Christ. It is a theory supported neither by Scrip
ture nor by facts. The Church against which "the gates of
hell shall never prevail," is not the visible Church, but the
whole body of the elect, the company of true believers out
of every nation and people. The greater part of the visible
Church has frequently maintained gross heresies. The particular
branches of it are never secure against deadly error, both of
faith and practice. A departure from the faith, a falling away,
a leaving of first love in any branch of the visible Church,
need never surprise a careful reader of the New Testament.
That idolatry would arise, seems to have been the expecta
tion of the Apostles, even before the canon of the New Testa
ment was closed. It is remarkable to observe how St. Paul
dwells on this subject in his Epistle to the Corinthians. If
IDOLATRY. 407
any Corinthian called a brother was an idolator, with such an
one the members of the Church " were not to eat." (1 Cor. v.
11.) "Neither be ye idolators, as were some of our fathers."
(1 Cor. x. 7.) He says again, in the text which heads this
paper, "My dearly beloved, flee from idolatry." (1 Cor. x. 14.)
When he writes to the Colossians, he warns them against
" worshipping of angels." (Col. ii. 18.) And St. John closes
his first Epistle with the solemn injunction, " Little children,
keep yourselves from idols." (1 John v. 21.) It is impossible not
to feel that all these passages imply an expectation that idolatry
would arise, and that soon, among professing Christians.
The famous prophecy in the fourth chapter of the first
Epistle to Timothy contains a passage which is even more
directly to the point : " The Spirit speaketh expressly, that in
the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to
seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils." (1 Tim. iv. 1.) I
will not detain my readers with any lengthy discussion of that
remarkable expression, "doctrines of devils." It may be
sufficient to say that our excellent translators of the Bible are
considered for once to have missed the full meaning of the
Apostle, in their rendering of the word translated as " devils "
in our version, and that the true meaning of the expression is,
" doctrines about departed spirits." And in this view, which,
I may as well say, is maintained by all those who have the best
right to be heard on such a question, the passage becomes a
direct prediction of the rise of that most specious form of
idolatry, the worship of dead saints. (See Mode s Works.)
The last passage I will call attention to, is the conclusion
of the ninth chapter of Revelation. We there read, at the
twentieth verse : " The rest of the men which were not killed -
by these plagues, yet repented not of the works of their hands,
that they should not worship devils " (this is the same word,
we should observe, as that in the Epistle to Timothy just
quoted), "and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone,
and wood : which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk." Xow,
I am not going to offer any comment on the chapter in which
this verse occurs. I know well there is a difference of opinion
as to the true interpretation of the plagues predicted in it. I
only venture to assert that it is the highest probability these
plagues are to fall upon the visible Church of Christ ; and the
408 KNOTS UNTIED.
highest improbability that St. John was here prophesying about
the heathen, who never heard the Gospel. And this once
conceded, the fact that idolatry is a predicted sin of the
visible Church, does seem most conclusively and for ever
established.
And now, if we turn from the Bible to facts, what do we
see 1 I reply unhesitatingly, that there is unmistakable proof
that Scripture warnings and predictions were not spoken with
out cause, and that idolatry has actually arisen in the visible
Church of Christ, and does still exist.
The rise and progress of the evil in former days, we shall
find well summed up in the Homily of the Church of England
on " Peril of Idolatry." To that Homily I beg to refer all Church
men, reminding them once for all, that in the judgment of the
Thirty-nine Articles, the Book of Homilies " contains a godly
and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times." There
we read, how, even in the FOURTH CENTURY, Jerome complains
"that the errors of images have come in, and passed to the
Christians from the Gentiles ; " and Eusebius says, "We do see
that images of Peter and Paul, and of our Saviour Himself, be
made, and tables be painted, which I think to have been
derived and kept indifferently by an heathenish custom."
