APR 28 1993 •-»' I* •* What Do Reformed Episcopalians Believe? Eight Sermons preached in Christ Church, Chicago, BY- Rt. Rev. CHARLES EDWARD CHENEY, D. D., Bishop of ihe Synod of Chicago, ^m Of «M«^ APR 28 W3 Issued "by REFol|^l!!9bB|ttscoPA^PuBU£^gP^^iETY, Limited, 'i 604 C "sfnut ^^^^pmiadclphia. (Copyrighted, 1888.) TO MY BELOVED WIFE, "Whose intelligent loyalty to the Principles, and Steadfast devotion to the Interests of The Reformed Episcopal Church, Suggested the preparation of this little volume, it is Affectionately Inscribed by Her Husband. ■^'^ .^, (a) PREKACE. The necessity for some work of a character similar to the following sermons, constitutes the only apology for their publication. It is hardly to be expected that a Church which has only had a separate life of fourteen years, should pos- sess a distinctive literature of its own. Yet it is greatly to the credit of the Keformed Episcopal Church that it has already produced in the form of pamphlets and published sermons, many admirable contributions to its own ecclesiastical history and apologetics. But the writer of the following discourses has long been convinced that, while certain phases of our polity have been set forth with ability and learning, we have lacked a manual covering the whole field of our distinc- tive positions. To the author of this book, and probably also to many of his brethren, it has been a matter of regret that our Church has not heretofore given to the public any ex- planation or defence of those peculiarities in which she differs from other Evangelical Churches. Why this is an Episcopal Church ; why we conserve the historic Episcopate ; why we worship in the use of liturgical forms ; why we retain Confirmation as a mode (iii) IV of admission to full membership of the Church ; why we perpetuate the ancient order of the Christian Year with its regularly recurring seasons ;— are all questions frequently asked of the Eeformed Episcopalian, but to which the literature of his own Church gave no reply. The present volume is a humble attempt to supply this felt want. Primarily these sermons were preached to a single congregation. The liberality of the Keformed Episco- pal Publication Society has given them at once a per- manent form and a wider field. The author desires to express his great obligation to the Rev. H. S. Hoffman, for affording opportunity to consult authorities not easily found in private libra- ries ; to the Rev. Mason Gallagher, D. D., for his aid in the study of some important questions of American Ecclesiastical history, and to the Rt. Rev. Thomas Huband Gregg, D. D., for evidence contained in his correspondence with some of the leading minds of the English Church. Christ Church, Chicaqo, May, 1888. CONTENTS. PAGE. The Reformed Episcopalian at the Baptismal Font 3 The Reformed Episcopalian and the Rite of Confirmation 26 The Reformed Episcopalian at the Lord's Table 45 The Reformed Episcopalian and his Minister. 67 The Reformed Episcopalian and his Bishop. . 84 The Reformed Episcopalian and his Prayer Book 105 The Reformed Episcopalian and the Church Year 128 The Reformed Episcopalian and his Duty to his own Church 147 Appendix „.., 171 (V) THE REFORMED EPISCOPALIAN AT THE BAPTISMAL FONT. " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations^ baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'' St. Matt, xxviii: 19. The divisions of the visible Churcli have often been represented by the rending into fragments of the seamless coat of Christ, from which even the rude soldiers at the CruciQxion shrank. So sad and pessimistic a view of the condition of Christendom, has its origin in a false notion of what constitutes the real unity of Christ's people. On that night in Gethsemane, when our Lord began His high priestly work of interceding for those whom He redeemed with His blood, lie prayed — " That they may be one — even as we are," Jno. xvii: 11. Did He mean that this oneness was a unity extending to outward form, and visible or- ganism? The answer is in the very language of the prayer itself. He sought that His disciples should be one. even as He and His Father were one. But God the Father, throned in dazzling glory, in- visible to human eye, yet wielding the forces of (3) Omnipotence, was not one, in any visible form or outward organism, with the Man of Sorrows, who stripped Himself of all glory, who humbled Him- self to hunger and thirst — to eat and sleep — to be tempted by the devil and persecuted by men, to be betrayed and mocked and crucified. The perfect unity between the Father and the Son was oneness of nature and will — spiritual and invisible. Christ's prayer then, was that His disciples amidst all visi- ble and organic differences whicli might exist, should be one in spirit, in heart, in purpose. Christianity deals with the greatest problems which ever set human thought at work. That all thinking disciples should follow the same paths of reasoning, or arrive at preciselj'' the same conclu- sions, was never promised by the Master. All at- tempts to force the followers of Jesus into one and the same intellectual perception of doctrinal truth, have uniformly resulted in a deadening superstition on the one hand, or a re-action into blank unbelief upon the other. In the streets of our great cities, a huge steam- roller is employed in crushing diverse materials into a uniform pavement In its track are no in- equalities. Earth and stone, granite boulders and yielding clay, are perfectly compacted. But the unity resulting is the unity — not of nature — but of artificial power. ^ The history of European Christianity for many centuries was the record of an outward and organic unity. But it was tliat produced by a crushing force. Few are they among believers in this nine- teenth century who find in those dark ages tiie highest type and best example of what the Church of Christ should be. There are certain great facts and principles, embodied in evangelical creeds and confessions, which belong to the whole body of Christ. They constitute the Temple of Divine Truth. They are the common lieritage of that true Church which our communion service calls " the blessed company of all faithful people." But while the human mind is constituted as it is, men will differ as to the best and most effective ways in which the common truth can be defended and preserved. Look for illustration of the point which we are making, to the sphere of education. The young man who comes forth from one of our colleges or public schools, with a strong, well-developed, sym- metrical mind, has been beneath the moulding hands of teachers — each of whom was an enthusiast in his own depirtment. One of these instructors felt that he could best build up tiie mind of his pupil by mathematical science. Another devoted his whole energies to making iiis 3'outhful charge an adept in the ancient or modern languages. To still a third, the one essential point to be gained, was to imbue that