Section I.—Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptised into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, or his engrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.
This section, in the first place, Affirms that baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, instituted by Christ, and to be continued in his Church unti1 the end of the world; and, secondly, Declares the ends of baptism.
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, instituted by Christ. John, the harbinger of Christ, was the first who administered baptism by divine authority. The Lord "sent him to baptise with water;" and "there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptised of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins."—John i. 33; Mark i. 4. Jesus, after he entered on his public ministry, employed his apostles to baptise those who came to him; for "Jesus himself baptised not, but his disciples."—John iv. 2. The baptism of John was a sign of faith in Christ as shortly to be revealed; whereas the baptism of the disciples of Jesus was an expression of faith in him as already come. But baptism was not formally appointed as a perpetual ordinance in the New Testament Church until after the resurrection of Christ, when he gave the following commission to his disciples: "Go ye, therefore, and teach," or make disciples of, "all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."—Matt. xxviii. 19, 20. These words not only contain an express institution of baptism, but also a plain intimation of the will of Christ that this ordinance should be continued in the Church in all succeeding ages; for he promised to be with his disciples in executing his commission, not only to the end of that age, but "to the end of the world." Baptism has, accordingly, continued to be practised by all sects of Christians, with the exception of the Quakers. It appears to them that, as it is the distinguishing character of the gospel to be the dispensation of the Spirit, the baptism of water was only a temporary institution, and is now superseded by the baptism of the Spirit. But it cannot be questioned, that the apostles did use the baptism of water after the dispensation of the Spirit had commenced. The Apostle Peter makes a distinction between being baptised in the name of Christ and receiving the Holy Ghost; and he actually dispensed baptism to those who had previously received the Holy Ghost. - Acts ii. 38, x. 47. It appears, therefore, to have been the judgment of Peter, that the baptism of the Spirit does not supersede the baptism of water.
II. This section declares the ends of baptism: - 1. It is a solemn admission of the party baptised into the visible Church, and to all its privileges. "It supposes the party to have a right to these privileges before, and does not make them members of the visible Church, but admit them solemnly thereto. And therefore it is neither to be called nor accounted christening—that is, making them Christians: for the infants of believing parents are born within the covenant, and so are Christians and visible Church members; and by baptism this right of theirs is acknowledged, and they are solemnly admitted to the privileges of Church membership." 2. It is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, and of the benefits of that covenant. These benefits are, engrafting into Christ, or union with him; the remission of sins by virtue of the blood of Christ; and regeneration by the Spirit of Christ. It is not intended that remission of sins and regeneration are inseparably connected with baptism; for our Confession, in a subsequent section, expressly guards against the opinion "that all that are baptised are undoubtedly regenerated." 3. It is a sign and seal of the party baptised being devoted to God, and engaged to walk in newness of life. Baptism is a dedicating ordinance, in which the party baptised is solemnly given up to God to be his and for him, now, wholly, and for ever. He is, as it were, enlisted under Christ's banner, to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh. He is bound to renounce every other lord and master, and to "serve God in holiness and righteousness all the days of his life."
Section II.—The outward element to be used in the sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.
This section embraces the following points:—1. That the outward element to be used in the sacrament of baptism is water. This outward sign represents the blood and Spirit of Christ.—Rev. i. 5; Tit. iii. 6. As water has a cleansing virtue for removing defilements from the body, so the blood of Christ removes the guilt of sin and cleanses the defiled conscience, and the Spirit of Christ purifies the soul from the pollution of sin. 2. That baptism is to be administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. To be baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, signifies that we are baptised by the authority of the persons of the Holy Trinity; that we are baptised into the faith and profession of the blessed Trinity; and that we are solemnly devoted to the service of these divine persons. 3. That baptism is to be dispensed lay a lawfully ordained minister of the gospel. They only have authority to administer baptism who have received a commission from Christ to preach the gospel.—Matt. xxviii. 19. We have no account of any one dispensing the ordinance in the primitive Church, but such as were called, either ordinarily or extraordinarily, to the work of the ministry. It is the unfounded opinion that baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, that has led the Church of Rome to permit this rite to be performed by laymen and women in cases of urgent necessity.
Section III.—Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.