There we may read how " Pontius Paulinus, Bishop of Nola,
in the fifth centwy, caused the walls of the temples to be
painted with stories taken out of the Old Testament ; that the
people beholding and considering these pictures, might the
better abstain from too much surfeiting and riot. But from
learning by painted stories, it came by little and little to
idolatry." There we may read how Gregory the First, Bishop
of Eome, in the beginning of the seventh century, did allow the
free having of images in churches. There we may read how
Irene, mother of Constantino the Sixth, in the eighth century,
assembled a Council at Mcsea, and procured a decree that
"images should be put up in all the churches of Greece, and
that honour and worship should be given to the said images."
And there we may read the conclusion with which the Homily
winds up its historical summary, "that laity and clergy,
learned and unlearned, all ages, sorts, and degrees of men,
women, and children of whole Christendom, have been at once
drowned in abominable idolatry, of all other vices most detested
IDOLATRY. 409
of God, and most damnable to man, and that by the space of
800 years and more."
This is a mournful account, but it is only too true. There
can be little doubt the evil began even before the time just
mentioned by the Homily writers. No man, I think, need
wonder at the rise of idolatry in the Primitive Church, who
considers calmly the excessive reverence which it paid, from the
very first, to the visible parts of religion. I believe that no
impartial man can read the language used by nearly all the
Fathers about the Church, the bishops, the ministry, baptism,
the Lord s Supper, the martyrs, the dead saints generally, no
man can read it without being struck with the wide difference
between their language and the language of Scripture on such
subjects. You seem at once to be in a new atmosphere. You
feel that you are no longer treading on holy ground. You find
that things which in the Bible are evidently of second-rate
importance, are here made of first-rate importance. You find
the things of sense and sight exalted to a position in which
Paul, and Peter, and James, and John, speaking by the Holy
Ghost, never for a moment placed them. It is not merely the
weakness of uninspired writings that you have to complain of ;
it is something worse : it is a new system. And what is the
explanation of all this 1 It is, in one word, that you have got
into a region where the malaria of idolatry has begun to arise.
You perceive the first workings of the mystery of iniquity. You
detect the buds of that huge system of idolatry which, as the
Homily describes, was afterwards formally acknowledged, and
ultimately blossomed so luxuriantly in every part of Christen
dom.
But let us now turn from the past to the present. Let us
examine the question which most concerns ourselves. Let us
consider in what form idolatry presents itself to us as a sin of
the visible Church of Christ in our own time.
I find no difficulty in answering this question. I feel no
hesitation in affirming that idolatry never yet assumed a more
glaring form than it does in the Clmrcli of Rome at this present
day.
And here I come to a subject on which it is hard to speak,
because of the times we live in. But the whole truth ought to
be spoken by ministers of Christ, without respect of times and
410 KNOTS UNTIED.
prejudices. And I should not lie down in peace, after writing
on idolatry, if I did not declare my solemn conviction that
idolatry is one of the crying sins of which the Church of Koine
is guilty. I say this in all sadness. I say it, acknowledging
fully that we have our faults in the Protestant Church ; and
practically, perhaps, in some quarters, not a little idolatry. But
from formal, recognized, systematic idolatry, I believe we are
almost entirely free. While, as for the Church of Rome, if
there is not in her worship an enormous quantity of systematic,
organized idolatry, I frankly confess I do not know what
idolatry is.
(a) To my mind, it is idolatry to have images and pictures
of saints in churches, and to give them a reverence for which
there is no warrant or precedent in Scripture. And if this be
so, I say there is idolatry in the Church of Rome.
(b) To my mind, it is idolatry to invoke the Virgin Mary
and the saints in glory, and to address them in language never
addressed in Scripture except to the Holy Trinity. And if
this be so, I say there is idolatry in the Church of Rome.
(c) To my mind, it is idolatry to bow down to mere material
things, and attribute to them a power and sanctity far exceeding
that attached to the ark or altar of the Old Testament dispen
sation ; and a power and sanctity, too, for which there is not a
tittle of foundation in the Word of God. And if this be so
with the holy coat of Treves, and the wonderfully-multiplied
wood of the true cross, and a thousand other so-called relics in
my mind s eye, I say there is idolatry in the Church of Home.