eager intellect with a passion- ate love for the physical sciences. But in his own way, each teacher was loyal to the great end and purpose of character building. To have been less enthusiastic in his own department, would have been a wrong wreaked upon his pupil. So in the Church of Christ. To each of the evan- gelical communions, one department of essential truth seems the strongest pillar of the temple of the Gospel. To keep that pillar erect — to watch over its safety — to defend it when attacked — is truest loyalty to the Gospel itself. The Reformed Episcopalian claims no monopoly of the whole truth of God. But he does recog- nize his responsibility as the representative of cer- tain principles, to neglect which would impair the foundations of the entire building. In deepest loyalty to the Gospel and tlie King, he claims the right to acquaint himself with, and to make known to others, the methods by which he would aid in upholding the stately structure of universal Chris- tian itj-. But where shall be our starting point? Biog- raphy begins at the cradle. The geographer in his tracing of a river's course, sets out from its foun- tain-head. History has its threshold where man appears first on the earth. So membership of a visible church has its initial point in the solemn rite which Christ ordained as the entrance upon His earthly l^ingdom. Let this be our sufficient reason for opening this course of sermons with the topic, ^ The Reformed Episcopa- lian at the Baptismal Font." I. The position assigned to Baptism in the Word of God. The Reformed Episcopalian is jealous of any es- sential doctrine which does not find its basis and ultimate authority in the Bible. In this respect, he treats religious principles precisely as the patriotic American deals with the principles of politics. In all that concerns my lights and duties as a citizen of the Republic, I have a profound veneration for the views and interpretations of the constitution which appear in the utterances of Washington, Jefferson, and the Adamses. The words of such men are entitled to due respect. But they can never place any great constitutional question beyond the pale of controversy. The ul- timate appeal must be to the constitution itself. In like manner every Reformed Episcopal clergy- man, whether he be deacon, presbyter, or bishop, is required by his ordination vow to teach nothing as essential to salvation, except t!iat which he is persuaded is taught in Holy Scripture, or may be clearly proven by it. Little wonder if so solemn a promise should af- fect his teaching upon points which are not abso- lutely essential to salvation. Even in regard to matters of smaller moment, the Reformed Episco- 8 palian desires to know whether God's written Word has borne its testimony. But no careful student of the Scriptures will come to tlie conclusion that baptism is a subject of trifling importance. 'J here are no less than seventy-six passages in the New Testament wliich deal with this question. God has not thrust it into a corner. It is as impos- sible to read the Bible, and ignore the allusions to baptism, as to scan the midnight heavens, and for- get the existence of the stars. But the importance of tlie rite is not to be gauged merely by the frequency with which it is mentioned. There is a far more weighty evidence. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself insisted upon being baptized. He had no sins to be washed away. Surely, He needed not to have the element of water applied to His blessed person as s3'mbol of such spiritual cleansing. Yet such importance did He attach to this symbolic use of water, as a teacher of man's sinfulness, and need of inward cleansing — that He compelled John the Baptist to baptize Him. Matt, iii: 13-15. Isaiah had foretold seven hundred years before, that Christ should " be numbered among the trans- gressors.'' Sinless Himself — He yet was baptized, that in all respects He might be identified with sinners. His ministry was marked by the baptism of 9 those who became His followers. Though He ** baptized not'' with His own hands, His disci- ples administered that rite to more converts than even John had baptized at the waters of the Jor- dan. John iv: 1, 2. Go one step further. The last words of a father to his children, do not deal with trifles. The final instructions of a general to the officers who lead an army to desperate battle, concern the points vital to success. Yet the latest words which Jesus spoke to those whom He sent forth to bear His banner to the ends of the earth, imposed on them a command to baptize all who through their Gospel should believe on Him. Matt, xxviii : 19. The Reformed Episcopalian plants his feet firmly on the Scrij)ture when he proclaims the mo- mentous nature of the sacrament of baptism. For, as he pushes on his study of the New Testa- ment, he meets the fact that the command of the Master was cariied out by His inspired apostles. It would be difficult to recall in the pages of the Acts, a solitary record of conversion — whether it be that of Saul of Tarsus, of the 3000 Jews on the day of Pentecost, of the jailor at Philippi, or of Lydia, the purple-seller of Thyatira — in whici) the yielding of the heart to Christ, is not followed by the "confession of the mouth" in baptism. The Reformed Episcopalian does not say with the Roman Church that there is no possibility of sal- 10 vation without this symbolic cleansing. He has no proof that the penitent thief had ever been bap- tized. Nor can he limit God's mercy where a repentant and believing soul may be placed in cir- cumstances which make the act of baptism im- possible. He does not pretend to make himself a judge of such believers as may be found, for ex- ample, in the Society of Friends, who have been misled by a false spiritualizing of a positive com- mand of Christ. To their own Master they must stand or fall. But he does hold with unwavering firmness to the simple fact, that the Bible clearly declares it the duty of every believer to confess his faith by a baptism with water in the name of the Holy Trinity. Such a fact lifts the baptismal washing out of the realm of mere optional cere- monial. It makes it obligatory on every soul who trusts in Jesus and would do His will. II. It is this same fidelity to the Word of God, which compels the Reformed Episcopalian to be- lieve that THE QUANTITY OF WATER USED IN SYM- BOLIZING THE Spirit's power to purify, is a MATTER WHICH DOES NOT CONCERN HIM. He is willing to yield all honor and Christian regard to brethren who refuse to admit to the table of the Lord those Christians who have not received baptism by immersion. But it is a deep conviction of Scripture truth which leads him to protest against what seems to him such unbrotherly 11 exclusion. For it is the Bible which makes bap- tism with water a symbol of the soul's spiritual cleansing through the work of the Holy Spirit. It is the Bible which teaches that the other