This section relates to the mode of administering baptism. This is a subject which has occasioned much controversy among Christians, and the dispute is still carried on with unabated zeal. A large and respectable body of Christians strenuously contend that baptism can only be valid when performed by immersion, or by dipping the whole body under water. Our Confession does not deny that baptism may be lawfully performed by immersion; but maintains that it is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water on the person. No conclusion can be drawn from the word baptise, or from the original term; for it has been most satisfactorily proved that it signifies to wash with water in any way. Several instances of the administration of baptism are recorded in the New Testament; and in some of these cases it is not credible that baptism was performed by immersion. When three thousand were baptised in one day, it cannot be conceived that the apostles were capable of dipping all this multitude in so short a space of time. When whole families were baptised in their own houses, it cannot be thought that, on every occasion, a sufficient quantity of water could be found for immersion. Besides, the application of the spiritual benefit signified by baptism is in Scripture frequently expressed by sprinkling and pouring out. - Isa. xliv. 3; Ezek. xxxvi. 25; Heb. x. 22; xii. 24; Tit. iii. 6, 6. It may be added, that baptism by immersion cannot, in some cases, be dispensed with convenience or decorum; nor in some countries, and at certain seasons, without endangering the health of the body. This affords, at least, a strong presumption against the absolute necessity of dipping the person into the water; and from all these considerations we must conclude that it is sufficient and most expedient to administer baptism by sprinkling or pouring water on the person.
Section IV.—Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptised.
This section relates to the subjects of baptism. That baptism is to be administered to all adult persons who profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him, and who have not been baptised in their infancy, is admitted by all who acknowledge the divine institution of this ordinance. But there are many who confidently assert that baptism ought to be confined to adults. These were originally called Anabaptists, because they rebaptised those who had received baptism in their infancy, and Antipaedobaptists, because they were opposed to the baptism of infants. They now assume the name of Baptists; but this designation we cannot concede to them, if it be intended to insinuate that others do not baptise, and are not baptised, agreeably to the principles of the gospel. Our Confession affirms, that "the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptised." This might be confirmed by numerous arguments; but only a few of them can be here stated with the utmost brevity. 1. The infants of believing parents are to be considered as within the covenant, and therefore entitled to receive its seal. The covenant which God made with Abraham was substantially the same with that under which believers now are. This appears by comparing Gen. xvii. 7, where the covenant made with Abraham is expressed, with Heb. viii. 10, where the new covenant is expressed. In the one, the promise is: "I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee; and in the other: "I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people." We thus find, that when God established his covenant with Abraham, he embraced his infant seed in that covenant; and that the promise made to Abraham and to his seed is still endorsed to us is evident from the express declaration of the Apostle Peter (Acts ii. 39): "The promise is unto you, and to your children." If children are included in the covenant, we conclude that they have a right to baptism, the seal of the covenant. 2. Infants were the subjects of circumcision under the Old Testament dispensation; and as baptism under the New Testament has come in the room of circumcision, we conclude that infants have a right to baptism under the present dispensation. That, under the Old Testament, the infants of God's professing people were to be circumcised, cannot be doubted; for the command is express: "Every man-child among you shall be circumcised."—Gen. xvii. 10. That baptism has now come in the room of circumcision is evident from Col. ii. 11, where it is called "the circumcision of Christ." It must therefore follow, either that the privileges of the Church are now greatly abridged, or else that the children of the members of the Church now are to be admitted to baptism, as they were to circumcision under the former dispensation. 3. That the children of professing Christians are members of the visible Church, and therefore entitled to baptism, appears from the words of our Saviour (Luke xviii. 16): "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God." By "the kingdom of God," we apprehend is to be here understood the Church on earth; and if children are members of the visible Church, it cannot be denied that they have a right to baptism, the sign of admission. But if by "the kingdom of God" be understood the state of glory, the inference is strong that, being heirs of eternal life, they ought not to be denied that ordinance which is the seal of their title to it. 4. The warrantableness of infant baptism may lie inferred from the commission of the apostles to baptise "all nations," which certainly includes infants; and from the practice of the apostles, who baptised "households," upon a profession of faith by their domestic heads. Paul baptised Lydia "and her household," the Philippian jailer "and all his," and "the household of Stephanas."