(d) To my mind, it is idolatry to worship that which man s
hands have made, to call it God, and adore it when lifted up
before our eyes. And if this be so, with the notorious doctrine
of transubstantiation, and the elevation of the Host in my recol
lection, I say there is idolatry in the CJiurcli of Rome.
(e) To my mind, it is idolatry to make ordained men mediators
between ourselves and God, robbing, as it were, our Lord Christ
of His office, and giving them an honour which even Apostles
and angels in Scripture flatly repudiate. And if this be so,
with the honour paid to Popes and Priests before my eyes, I
say there is idolatry in the Church of Rome.
I know well that language like this jars the minds of many.
Men love to shut their eyes against evils which it is disagreeable
IDOLATKY. 411
to allow. They will not see things which involve unpleasant
consequences. That the Church of Rome is an erring Church,
they will acknowledge. That she is idolatrous, they will deny.
They tell us that the reverence which the Romish Church
gives to saints and images does not amount to idolatry. They
inform us that there are distinctions between the worship of
"latria" and "dulia," between a mediation of redemption, and
a mediation of intercession, which clear her of the charge. My
answer is, that the Bible knows nothing of such distinctions ;
and that, in the actual practice of the great bulk of Roman
Catholics, they have no existence at all.*
They tell us, that it is a mistake to suppose that Roman
Catholics really worship the images and pictures before which
they perform acts of adoration; that they only use them as
helps to devotion, and in reality look far beyond them. My
answer is, that many a heathen could say just as much for his
idolatry; that it is notorious, in former days, that they did
say so ; and that in Hindostan many idol-worshippers do say so
at the present day. But the apology does not avail. The terms
of the second commandment are too stringent. It prohibits
lowing down, as well as worshipping. And the very anxiety
which the Church of Rome has often displayed to exclude that
second commandment from her catechisms, is of itself a great
fact which speaks volumes to a candid observer.
They tell us that we have no evidence for the assertions we
make on this subject ; that we found our charges on the abuses
which prevail among the ignorant members of the Romish
communion ; and that it is absurd to say that a Church con
taining so many wise and learned men, is guilty of idolatry.
My answer is, that the devotional books in common use among
Roman Catholics supply us with unmistakable evidence. Let any
one examine that notorious book, The Garden of the Soul, if he
doubts my assertion, and read the language there addressed to
the Virgin Mary. Let him remember that this language is
addressed to a woman who, though highly favoured, and the
mother of our Lord, was yet one of our fellow-sinners, to a
"Latria" and " dulia" are two Greek words, both meaning " worship "
or "service," but the former being a much stronger word than the latter.
The Roman Catholic admits that the worship of " latria" may not be given
to saints, but maintains that " dulia" may be given.
412 KNOTS UNTIED.
woman who actually confesses her need of a Savour for herself.
She says, "My spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour."
(Luke i. 47.) Let him examine this language in the light of
the New Testament, and then let him tell us fairly whether
the charge of idolatry is not fully made out. But I answer,
beside this, that we want no better evidence than that which
is supplied in the city of Eome itself. What do men and
women do under the light of the Pope s own countenance?
What is the religion that prevails around St. Peter s and under
the walls of the Vatican 1 ? What is Eomanism at Rome,
unfettered, unshackled, and free to develope itself in full per
fection 1 Let a man honestly answer these questions, and I ask
no more. Let him read such a book as Seymour s Pilgrimage
to Home, or Alford s Letters, and ask any visitor to Kome
if the picture is too highly coloured. Let him do this, I say,
and I believe he cannot avoid the conclusion that Romanism
in perfection is a gigantic system of Church-worship, sacrament-
worship, Mary-worship, saint-worship, image -worship, relic-
worship, and priest-worship, that it is, in one word, a huge
organized idolatry.
I know how painful these things sound to many ears. To
me it is no pleasure to dwell on the shortcomings of any who
profess and call themselves Christians. I can say truly that I
have said what I have said with pain and sorrow.