sacra- ment is a symbol of the soul's feeding by faith on a crucified Saviour. The Reformed Episcopalian cannot help asking why the quantity of bread and wine should not be prescribed in the Lord's supper, if the quantity of water must be prescribed in baptism ? If a morsel of bread — a taste of wine — which in themselves satisf}^ neither bodily hunger, nor bodily thirst, are yet sufficient to symbolize how Jesus satisfies the soul — why should not as much water as the hollow of the hand will hold, be sufficient of that cleans- ing element to symbolize how Jesus by His Spirit purifies the heart ? The limits of this sermon forbid an extended argument Let iJi suffice to say that the Greek veib |3artTt^w, from which we get our word '' bap- tize," has never been proven to mean the total im- mersion of the ho\y in water. Both Plutarch and Xenophon among the classic Greek authors use it with reference to the sprinkling which a gardener bestows upon his plants. Is there any evidence that when this word^ far older than the New Tes- tament, came to be enlisted in the service of the Gospel writers, its former classic meaning was al- together changed ? On the contrary, there is not 12 one passage where we are compelled to believe that it meant a complete submersion. 1 can only give one or two examples. I refer you for a fuller investigation to a most unanswer- able tract of the Rev. William H. Cooper, D. D., a venerable presbyter of our own Church, entitled, '' Facts for the Unprejudiced. " St. Mark, speaking of the Pharisees, says, ■" When they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not '* Mark vii : 4. In the original it reads, " Except the}^ hai^tize themselves." But we know that the ceremony referred to certainly did not involve an immersion of the whole body previous to every act of eating ; for this last puri- fication was reserved for cases of special ceremonial defilement. St. Luke tells us that the Pharisee who had in- vited our Lord to dinner, was shocked because Jesus '' had not first washed " — in the Greek, '' bap- tized himself.'' Luke xi : 37, 38. Can we believe that the host expected every guest to totally sub- merge himself as a preparation for the feast ? Again St Mark speaks of the Pharisaic ceremony of the washing — or in the original — the *' baptism ' of *' tables,'' or, as it may be rendered, '* couches." Were the tables of a Jewish house totally im- mersed ? Are we to believe that some vat or bap- tistery was universally provided by the Pharisees for such a purpose ? 18 John the Baptist predicted that Jesus should " baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire,'' Matt, iii : 11. The fulfillment came upon the day of Pentecost. But how? The author of the Book of Acts replies, '^ There appeared unto them cloven tongues as of fire; and it sat upon each of them.'* Acts ii : 3. They certainly were not immersed in fire. Again, when Peter preached to Cornelius and his household, "the Holy Ghost," we are told, ^^ fell upon all them which heard the AVord." Acts x: 44. They were not immersed in the Holy Spirit. Yet when Peter comes to describe the scene to the disciples at Jerusalem, he describes it as a baptism. " Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that He said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." Acts xi : 16. But the passage most frequently urged as settling the whole question, is in St. Paul's .epistle to the Romans. It reads, ''Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death ? Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Rom. vi: 3-6. Our friends who claim that there is no baptism except in immersion, declare that the figurative expression "buried with Him," must be literally 14 carried out by the entire burial of the baptized person in water. It seems incredible that this purely figurative language should be thus pressed to literal and minute conclusions by excellent and learned men. For in the very same passage, St. Paul also asserts that we are " jylanted together in the likeness of His death " Why should we not carry into lit- eral details this figure also ? Or when the apostle adds, *' Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him" — why not with equal reason press the figure to mean a lit- eral stretching of the Christian on a cross? It would be an easy task to prove that all the monuments of the primitive Church, the pictorial inscriptions of the earl}^ Christians on the walls of the catacombs, as well as the recorded history of ancient Christianity, unanimously show that bap- tism was performed either by immersion, by sprinkling, or by a combination of both {vide "Apostolic Baptism," by C. Taylor). But the Re- formed Episcopalian rests his persuasion upon the written word of God. From that he knows no appeal. III. We attest the genuineness of ever}^ import- ant document by a seal. Baptism in all branches OF THE Christian Church, is the seal set to the MOST important TRANSACTION WHICH CAN TAKE PLACE BETWEEN A HUMAN SOUL AND ITS MaKER AND 15 Redeemer. It attests the covenant entered into between the sinner and his Saviour in the hour that, penitent and believing, the soul receives Christ as its only atoning sacrifice. Jesus invites — " Come unto Me." The soul re- sponds by a trustful and loving surrender. But the surrender is not completed in all its fulness, until the seal of baptism has been set to the solemn yet joyful transfer. But the Reformed Episcopa- lian cannot forget that Christ never invited adults alone He did not merely ask men and women to ^*come." He said, '^ Suffer the little children to come unto Me." Mark, x: 14. His invitation and command was that parents who believed on Him should dedicate their offspring by a complete sur- render, even as themselves. Surely, He meant that the infant equally with the parent, should receive the seal of such surrender. His reasoyi for requir- ing the children to be brought to Him makes the case still stronger. " For," He says, " of such is the kingdom of heaven.''^ He declares as plainly as words can speak, that the children of believing parents are members of His kingdom and Church. We have His word for it. Can anything be more uusoriptural than to refuse to the very class of souls whom Jesus has thus pointed out as members of His kingdom, the seal by which that membership is witnessed ? Moreover, as the Reformed Episcopalian follows 16 His Lord to tlie close of His earthly career, he bears Him giving His special commission to the pardoned and restored Apostle Peter. He lays it upon the conscience of His penitent disciple that be is to "feed " His " sheep." But as if it were even more a duty, He firs/; says, " Feed My lambs.