—Acts xvi. 15, 33; 1 Cor. i. 16. "Now, though we are not certain that there were young children in any of these families, it is highly probable there were. At any rate, the great principle of family baptism, of receiving all the younger members of households on the faith of their domestic head seems to be plainly and decisively established. This furnishes ground on which the advocate of infant baptism may stand with unwavering confidence." 5. That the infants of believing parents ought to be baptised; and that it is sufficient if one of the parents be a member of the visible Church, is evident from 1 Cor. vii. 14: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." "The word unclean, in almost all instances in the Scriptures, denotes that which may not offered to God, or may not come into his temple. Of this character were the heathen universally; and they were, therefore, customarily and proverbially, denominated unclean by the Jews. The unbelievers here spoken of were heathen, and were, therefore, unclean. In this sense, the children born of two heathen parents are here pronounced to be unclean also, as being, in the proper sense, heathen. To be holy, as here used, is the converse of being unclean, and denotes that which may be offered to God. To be sanctified, as referring to the objects here mentioned, is to be separated for religious purposes, consecrated to God - as were the firstborn, and vessels of the temple; or to be in a proper condition to appear before God. In this text it denotes, that the unbelieving parent is so purified by means of his relation to the believing parent, that their mutual offspring are not unclean, but may be offered unto God. There is no other sense in which a Jew could have written this text, without some qualification of these words. The only appointed way in which children may be offered to God is baptism. The children of believing parents are, therefore, to be offered to God in baptism."
The objections usually brought forward against the warrantableness of infant baptism, are either frivolous in themselves, or proceed from mistaken views of the ordinance. Is it urged, that in the New Testament we have no express injunction to baptise the infants of professing Christians? This, we reply, is precisely what might have been expected, because the Church-membership of the children of God's professing people was fully established under the Old Testament, and their admission by the rite of circumcision was a privilege well known, and universally extended to them; so that, unless it had been designed to abridge the privileges of the children of believing parents under the New Testament, there was no occasion for any explicit injunction to baptise their children. But no hint is given in the New Testament that the privilege of infants, which had been so long enjoyed under the former dispensation, was to be withdrawn; and as the privilege is not revoked, it must be continued. Is it asked, What benefit can infants derive from baptism? With equal propriety, we reply, it might have been asked, What benefit can a child, eight days old, derive from circumcision? To put such a question is almost impious, because it implies an impeachment of the wisdom of God. He appointed circumcision to be administered to infants under the Old Testament; and with equal propriety is baptism administered to them under the New Testament. Is it objected, that we have no express example of the baptism of infants under the New Testament? All the cases of baptism recorded in the New Testament, we reply, are cases in which it was administered to converts from Judaism or Paganism to Christianity; and if we do not find it explicitly stated, that any infant born of Christian parents was baptised, as little do we find any example of those who were born of Christian parents being baptised in adult age. This entirely accords with our practice at the present day. We baptise adult converts from among Jews or Heathens; and as the apostles baptised "households" on the faith of their domestic heads, we also, consider ourselves warranted to baptise the children of professing Christians. But those who defer the baptism of the children of professing Christians until they arrive at adult age, have no precedent or example for their practice; for, though the Book of the Acts contains the history of the Church for upwards of thirty years, in which time the children of those who were first baptised by the apostles must have reached maturity, yet we have no record of the baptism of a single individual born of Christian parents. From this silence, we justly infer that they must have been baptised in their infancy; and we defy the advocates of adult baptism to adduce a single scriptural example of their practice. Is it urged, that infants cannot profess their faith in Christ? We reply, that when faith, or the profession of it, is spoken of as a prerequisite to baptism, it is always supposed that the subjects of it are capable of instruction; and that if this proved anything, it would prove too much; for this objection, if valid against infant baptism, must also be valid against infant salvation, since the Scripture connects faith and the profession of it, in the case of adults, with the one as well as the other.
Section V.—Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptised are undoubtedly regenerated.