I draw a wide distinction between the accredited dogmas of
the Church of Rome and the private opinions of many of her
members. I believe and hope that many a Roman Catholic is
in heart inconsistent with his profession, and is better than the
Church to which he belongs. I cannot forget the Jansenists,
and Quesnel, and Martin Boos. I believe that many a poor
Italian at this day is worshipping with an idolatrous worship,
simply because he knows no better. He has no Bible to instruct
him. He has no faithful minister to teach him. He has the
fear of the priest before his eyes, if he dares to think for him
self. He has no money to enable him to get away from the
bondage he lives under, even if he feels a desire. I remember
all this; and I say that the Italian eminently deserves our
sympathy and compassion. But all this must not prevent my
saying that the Church of Rome is an idolatrous Church.
I should not be faithful if I said less. The Church of which
IDOLATRY. 413
I am a minister lias spoken out most strongly on the subject.
The Homily on "Peril of Idolatry," and the solemn protest
following the Kubrics at the end of our Prayer-book Communion
Service, which denounces the adoration of the sacramental
bread and wine as "idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful
Christians," are plain evidence that I have said no more than
the mind of my own Church. And in a day like this, when
some are disposed to secede to the Church of Rome, and many
are shutting their eyes to her real character, and wanting us to
be reunited to her, in a day like this, my own conscience
would rebuke me if I did not warn men plainly that the Church
of Rome is an idolatrous Church, and that if they will join her
they are "joining themselves to idols."
But I may not dwell longer on this part of my subject.
The main point I wish to impress on men s minds is this, that
idolatry has decidedly manifested itself in the visible Church
of Christ, and nowhere so decidedly as in the Church of Rome.
IV. And now let me show, in the last place, the ultimate
abolition of all idolatry. WHAT WILL END IT 1
I consider that man s soul must be in an unhealthy state
who does not long for the time when idolatry shall be no more.
That heart can hardly be right with God which can think of the
millions who are sunk in heathenism, or honour the false
prophet Mahomet, or daily offer up prayers to the Virgin Mary,
and not cry, "0 my God, what shall be the end of these
things ? How long, Lord, how long 1 "
Here, as in other subjects, the sure word of prophecy comes
in to our aid. The end of all idolatry shall one day come. Its
doom is fixed. Its overthrow is certain. Whether in heathen
temples, or in so-called Christian churches, idolatry shall be
destroyed at the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Then shall be fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, " The idols
He shall utterly abolish." (Isa. ii. 18.) Then shall be fulfilled
the words of Micah (v. 13) : " Their graven images also will I
cut off, and their standing images out of the midst of thee, and
thou shalt no more worship the work of thine hands." Then
shall be fulfilled the prophecy of Zephaniah (ii. 11): "The
Lord will be terrible unto them : for He will famish all the
gods of the earth ; and men shall worship Him, every one from
414 KNOTS UNTIED.
his place, even all the isles of the heathen." Then shall be
fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah (xiii. 2) : "It shall come to
pass at that day, saith the Lord of hosts, that I will cut off the
names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be
remembered." In a word, the ninety-seventh Psalm shall then
receive its full accomplishment : "The Lordreigneth : let the earth
rejoice \ let the multitude of isles be glad thereof. Clouds and
darkness are round about Him : righteousness and judgment are
the habitation of His throne. A fire goeth before Him, and
burneth up His enemies round about. His lightnings enlightened
the world : the earth saw, and trembled. The hills melted like
wax at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the Lord of
the whole earth. The heavens declare His righteousness, and
all the people see His glory. Confounded be all they that serve
graven images, that boast themselves of idols : worship Him, all
ye gods."
The second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ is that blessed
hope which should ever comfort the children of God under the
present dispensation. It is the pole-star by which we must
journey. It is the one point on which all our expectations
should be concentrated. " Yet a little while, and He that shall
come will come, and will not tarry." (Heb. x. 37.) Our David
shall no longer dwell in Adullam, followed by a despised few,
and rejected by the many. He shall take to Himself His great
power, and reign, and cause every knee to bow before Him.