^^ John xxi : 15-17. Then the lambs belong to Christ. Equally with the sheep/ they are in His flock and His fold. Would the " Good Shepherd " put His mark, His seal. His sign, upon the sheep, and not upon the lambs ? Nor can the Reformed Episcopalian forget that when the apostles went forth in Pentecostal power and wisdom, they baptized whole families. LycUa of Thyatira was baptized, " and her house,^^ an expression which is the exact equivalent of our word " family." Acts xvi : 15. Not only did Paul and Silas baptize the Philippian jailor, but " all /lis." Acts xvi : 33. St. Paul, in writing to the Corinthian Church, does not take the trouble to say whether or not he baptized Stephanas, the head of a household ; but does place it on record that he baptized his family. 1 Cor. i: 16. Incredible, in- deed, does it seem to the .Reformed Episcopalian, that if the Jewish custom of receiving the little ones formally into the Church by a distinct and ap- pointed ceremony, was departed from by the early Christians, no command to that effect was given, and no controversy sprang up about so inexplicable 17 an omission. To the Relormed Episcopalian, the subject is intensely practicaL All history attests that in the early Church, believing parents realized a responsibility for their (children's Gospel training, which is sadly wanting among members of the Church to-day. The primitive Christian realized that in solemn dedication, his child had been given to Christ. It was ihe parent's duty and privilege so to surround the child from its very cradle with the atmosphere of Christian truth, and prayer, and daily instruction, that the child should grow up into a sense of its own responsibility for the fulfillment of parental promises. The secret of much that made the first centuries of Christianity v/hat they were, lay in this family religion, ever stimulated and sustained by the consciousness in both parents and children, that alike they had been dedicated to the Lord. Those early disciples did not leave their offspring to first hear the elements of the Gospel from the lips of a Sunday school teacher. Nor did they be- lieve that their little ones must grow up in the dark- ness of alienpttion from God, till some revival should let in a sudden flash of spiritual light. If parents among Reformed Episcopalians will follow the leadings of their Church, it will make infant baptism universal among us, and will make it a reality and a power — not a superstitious and meaningless form. 18 lY. Fidelity to the Bible compels the Reformed Episcopalian to enter his solemn protest against THE theory that the new birth is inseparably TIED to BAPTISiM. When our Pilgrim Fathers left native land, and family ties, and sweet associations in old England, to make a new home and nation across the sea, the world bad a right to ask what drove them from the country of their birtli. Fourteen years ago, some of us turned away with sad hearts and bitter tears, from associations sweet and precious as native land or childhood's home. The world has a right to ask what drove us out from our mother Church. Tbe full answer will be given as this course progresses. But one of the causes which forced that separation, belongs to my theme to-day. Our old-time prayer book required its ministers to declare immediately upon the baptism of an infant or adult, that the baptized person was then and there borii again of the Spirit of God (vide Baptismal Offices, Prot- Epis. Prayer Book). A babe is brought to the baptismal font, " a child of wrath " {vide Church Catechism). The water of baptism is put upon its I brow, and lo ! then for the first time, the minister lifts up his voice to God in this thanksgiving, " We thank Thee that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infant with Thy Holy Spirit.''^ To every evangelical Christian, the new birth is that " creative act of the Holy Ghost, by which He 19 imparts to the soul a new spiritual life." Yet our former prayer-book service tied this work of the Omnipotent God, wonderful as the original creation of man, to a ceremony performed by a sinful crea- ture. We recognized the fact that experience showed tliat very often none of the fruits of the Spirit were brought forth by those who had been baptized. We were startled by the Bible testimony that f imon Magus, baptized by apostolic hands, was yet " in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity." Acts viii : 23. We appealed to our high church leaders for Scripture proof that the new birth was inseparably tied to baptism with water. They pointed us to Christ's language to Nicodemus, *' Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kinscdom of God." John iii : 5- We saw that Christ clearly taught that His disci- ples must be baptized both with water and the Holy Spirit But we could not find one word in Jesus' solemn utterance to the Jewish rabbi, which said, "The baptism with water insures the baptism of the Spirit." I may say to the newly-landed im- migrant, '• Except you be naturalized, and filled with the spirit of your adopted country, 3'ou cannot be an American." But I dare not say, " Take the step of legal natuialization, and the spirit of patri- otic devotion will of necessity come with it." Then we were pointed to St. Paul's words to Titus, ''According to His mercy He saved us by the washing of regeneration, and the lenewing of the Uoly Ghost." Titus iii : 5 But to assume that '' the washing of regenera- tion " was baptismal washing, was simply to beg the question at issue. Nor only so ; but we j er- ceived that St. Paul brought out this " washing of regeneration," as sometliing specially in contrast to " works of righteousness which we have done." liy these works he asserted we were not saved. But in the case of the vast majority of the Christians in the days of Paul and Titus, including both of them- selves, the act of baptism was the deliberate act of an adult, voluntarily done as a ivork of righteous- ness. It, therefore, could not be "the washijag of regeneration " referred to by the ai)OStles. Still, a^^ain, we were reminded that St. Peter de- clares, " Ba})tism doth also now save us." 1 Pet. iii : 21. But we could not fail to read the rest of the verse, " not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God." In a word, evangelical ministers in the Protestant Episcopal Church, found themselves pushed into this fearful position. They found no evidence in the Scriptures that regeneration was uniformly wrought by the act of baptism. God's Spirit was free. John iii • 8. He miafht new create the soul in the hour of the baptismal rite, or before, or afterwards. Yet, every such minister must give up the use of the 21 baptismal service, or else in solemn words of thanksgiving to God, publicly declare that which he did not believe to be God's truth. Do not imagine that such a dilemma faced the low churchmen of the English and American Epis- copal Church, for the first time, when the contro- versy arose which resulteii ia the Reformed Episco- pal Church. Evangelical ministers and laymen had groaned under the bondage of the baptismal service from the days of the Reformation. They perceived the awful chasm wiiich yawned between the plain teachings of the Gospel, and the