This section affirms—1. That baptism is not of such absolute necessity to salvation, that none can be saved without it. God has not made baptism and faith equally necessary.—Mark xvi. 16. The penitent thief was saved without being baptised. But baptism is an instituted means of salvation, and the contempt of it must be a great sin on the part of the parents, though the neglect cannot be ascribed to the child before he arrives at maturity, and cannot, therefore, involve him in the guilt. 2. That baptism is not regeneration, nor are all who are baptised undoubtedly regenerated. That the baptism of water is regeneration, and that every person duly baptised is born again, is the doctrine of the Church of Rome; and this doctrine has been embraced by many in Protestant Churches, and receives too much countenance from the Liturgy of the Church of England. It is a very dangerous doctrine; and that it has no warrant from Scripture appears from the case of Simon Magus, who after baptism remained "in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity."—Acts viii. 13, 23. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says: "I thank God that I baptised none of you, but Crispus and Gaius." But if baptism be regeneration, his meaning must be: "I thank God that I regenerated none of you." And could Paul really give thanks to God on this account? How absurd the idea! "Christ," says he, "sent me not to baptise." But can it be thought that Christ did not send the chief of the apostles to promote the great work of regeneration? Unquestionably Paul made a great difference between baptism and regeneration.
Section VI.—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 grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
Section VII.—The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered to any person.
1. The efficacy of baptism is not confined to the moment of administration; but though not effectual at the time it is administered, it may afterwards be effectual, through the working of the Spirit.—John iii. 5, 8.
2. Baptism is not to be administered to any person oftener than once. This is plain from the nature of the ordinance. It is a solemn admission of the person baptised as a member of the visible Church; and though those that "walk disorderly" are to be cast out, yet there is no hint in Scripture that, when readmitted, they are to be baptised again. The thing signified by baptism cannot be repeated, and the engagements come under can never be annulled.
It may be remarked, that the naming of the baptised person is no part of this institution. The custom of publishing the child's name at baptism probably arose from the practice of the Jews at their circumcision.—Luke i. 59-63. It belongs to the parent to give a name to his child, and this may be done before baptism. There may be a propriety in publishing the name of the person baptised, who is then admitted a member of the visible Church; but this is by no means essential to baptism, nor even any part of the ordinance.
We ought to improve our baptism, especially when we are present at the administration of it to others, "by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptised, for the mortifying of sin and quickening of grace; and by endeavouring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ, and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptised by the same Spirit into one body."
Chapter XXIX. Of the Lord's Supper
Section I.—Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord's Supper, to be observed in his Church unto the end of the world; for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death, the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other, as members of his mystical body.
This chapter treats of the Lord's supper; and the present section declares—1. The author of this sacrament; 2. The time of its institution; 3. Its permanent continuance in the Church; 4. The uses and ends for which it is designed.
I. The author of this sacrament is the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the prerogative of Christ, as king and head of the Church, to institute religious ordinances; and we are not at liberty to add to, or to diminish from, his appointments. The institution of this ordinance by our Saviour is recorded by the three first Evangelists (Matt. xxvi. 26 - 28; Mark xiv. 22-24; Luke xxii. 19, 20), and by the Apostle Paul, who declares that he "had received of the Lord that which he delivered" to the Church.—1 Cor. xi. 23-26.
II. This sacrament was instituted by our Lord Jesus "the same night in which he was betrayed." It was when Jesus was eating the Passover with his disciples that he instituted this sacred ordinance; from which circumstance we infer that the one was changed into the other, and that the latter was henceforth to supply the place of the former. This also accounts for the designation usually given to this sacrament. Being instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ, and being appointed by him immediately after eating the Passover, which was always celebrated in the evening, it is with the utmost propriety called the Lord's supper. When we reflect on the time of the institution of this ordinance, we have a striking view of the fortitude with which Jesus met his unparalleled sufferings, and of the singular love which he cherished towards his people; and we ought to feel the sacred obligation laid upon us to keep this feast. On that night the Jewish rulers and the chief priests were met in close cabal, to concert measures for apprehending Jesus, and bringing him to an ignominious death. In that night he was to be perfidiously betrayed by one of his own disciples, denied by another, and abandoned by them all to the rage of his malicious foes. He was to be smitten by the sword of Justice, and forsaken of his God—to be cruelly mocked and scourged—to be led away to a cross, and there to pour out his soul unto death. Of all this Jesus was fully apprised; yet in the immediate view of the dreadful sufferings he was about to undergo, such was the calm serenity of his mind, such his matchless love to his people, and such his concern for their spiritual benefit, that he instituted this ordinance for their encouragement and consolation in all succeeding ages. Did he remember them in such affecting circumstances?—and shall not this engage them to remember him?—shall they undervalue, by a wilful neglect, an ordinance which he settled immediately before his death, and disregard the dying command of that friend who laid down his life for them?