Till then our redemption is not perfectly enjoyed ; as Paul
tells the Ephesians, " We are sealed unto the day of redemption."
(Eph. iv. 30.) Till then our salvation is not completed; as
Peter says, "We are kept by the power of God through faith
unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." (1 Peter
i. 5.) Till then our knowledge is still defective ; as Paul tells
the Corinthians : " Now we see through a glass darkly ; but
then face to face : now I know in part ; then shall I know even
also as I am known." (1 Cor. xiii. 12.) In short, our best
things are yet to come.
But in the day of our Lord s return every desire shall receive
its full accomplishment. We shall no more be pressed down
and worn out with the sense of constant failure, feebleness, and
disappointment. In His presence we shall find there is a fulness
of joy, if nowhere else ; and when we awake up after His like-
IDOLATRY. 415
ness we shall be satisfied, if we never were before. (Psalm xvi.
11; xvii. 15.)
There are many abominations now in the visible Church,
over which we can only sigh and cry, like the faithful in
Ezekiel s day. (Ezek. ix. 4.) We cannot remove them. The
wheat and the tares will grow together until the harvest. But
a day comes when the Lord Jesus shall once more purify His
temple, and cast forth everything that denies. He shall do
that work of which the doings of Hezekiah and Josiah were a
faint type long ago. He shall cast forth the images, and purge
out idolatry in every shape.
Who is there now that longs for the conversion of the heathen
world? You will not see it in its fulness until the Lord s
appearing. Then, and not till then, will that often-misapplied
text be fulfilled : "A man shall cast his idols of silver, and his
idols of gold, which they made each one for himself to worship,
to the moles and to the bats." (Isa. ii. 20.)
Who is there now that longs for the redemption of Israel 1
You will never see it in its perfection till the Redeemer comes
to Zion. Idolatry in the professing Church of Christ has been
one of the mightiest stumbling-blocks in the Jew s way. When
it begins to fall, the veil over the heart of Israel shall begin to
be taken away. (Psalm cii. 16.)
Who is there now that longs for the fall of Antichrist, and
the purification of the Church of Rome ? I believe that will
never be until the winding up of this dispensation. That vast
system of idolatry may be consumed and wasted by the Spirit
of the Lord s mouth, but it shall never be destroyed excepting
by the brightness of His coming. (2 Thess. ii. 8.)
Who is there now that longs for a perfect Church a Church
in which there shall not be the slightest taint of idolatry 1 You
must wait for the Lord s return. Then, and not till then, shall
we see a perfect Church, a Church having neither spot nor
wrinkle, nor any such thing (Eph. v. 27), a Church of which
all the members shall be regenerate, and every one a child
of God.
If these things be so, men need not wonder that we urge on
them the study of prophecy, and that we charge them above all
to grasp firmly the glorious doctrine of Christ s second appearing
and kingdom. This is the "light shining in a dark place," to
416 KNOTS UNTIED.
which we shall do well to take heed. Let others indulge their
fancy if they will, with the vision of an imaginary " Church of
the future." Let the children of this world dream of some
" coming man," who is to understand everything, and set every
thing right. They are only sowing to themselves bitter disap
pointment. They will awake to find their visions baseless and
empty as a dream. It is to such as these that the Prophet s
words may be well applied : " Behold, all ye that kindle a fire,
that compass yourselves about with sparks : walk in the light of
your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall
ye have of Mine hand ; ye shall lie down in sorrow."
(Isa. 1. 11.)
But let our eyes look right onward to the day of Christ s
second advent. That is the only day when every abuse shall
be rectified, and every corruption and source of sorrow com
pletely purged away. Waiting for that day, let us each work
on and serve our generation ; not idle, as if nothing could be
done to check evil, but not disheartened because we see not yet
all things put under our Lord. After all, the night is far spent,
and the day is at hand. Let us wait, I say, on the Lord.
If these things be so, men need not wonder that we warn
them to beware of all leanings towards the Church of Rome.