words which the prayer book put into the mouth of the olficiating minister. They saw how, under the literal teach- ing of the baptismal service, the souls of sinners were imperilled. Believing themselves to be regen- erated by God's Holy Spirit in the act of baptism, and thus saved by the baptismal wasliing, men came to trust their entire hope for eternity to an outward and mechanical ceremony. They saw, too, that a more than Romish super- stition pervaded the minds of the humble and un- lettered members of the Church, leading them to believe that the unbaptized infant must certainly perish. They heard from high diurch pulpits the echoof the language of such teachers as Bishop Mant, who proclaimed that in baptism we have " a new principle put into us, and sanctification and purity unspotted are attributed to the Church of Christ as 22 the effect of the washing of wnter." They heard it asserted in the language of the same prelate, that *' baptism is the new birth." And when, with the Bible in their hands, they refuted such false doc- trine, tlieir own people pointed them to the bap- tismal service, anJ asked, '' Do you not, every time you baptize with water, pray God to ' sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin' ? Da you not, when the application of water has been made, turn to the people, and say, ' Seeing now, dearly beloved, that tliis child (or this person) is regenerate, let us give thanks' ? Do you not then before the searcher of hearts say, ' We thank Thee that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate this child (or this person) with Tliy Holy Spirit'?" Do you ask how such low churchmen — honest, con- scientious. God-fearing, managed to stay in the old Church, and repeat on every baptismal occasion a statement which they believed to be inconsistent with the word of God? 1 can best answer that question from my own experience. I satisfied my conscience, through many years of ministry in the Protestant Episcopal Church, by trying to explain away the language of the service. Two or three widely different theories had been put forth by low churcli theologians, either one of which, it was be- lieved, would bridge over the abyss between the prayer book and the Bible. One of these was that the service spoke of a sort o^ ecclesiastical regener- 23 ation, a new birth into the visible Church, rather than into the spiritual life * Another was that the service spoke what was called, " the judgment of charity." In other words^ it charitably took for granted that the baptized in- fant or adult would repent" and believe, and God would give His spiritual new birth to that soul. It told the minister to imagine himself for the moment far down the future, supposing repentance and faith to have been exercised, and regeneration therefore to have been imparted. On such an hypothesis he could speak of what might be, as though it were accomplished, and so declare to God his thank- fulness for it I That good and great men in the evangelical party could satisfy their consciences with so artificial and unnatural an explanation, only showed how hard pressed low churchmen were to find some method to fill up the gulf between the Bible and the baptismal service, f There came a day when conscience told me that I was juggling with plain words, to torture from them that which they did not mean. The service did not speak of the future, but of what had just now been accomplished hythe application of water. " We thank Thee that it hath pleased Thee to re- generate this person." In agony of soul, I turned to the other explana- tion. Did not the baptismal service mean that a new birth was wrought by baptism only in the * Vide Appendix, A. f Vide Appendix, B. 24 sense of introdacing the baptized person into the new world o^ C/nirch 2Jrivil('ges? Was it not a sacramental and ecclesiastical, instead of spiritual regeneration, of which the prayer book spoke ? But the language of the service refused this '• flattering unction " to my soul, it met me with the plain words, " that it hath pleased Thee to regen- erate ivilh Thy Holy Spirit " Surely that meant not ecclesiastical, but apiritual regeneration ! I had reached a point where I must choose, in God's sight, between the baptismal service and the Bible. You know the result. But God had been working upon other minds and consciences as He had upon my own._ When at last the Reformed Episcopal Church stood forth full-panoplied for its great conflict, it was with a baptismal service which echoes the teachinor of the word of God. It struck out the assertion which made baptism with water the un- failinor channel of regeneration. It made its mes- sage, reiterated every time the sacrament is per- formed, a clear enunciation of the truth that baptism is a sign and seal of spiritual regeneration, but not tliat regeneration itself I ask, then, in closing, that your cordial love and devotion be given to a Church which is true to the word of God, upon a question which meets us at the very threshold of the visible kingdom of Christ. " Sire," said an American engineer to the Czar 25 Nicholas, of Russia," I have marked out the course of your projected railway on this map. We must avoid this range of mountains here. There, we must follow the tortuous valley of the liver. And at this point we must touch au'important town by deflecting from a straight course." The Czar took his pencil, and drawing a straight line from terminus to terminus, said, " We will build the road on that line," Our old prayer book of the Protestant Episcopal Church veered to right and left of the Scripture line in its baptismal service. But God drew the unerring course of the Bible with the pencil of the Holy Ghost, and said to the Reformed Episcopal Church, "Build there." We have honestly and prayerfully tried to do it. THE REFORMED EPISCOPALIAN AND THE RITE OF CONFIRMATION. "0/ the doctrine of baptisms and of laying on of hands. ''^ Heb. vi : 2. A general sameness never wakens curiosity. But on the other band, singularity always ex- cites our interest. A man appearing in the strange dress of some remote country, stands out in such contrast to the monotonous and colorless character of our Anglo-Saxon attire, that we cannot help fix- ing our e^es upon him. The same general principle holds good in the sphere of religion. The peculiarity of speech and dress which characterizes a Quaker, and the singu- larity of garb and manner distinguishing the sister- hoods of the Roman Church, attract our notice far more tlian the every-day and common-place appear- ance of other equally devoted and spiritually- minded Christians. In portions of our own coun- tr}^^ there is a sect of which few persons would have ever heard, but for the fact that they main- tain, as a sort of sacrament, the ceremony of wash- ing each other's feet, in literal imitation of our Divine Lord, 2r The rite of confirmation, or reception of believers into the full membership of the Church by " the