III. The sacrament of the Lord's supper is to be observed in the Church to the end of the world. This is plainly implied in the words of the Apostle Paul: "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come."—1 Cor. xi. 26. So universally has it been understood that the observance of this ordinance is obligatory upon all Christians to the end of the world, that, with the exception only of the Quakers, it has been observed in the Christian Church from the earliest times to the present day.
IV. The ends and uses of this sacrament are various. 1. It was instituted to be a memorial of the death of Christ. That it is a commemorative ordinance, appears from the Saviours words: "This do in remembrance of me;" and that it is especially a memorial of his death, is evident from his words in distributing the elements. While he gave the bread to his disciples, he said: "This is my body, which is broken for you;" and of the cup he said: "This cup is the New Testament in my blood." The ordinance is eminently fitted to bring to our remembrance the reality and the painful nature of the death of Christ—to remind us of the vicarious nature of his death, of its acceptableness to God as a satisfaction for our sins, and of its present and perpetual efficacy. And we should remember his death with a lively and appropriating faith; with ardent love to him who first loved us; with deep contrition for our sins, the procuring cause of his death; with holy joy in God; and with the warmest gratitude to Christ, who gave himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour. 2. This sacrament seals the benefits of Christ's death unto true believers. It seals not the truth of Christ's' death, nor the truth of their faith; but it seals the right and interest of faith, as the seal affixed to a deed seals the right and interest of the person in the property conveyed by that deed. 3. It promotes the spiritual nourishment and growth of believers. A devout participation of this ordinance is fitted to confirm and invigorate their faith, to inflame their love, to deepen their godly sorrow, to enliven their joy, and to enlarge and strengthen their hopes of the Saviour's second coming, and of the glory then to be revealed. 4. It is a sign and pledge of the believers' communion with Christ. This is evident from the words of Paul (1 Cor. x. 16): "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" These words certainly import that, in the holy supper, believers have communion with Christ in the fruits of his sufferings and death. 5. It is an emblem of the saints' communion with each other. All true saints are members of one body, and in the holy supper they have communion, not merely with those who sit along with them at the same table, but "with all that in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ," their common Lord. "We being many," says Paul, "are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread." - 1 Cor. x. 17. This ordinance is very expressive of the communion of saints, and has a powerful tendency to cherish it. They meet together at the same table, as brethren and children of the same family, to partake of the same spiritual feast. 6. In this ordinance believers engage themselves to all the duties which they owe to Christ. They acknowledge him as their master, and engage to do whatsoever he has commanded them. Persons may come under engagements by performing certain significant actions, as well as by express words. Submission to the ordinance of circumcision, under the former dispensation, made a man "a debtor to do the whole law." Baptism, in like manner, under the Christian dispensation, involves an engagement to be the Lord's; and Christians, in partaking of the Lord's supper, renew this engagement. They acknowledge that they are not their own, but are bought with a price, and bind themselves to glorify God with their bodies and spirits which are his.
Section II.—In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead, but only a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once and for all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same; so that the so-called sacrifice of the mass is most abominably injurious to Christ's one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.
Section III.—The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.
Section IV.—Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone; as likewise the denial of the cup to the people; worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.
Section V.—The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.
Section VI.—That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called Transubstantiation), by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament; and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.
In these sections certain dangerous errors and superstitious practices of the Church of Rome are condemned; and we have placed all these sections together, that we may include the leading error, called transubstantiation, which has given rise to the absurd doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass, and the various other tenets and practices here rejected.