Surely, when the mind of God about idolatry is so plainly
revealed to us in His Word, it seems the height of infatuation
in any one to join a Church so steeped in idolatries as the
Church of Rome. To enter into communion with her, when
God is saying, " Come out of her, that ye be not partakers of
her sins, and receive not of her plagues " (Rev. xviii. 4), to
seek her when the Lord is warning us to leave her, to become
her subjects when the Lord s voice is crying, " Escape for thy
life, flee from the wrath to come ; " all this is mental blindness
indeed, a blindness like that of him who, though fore-warned,
embarks in a sinking ship, a blindness which would be almost
incredible, if our own eyes did not see examples of it con
tinually.
We must all be on our guard. We must take nothing for
granted. We must not hastily suppose that we are too wise to
be ensnared, and say, like Hazael, " Is Thy servant a dog, that
he should do this thing ? " Those who preach must cry aloud
and spare not, and allow no false tenderness to make them hold
IDOLATRY. 417
their peace about the heresies of the day. Those who hear must
have their loins girt about with truth, and their minds stored
with clear prophetical views of the end to which all idol-
worshippers must come. Let us all try to realize that the latter
ends of the world are upon us, and that the abolition of all
idolatry is hastening on. Is this a time for a man to draw
nearer to Eome ? Is it not rather a time to draw further back
and stand clear, lest we be involved in her downfall ? Is this a
time to extenuate and palliate Rome s manifold corruptions, and
refuse to see the reality of her sins 1 Surely we ought rather to
be doubly jealous of everything of a Romish tendency in
religion, doubly careful that we do not connive at any treason
against our Lord Christ, and doubly ready to protest against
unscriptural worship of every description. Once more, then, I
say, let us remember that the destruction of all idolatry is
certain, and remembering that, beware of the Church of Rome.
The subject I now touch upon is of deep and pressing im
portance, and demands the serious attention of all Protestant
Churchmen. It is vain to deny that a large party of English
clergy and laity in the present day are moving heaven and earth
to reunite the Church of England with the idolatrous Church of
Rome. The publication of that monstrous book, Dr. Pusey s
Eirenicon, and the formation of a " Society for Promoting the
Union of Christendom," are plain evidence of what I mean.
He that runs may read.
The existence of such a movement as this will not surprise
any one who has carefully watched the history of the Church
of England during the last forty years, the tendency of
Tractarianism and Ritualism has been steadily towards Rome.
Hundreds of men and women have fairly and honestly left our
ranks, and become downright Papists. But many hundreds
more have stayed behind, and are yet nominal Churchmen
within our pale. The pompous semi-Romish ceremonial which
has been introduced into many churches, has prepared men s
minds for changes. An extravagantly theatrical and idolatrous
mode of celebrating the Lord s Supper has paved the way for
transubstantiation. A regular process of unprotestantizing has
been long and successfully at work. The poor old Church of
England stands on an inclined plane. Her very existence as a
Protestant Church, is in peril.
2 D
418 KNOTS UNTIED.
I hold, for one, that this Romish movement ought to be
steadily and firmly resisted. Notwithstanding the rank, the
learning, and the devotedness of some of its advocates, I regard
it as a most mischievous, soul-ruining, and unscriptural move
ment. To say that re-union with Rome would be an insult to
our martyred Reformers, is a very light thing ; it is far more
than this : it would be a sin and an offence against God !
Rather than be re-united with the idolatrous Church of Rome, I
would willingly see my own beloved Church perish and go to
pieces. Rather than become Popish once more, she had better die !