laying on of hands," is no novelty in universal Christendom. Out of the four hundred and twenty- five millions of nominal Christians in the world, three hundred and forty millions admit their mem- bers by some form involving this imposition of hands. Confirmation is not merely the inheritance of the Episcopal Churches of England an(\ America, but of that vast body of Protestants on both sides -of the sea, who bear the name and cherish the teach- ings of the great Reformer, Luther. The rite is sedulously preserved by that singu- larly pure and spiritual body of believers, who have sprung from the persecuted Waldenses — the members of the Moravian Church Tlie statistics of Protestantism show that con- firmation is the chosen metliod of admission to the visible fold of Christ, among one-half of that por- ium of Christendom which denies the authority, and rejects the supersiitions of the Greek and Ko- man Churches. But on the other hand, it is equally true that to the majority of evangelical Christians in the United States, this ancient ordinance is something which has the aspect of a stranger and an alien. And very naturally so. For this country owes its evangelization, to a large degree, to three great branches of the Christian Church — neither of 28 "wlik'li lias retained the rite of confirmation. Th Puritans of New England rejected this ceiemon^ ■when they refused to be ruled by bishops. Th Presbyterian Church, against the preferences c Calvin, dropped confirmation as early as the day of the lieformation. While John Wesley lived, the members of his re li^^ious societies never separated from the Churcl of England, and were generally confirmed in it pari-h churches. But in America, from the first the Methodist Church, which Providence made th pioneer of the Gospel to our Western States, foJ lowed another mode of publicly confessing Christ No wonder tlien, that when American evangelise has been advanced so largely by churches t whicli confirmation is unknown, the masses of ou Protestant wor.-hippers look upon that ordinr.nc as a singular peculiarity. A Christian trainee from infancy in some one of our sister churches enters for tlie first time an Episcopal place of wor sliij'. It happens to be on a Sunday when a ban< of young believers are publicly to give their alle giance to the Saviour. Such a scene awakens n surprise. He is used to similar occasions. Bu when he learns that the oflTiciating minister who re ceives these souls into the visible Kingdom o Christ, is not the pastor of this flock, but aa ovei seer of mnny congregations, he naturally demand an explanation. Still more is he surprised by th 29 singularity of tlie ceremony, when with solemn prayer for God's defending grace, the bishop lays his hands separately upon the head of each one of these new confessors of the faith. So marked is the difference from the familiar modes of public profession of Christ's name, that it raises a whole brood of inquiries in his mind. While he may not question the solemnity and beauty of the cere- mony he witnesses, it yet has such singularity, that he justly seeks some adequate explanation of it. To afford sach inquirers the answer to which they are entitled, is the purpose which I have in view in this sermon. Let us ask then. What rea- sons HAS THE Reformed Episcopalian to give FOR THE RITE OF CONFIRMATION ? A builder feels a natural satisfaction when he finds himself able to biy the foundation-stones on a basis of bed-rock. It would perhaps b3 a simi- lar satisfaction that the advocate of confirmation would experience, if he discovered in the New Tes- tament that Christ had clearly and unequivocally commanded this precise observance. Yet it would be a pleasure mingled with keenest pain. For such a command would put the rite of confirmation on the same level with baptism and the supper of the Lord. It would make it imperative on all who acknowl- edge the authority of Christ. To refuse or to neglect to be confirmed, would be rebellion against 80 our King. It would brand one-half of Protestant- ism with tlie stigma of disloj^alty to Jesus. Of what wortli the Puritan's stern piety, the Presby- terian s devotion to Gospel truth, t!ie Methodist's spiritual enthusiasm, if these Christians openly re- fused obedience to a requirement of Christ Him- self? The broadest charit}^ could n t cover with its mantle, so flagrant a revolt against the Master. But to such a position no Reformed Episcopa- lian is driven. The man who gras[)s t )o much, at last will grasp thin air. He who attempts to claim for confirmation the authority of Christ, weakens the cause for which be pleads. Let us frankly and candidly admit that there exists in the New Testament no trace of such a Divine appointment. At the same time, however, the Reformed Epis- copalian does not allow that the rite of confirma- tion finds no sanction or warrant in the Scripture. If the canon of Holy Writ ended with the four Gospels, we should find no Bible sanction for many of the institutions and practices which the whole Church of God holds dear. There is no record that the Lord Himself com- manded the appointment of deacons, or authorized the establishment of such an office. But the fact that the apostles, under the influence of the Holy Spirit as they were, chose the seven. Acts vi : 5, 31 has led the universal Church to follow their ex- ample Has it ever occurred to you that you can put your finger upon no text of the New T-estament where Jesus ever directed the Lord's supper to be administered to women, or even to any lay meml^cr of the. Church ? It was in an assembly of apostles only, it was in a gathering of men exclusively, that He commanded, " Do this in reriiembrance of Me." Matt, xxvi : 20. But the later practice of the apostles themselves has settled all question, if any ever arose, as to the ri^ht of all genuine believers to co'jamemorate the Saviour's love When Philip the Evangelist had preached the Gospel with suc'i power in the City of Samaria, that multitudes " both of men and women " turned to the Lord, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Now notice what follows The apostles at Jeru- salem hear of this glorious awakening in Samaria. And forthwith Peter and John — not pastors of congregations — not deacons, like Philip — but higher officers of the new-born Church, and representa- tives of the whole body of believers — are de- spatched to the scene of Philip's labors — for what? To pray for these new disciples, and to lay their handsupon their heads. Actsvii:7. Ifthiswerean isolated case, we might perhaps suppose that it was an exception to the general rule of apostolic prac- 32 tice. But the nineteenth cliapter of the Acts reveals to us the great apostle to the Gentiles preaching Christ in the rich and dissolute city of Ephesus." Among his hearers are some who had been pre- pared for accepting Christ by the teachings of John the Baptist or some of his disciples. They knew no otlier baptism than