Unity in the abstract is no doubt an excellent thing : but
unity without truth is useless. Peace and uniformity are
beautiful and valuable : but peace without the Gospel, peace
based on a common Episcopacy, and not on a common faith,
is a worthless peace, not deserving of the name. When Rome
has repealed the decrees of Trent, and her additions to the
Creed, when Rome has recanted her false and unscriptural
doctrines, when Rome has formally renounced image-worship,
Mary-worship, and transubstantiation, then, and not till then,
it will be time to talk of re-union with her. Till then there is
a gulf between us which cannot be honestly bridged. Till then
I call on all Churchmen to resist to the death this idea of
reunion with Rome. Till then let our watchwords be, " No
peace with Rome ! No communion with idolaters ! " Well
says the admirable Bishop Jewel, in his Apology, " We do not
decline concord and peace with men ; but we will not continue
in a state of war with God that we might have peace with men !
If the Pope does indeed desire we should be reconciled to
him, he ought first to reconcile himself to God." This witness
is true ! Well would it be for the Church of England, if all her
bishops had been like Jewel !
I write these things with sorrow. But the circumstances of
the times make it absolutely necessary to speak out. To what
ever quarter of the horizon I turn, I see grave reason for alarm.
For the true Church of Christ I have no fears at all. But for
the Established Church of England, and for all the Protestant
Churches of Great Britain, I have very grave fears indeed. The
tide of events seems running strongly against Protestantism and
in favour of Rome. It looks as if God had a controversy with
us, as a nation, and was about to punish us for our sins.
IDOLATRY. 419
I am no prophet. 1 know not where we are drifting. But
at the rate we are going, I think it quite within the verge of
possibility that in a few years the Church of England may be
re-united to the Church of Rome. The Crown of England may
be once more on the head of a Papist. Protestantism may be
formally repudiated. A Romish Archbishop may once more
preside at Lambeth Palace. Mass may be once more said at
Westminster Abbey and St. Paul s. And one result will be,
that all Bible-reading Christians must either leave the Church of
England, or else sanction idol-worship and become idolaters !
God grant we may never come to this state of things ! But at
the rate we are going, it seems to me quite possible.
And now it only remains for me to conclude what I have
been saying, by mentioning some safe-guards for the souls of all
who read this paper. We live in a time when the Church of
Rome is walking amongst us with renewed strength, and loudly
boasting that she will soon win back the ground that she has
lost. Ealse doctrines of every kind are continually set before us
in the most subtle and specious forms. It cannot be thought
unseasonable if I offer some practical safe-guards against idolatry.
What it* is, whence it comes, where it is, what will end it, all
this we have seen. Let me point out how we may be safe from
it, and I will say no more.
(1) Let us arm ourselves, then, for one thing, with a thorough
knowledge of the Word of God. Let us read our Bibles more
diligently than ever, and become familiar with every part of
them. Let the Word dwell in us richly. Let us beware of
anything which would make us give less time, and less heart, to
the perusal of its sacred pages. The Bible is the sword of tho
Spirit ; let it never be laid aside. The Bible is the true
lantern for a dark and cloudy time ; let us beware of travelling
without its light. I strongly suspect, if we did but know the
secret history of the numerous secessions from our Church to
that of Rome, which we deplore, I strongly suspect that in
almost every case one of the most important steps in the down
ward road would be found to have been a neglected Bible,
more attention to forms, sacraments, daily services, primitive
Christianity, and so forth, and diminished attention to the
written Word of God. The Bible is the King s highway. If
420 KNOTS UNTIED.
we once leave that for any by-path, however beautiful, and old,
and frequented it may seem, we must never be surprised if we
end with worshipping images and relics, and going regularly to
a confessional.
(2) Let us arm ourselves, in the second place, with a godly
iealousy about the least portion of the Gospel. Let us beware
of sanctioning the slightest attempt to keep back any jot or
tittle of it, or to throw any part of it into the shade by exalting
subordinate matters in religion. When Peter withdrew himself
from eating with the Gentiles, it seemed but a little thing ; yet
Paul tells the Galatians, " I withstood him to the face, because
he was to be blamed." (Gal. ii. 11.) Let us count nothing
little that concerns our souls. Let us be very particular whom
we hear, where we go, and what we do, in all the matters of our
own particular worship ; and let us care nothing for the imputa
tion of squeamishness and excessive scrupulosity. We live in
days when great principles are involved in little acts, and things
in religion, which fifty years ago were utterly indifferent, are
now by circumstances rendered indifferent no longer. Let us
beware of tampering with anything of a Romanizing tendency.