that which Christ's stern herald had administered as a symbol of repentance. Paul baptizes them. But he does not stop with this obedience to the last command of Jesus. He *' laid his hands upon them." Acts xix ; 6. The careful and candid reader of the New Testa- ment will naturally ask the qucition, " Why was the sacrament of baptism, ordained as it was by Christ Himself, supplemented by this imposition of hands?" What necessity existed that those already sealed to Christ by the baptismal sign, should submit to another and additional ceremony ? The Reformed Episcopalian answers for himself and for his Church, that such an ordinance would liave a two fold significance and value. It would renew in the most solemn way the consecration to Christ which baptism had previousl}'' made. It would involve confirming before a higher officer of the Church, the covenant into which tlie soul had entered at baptism. Such a re-consecration and such a confirmation of the covenant, if sincere, is alwavs a means of grace. Not in any mystic or 33 superstitious sense ; but because by it the soul is stirred anew, and love and faith revived. Nor only this ; but when such public renewal of bap- tismal engagements was made before one wlio rep- resented, as the apostles did, no local church or congregation, but ihe whole body of believers; and when such a messenger of the Church at large, sealed the act by the imposition of his hands, it was peculiarly significant. For it substantially said to the young believer, " Your baptismal obligations bind you not merely to the little flock in Samaria, in Ephesus, in Corinth or in Thessalonica ; they do not introduce you into loving fellowship only with the pastor whose preaching led you to Jesus; Ijut they make you one of that larger and broader communion composed of all who love the Lord." Now let us do full justice to those who hold a different view of the imposition of the .apostles' hands, from that maintained by the advocates of confirmation. It is forcibly argued that both in Samaria and Ephesus, the extraordinary and visible manifesta- tion of the Holy Ghost followed the laying on of hands. There were some miraculous and supernatural gifts bestowed upon these new members of the Church, like those upon the Day of Pentecost when the disciples spake in languages which they had never learned. 34 " The imposition of hands," say the opponents of confirmation, " was solely to accomplish this result. The Holy Ghost was visibly bestowed by the touch of the apostles. That was the purpose and end of the ceremon3^ Buttiie age of miracles passed away. And since such outward, visible and supernatural gifts of the Spirit are no longer the heritage of God's children, the ceremony through which they were imparted, has no business in the Church. It is like the ceremon}'' of a royal coronation maintained in a republic wliere kings are no longer known." I believe this to be a full and fair sta,tement of the objections urged against any Scripture sanc- tion for the rite of confirmation. But no chain is stronger than one of its links. The argument which I have tried to state in its full force, depends wholly upon one supposed fact ; that the aole object of the apostolic laying on of hands was to impart the Iloly Ghost in His super- natural gifts. But is that a fact? Once every week I wind my clock. The result is, that with every sfxty minutes which elapse, a hammer strikes the gone:, and the bell tells the hour. But no man would argue that this striking of the hour was the sole object which I had in view when I used the key. There was a more important end to be secured, in confirming the regular movement of the 35 wheels, and the forward march of the hands on the dial plate. Miracles and extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were never the most important things in the Church of Christ. Because supernatural powers followed the im[)Osition of apostolic hands, we have no right to conclude that the ceremony haritite form which other* may adopt He only chdajstliat n^^ne can be more appropriate, more solemn, moie beautiful, or more in accord with " apostolic practice," than confirma- tion. But why ask those baptized in adult years, to submit to tills additional ceremonial? Tue ans- wer is two-fold. We follow the example of the apostles, who laid their hands upon the heads of those who had in mature life been openly baptized. But beside this pattern set before us, we recognize 2i, practical value in the confirmation of those bap- tized in adult years, A bishop presides over many parishes. His visits to each necessarily cannot be frequent. But when he does come for the administration of this rite, it affords an opportunity for those who have been Ifed to Christ, and who have confessed that faith, to renew their baptismal obligations. It is a deepen- ing of the inscription which baptism engraved upon the heart It ma}^ be added that there are few greater evils in the Church of Christ, than the selfish and nar- row isolation of a single church. Tliere is a tend- ency on the part of an individual paiish to become like arailwa}'' train, following the narrow course which its own track marks, and its own hea'l-light illuminates, regardless of all that may be on either 40 side. But confirmation is an act in which an official of a larger organization loarticipalea. The provision which gives the act of administering this rite into the hands of the bishop, emphasizes the principle that the person confirmed, thereby becomes not a member of this congregation or that parish, but a member of the whole Reformed Episcopal Church. He thereby pledges himself to its wel- fare and its progress. The Reformed Episcopalian finds his love for this solemn ordinance deepened, when he discovers that his broad, catholic, and spiritual view of confirmation has met with the approval of the great leaders of Christendom. Some of the best of those who have chosen another method of confessing Christ, have given to this rite the warmest com- mendation. John Calvin boldly declares : " It was an ancient custom of the Church for the children of Chris- tians, after they were come to years of discretioD, to be presented to the bishop in order to fulfil that duty which was required of adults who offered themselves for baptism." The great apostle of Preabyterianism then attacks the Roman Catholic perversion of the rito, and adds, "Such imposition of hands therefore, as is simply connected with benediction, I highly approve, and wish it were now restored to its primitive use, uncorrupted by superstition." (Calvin's Institutes, Vol. II, p. 605) 41 The same testimony to the antiquity and value of confirmation was rej)eated in a report of a com- mittee on the subject — appointed some years ago by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. (Yide ''Common Prayer Interpreted;" p. 310.) Richard Baxter — as pure a saint as modern times have known — himself a Presbyterian, wrote a