It is foolishness to play with fire. I believe that many of our
perverts and seceders began with thinking there coultl be no
mighty harm in attaching a little more importance to certain
outward things than they once did. But once launched on the
downward course, they went on from one thing to another.
They provoked God, and He left them to themselves ! They
were given over to strong delusion, and allowed to believe a lie.
(2 Thess. ii. 11.) They tempted the devil, and he came to
them ! They started with trifles, as many foolishly call them.
They have ended with downright idolatry.
(3) Let us arm ourselves, last of all, with clear sound views of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the salvation that is in Him.
He is the " image of the invisible God," the express " image
of His person," and the true preservative against all idolatry,
when truly known. Let us build ourselves deep down on the
strong foundation of His finished work upon the cross. Let us
settle it firmly in our minds, that Christ Jesus has done every
thing needful in order to present us without spot before the
throne of God, and that simple, childlike faith on our part is the
only thing required to give us an entire interest in the work of
IDOLATRY. 421
Christ. Lot us not doubt that, having this faith, we arc com
pletely justified in the sight of God, will never be more
justified if we live to the age of Methuselah and do the works
of the Apostle Paul, and CAN add nothing to that complete
justification by any acts, deeds, words, performances, fastings,
prayers, almsdeeds, attendance on ordinances, or anything else
of our own.
Above all, let us keep up continual communion with the
person of the Lord Jesus ! Let us abide in Him daily, feed
on Him daily, look to Him daily, lean on Him daily, live upon
Him daily, draw from His fulness daily. Let us realize this,
and the idea of other mediators, other comforters, other inter
cessors, will seem utterly absurd. " What need is there ?" we
shall reply : " I have Christ, and in Him I have all. What
have I to do with idols ? I have Jesus in my heart, Jesus in
the Bible, and Jesus in heaven, and I want nothing more ! "
Once let the Lord Christ have His rightful place in our hearts,
and all other things in our religion will soon fall into their right
places. Church, ministers, sacraments, ordinances, all will go
down, and take the second place.
Except Christ sits as Priest and King upon the throne of our
hearts, that little kingdom within will be in perpetual confusion.
But only let Him be "all in all" there, and all will be well.
Before Him every idol, every Dagon shall fall down. CHRIST
RIGHTLY KNOWN, CHRIST TRULY BELIEVED, AND CHRIST HEARTILY
LOVED, IS THE TRUE PRESERVATIVE AGAINST RlTUALISM, ROMANISM
AND EVERY FORM OF IDOLATRY.
NOTE.
I ask every reader of this paper to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest
the language of the following declaration. It is the declaration which,
under the " Act of Settlement " and by the law of England, every Sovereign
of this country, at his or her coronation, must " make, subscribe, and audibly
repeat." It is the declai-ation, be it remembered, which was made, sub
scribed, and repeated by Her Gracious Majesty, Queen Victoria.
" I, Victoria, do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God,
profess, testify, and declare that I do believe that in the sacrament of the
Lord s Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and
wine into the body and blood of Christ, at or after the consecration thereof,
by any person whatsoever; and that the invocation or adoration of the
Virgin Mary or any other Saint, and the sacrifice of the mass, as they are
now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious, and idolatrous. And I
422 KNOTS UNTIED.
do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do
make, this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary
sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by
English Protestants, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reserva
tion, and without any dispensation already granted me for this purpose by
the Pope or any other authority or person whatsoever, or without any hope
of any such dispensation from any person or authority whatsoever, or with
out thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or
absolved of this declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope, or any
other person or persons or power whatsoever, shall dispense with or annul
the same, or declare that it was null and void from the beginning."
Mny the day never come when British Sovereigns shall cease to make the
above declaration !
LONDON : WILLIAM HUNT AND COMPANY,
12 PATERNOSTER ROW.
Ryle
Knots untied
BX
5131
R85