care- fully prepared argument for confirmation. (Bax- ter's Works, Vol. XIY.) The early Methodists were generally confirmed in the parish churches of England. Adam Clarke, long after he was a Wesleyan preacher, presented himself for confirmation to the Bishop of Bristol. Forty years afterward, he writes of this step,. "Upon this point my sentiments are not changed." (Life of Adam Clarke ; Yol. I, p. 94 ) Dr. Richard S. Slorrs, a very Nestor of the Con- gregatioijal Churches, has introduced a mode of public rccognilion of bai)tized children, which partakes of some of the features of our confirma- tion. {Christian at- Work.) The sweetest and most nutritious bread may be made the vehicle of poison. God lias given us nothing which may not be abused and perverted from its true purpose. The rite of confirmation aflTords no exception to the rule. Upon it a fungus- growth of evils developed in the Cliurcli from which our own sprang, that largely contributed to 42 produce the separation of the Reformed F^piscopa- lian. Yet these evils were not the result of the ordi- nance itself. We clearly saw that thousands of young persons were brought forward for confirma- tion, with no preparation of heart, and no adequate sense of the solemnity of the act. It crowded the •church with a membership of souls lacking the essential requirement of spiritual membership of Christ. Yet when we came to revise the service for confirmation, it was scarcely changed from its old form. It needed no such alteration as the baptismal office, to make its voice chord with the Bible. The trouble was not in the service for con- firmation. But it lay deeper. The false theory of the office of a bishop, to which I shall refer in a later ser- mon of this course, poisoned the wholesome bread of tlie doctrine of confirmation. Bishop Doane declared that " the bishops are apostles." (Bishop G. W. Doane's Missionary Bishop, p. 22.) The " Tracts for the Times," which first turned the Protestant Episcopal Church Homeward, speak of bishops as "the representatives of the apos- tles." The same authority tells us that the bishops are to be considered "as if they were apostles. " " The apostles may still be said to be among us. Whatever we ought to do, had we lived when tho 43 apostles were still alive, the same ouglit we to do for the bishops " " The bishop rules the whole Ohurch below, as Christ rules it above " "Our bishops arc armed with the apostles' power to con- fer spiritual gifls.''^ How inevitable — how logical the result I The apostles bestowed spiritual gifts by the touch of the baud. The same power must belong to their successors. Thus confirmation becomes a magical rite, dependent for its value and efficacy solely upon the contact of an Episcopal hand. The Reformed Episcopalian purified the rite of confirmation when he showed from the New Testa- ment that the apostles had no successors in their unique and solitary work. He m-ade the laying on of hands somethinj: more than a superstitious and mechanical act, when He made the bishop simply a, presiding minister, receiving the new convert in the name of the Church. Still more directly was confirmation perverted by the dangerous doctrine of baptismal regenera- tion. The baptized person was born again by vir- tue of the sacramental water. The Holy Ghost liad been implanted at the font. That regenera- tion could not be supplemented by any later spirit- ual birth. Dr. Dix's " Trinit}^ Church Catechism" declares that by baptism " we become God's adopted children and heirs of heaven ; we are 44 cleansed from sin, and made temples of the Holy Ghost." What further preparation for the reception of confirmation could be required ? Certainly no spiritual qualification beyond this is possible. And so, the Pra3^er Book directed every minister, after baptizing a child, to warn the parents that they should "bring him to the bishop " to be con- firmed by him, when he could repeat the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments and the Church Catechism ! Is it strange that such a theory of confirmation opened a wide door to unspiritualize the Church ? The Reformed Episcopalian struck at the tap- root of the weeds which choked this rite with errors, when he protested against the idea that bap- tism and regeneration are inseparably tied together. He does not require the confirmed person to " be brought to the bishop to be confirmed." It must be a voluntary act. He does not come in order to be made a Christian. He comes because through repentance and faith he has been pardoned, washed in the blood of Christ, and sanctified by the Holy Ghost. The true soldier of his country is always such before he puts on the uniform. The national livery only makes all the world know what his heart is. Confirmation makes no man a soldier of the Cross,, who was not such at heart before. THE REFORMED EPISCOPALIAN AT THE LORD'S TABLE. ^^And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and gave it to the disciples, and said. Take J eat ; this is My body. And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying. Drink ye all of it : for this is My blood of the New Tes- tament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." St. Matt, xxvi : 26-28. No visible institution of Christianity, so im- presses the mind and the imagination, as the supper of the Lord. Its hoary age makes it venerable. It antedates the Christian Church itself. " Soldiers," cried Napoleon, to his army in Egypt, " behold the Pyramids ! Forty centuries are looking down upon you." Yet the passover, out of which the communion sprang, the passover which prefigured the sacri- fice of Jesus, as the supper of the Lord recalls it to memory, belongs to the age when the Pyra- mids were built. The communicant is looked down upon by the witness of four thousand years. And when the Pyramids shall crumble, the Lord's sup- (45) 46 per shall remain. For, " as oft as ye do eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord's death until He come." Little»wonder if superstition has seized upon so venerable an ordinance, and used it as a potent Tveapon to subvert the freedom of God's children. ft is the duty of every Reformed Episcopalian, as ■of every Christian, to know the exact nature of so -conspicuous and solemn an institution of Christ. Let us attempt that duty to-day, with prayer for the Spirit's guidance. I. What is the Scriptural and Evangelical VIEW OF THE Holy Communion? It would seem as if the New Testament had left us without excuse if we blunder as to the true answer to this inquiry. For doubt and contro- versy generally arise in regard to things concern- iing whose early origin history has left us in the dark. The windowless " round towers " upon the rocky -coast of Ireland, have given rise to whole volumes of controversial literature. Antiquarians and scholars have debated with each other whether they were places of religious' worship, or fortresses for defence. But the discussion carried on for