I. The Church of Rome holds that the words, "This is my body," and, "This is my blood," are to be understood in their most literal sense; and that the priest, by pronouncing these words, with a good intention, changes the substance of the bread and wine into the real body and blood of Jesus Christ; which change is known by the name of transubstantiation. This doctrine receives no support from Scripture, but is founded on a gross perversion of its language. The words, "This is my body," and, "This is my blood", were manifestly used by our Saviour in a figurative sense; and must have been so understood by the apostles, to whom they were immediately addressed. Such figurative expressions are of frequent occurrence in Scripture. No one supposes that, when our Lord said, "I am the vine," "I am the way," "I am the door," he meant us to understand that he is literally a vine, a way, and a door; and no satisfactory reason can be assigned for understanding the words of institution in a literal sense. Our Saviour plainly meant that the bread and wine signify or represent his body and blood; and nothing is more common in Scripture than to affix to a type or symbol the name of the thing signified by it; thus circumcision is called God's covenant (Gen. xvii. 10); the paschal lamb, the Passover (Exod. xii. 11); and the smitten rock, Christ.—1 Cor. x. 4. But, not only is the doctrine of transubstantiation destitute of any support from the inspired writings, it is repugnant to Scripture; for the Apostle Paul gives to the elements after blessing the very same names they had before it; which certainly intimates that there is no change of their substance.—1 Cor. xi. 26, 28. It is also contradicted by our senses; for we see and taste that the bread and wine after blessing, and when we actually receive them, still continue to be bread and wine, without any change or alteration whatever. It is equally repugnant to reason; for this tells us that Christ's body cannot be both in heaven and on earth at the same time; but according to the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation, though the body of Christ remains in heaven, it is also present, not in one place on earth only, but in a thousand places—wherever the priest has, with a good intention, pronounced the words of institution. This doctrine likewise overthrows the nature of the sacrament. Two things are necessary to a sacrament—a sign and a thing signified—an object presented to our senses, and some promised blessing which is represented and sealed by it. But by transubstantiation the sign is annihilated, and the thing signified is put in its place.
Transubstantiation is not only contrary to Scripture, and reason, and common sense, but it has been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries. In the fourth section, several of these superstitious and idolatrous practices are specified. Conceiving that the bread and wine are changed into the real body and blood of Christ, Papists reserve part of the consecrated wafers, for the purpose of giving them to the sick, or other absent persons, at some future time. In direct opposition to the command of Christ, "Drink ye all of it," they deny the cup to the people; on the pretence that, as the bread is changed into the body of Christ, they partake, by concomitance, of the blood together with the body. When the priest is supposed to have changed the bread into the body of Christ, he adores it with bonded knee, and rising, lifts it up, that it may be seen and adored by the people which is called the elevation of the host; it is also carried about in solemn procession, that it may receive the homage of all who meet it; and, in short, it is worshipped as if it were Christ himself. All these practices are declared by our Confession to be "contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ." They were unknown in the primitive ages of the Church, and have evidently originated in the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation.
II. In the Church of Rome, the priest being supposed to have charged the bread and wine into the very body and blood of Christ, it is also conceived that, in laying upon the altar what has been thus transubstantiated, he offers to God a sacrifice which, although it be distinguished from all others by being without the shedding of blood, is a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead. This is called the sacrifice of the mass. As this is founded upon the doctrine of transubstantiation, if the one be unscriptural so must the other. But we may adduce a few of those pointed declarations of Scripture, by which this particular doctrine is refuted. "Once in the end of the world hath he appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." "Christ was once offered, to bear the sins of many." "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." "By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." - Heb. ix. 26, 28; x. 10,14. These texts, and they might easily be greatly multiplied, clearly prove that the one sacrifice of Christ, once offered by himself, is sufficient and perfect; and we are expressly told that "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins."—Heb. x. 26. In the language of our Confession, therefore, "the Popish sacrifice of the mass is most abominably injurious to Christ's one only sacrifice - the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect."
III. The right manner of dispensing the sacrament of the supper is here declared.
1. The minister is to read the word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use. In instituting this sacrament, according to the evangelist Matthew, "Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it." - Matt. xxvi. 26. Some have observed, that it is not necessary for us to understand this as signifying that Jesus blessed the bread, for the pronoun it is a supplement; and as the word rendered blessed sometimes means to give thanks, thanks, especially as the evangelist Luke employs the phrase, "he gave thanks," they conclude that the two expressions are in this case synonymous; and that we are to understand that Jesus blessed, not the bread, but God, or gave thanks to his Father. We are of opinion, however, that the pronoun it has been very properly introduced by our translators after the word bread, as it is unquestionably repeated with the utmost propriety after the word brake; and we conceive that the order of the words requires us to understand that Jesus blessed the bread. Nor is there any more difficulty in apprehending how Jesus blessed the bread, than in apprehending how God blessed the seventh or the Sabbath-day.—Gen. ii. 3, Exod. xx. 11. Indeed, the two cases are exactly analogous;—God blessed the seventh day by setting it apart to a holy use, or appointing it to be a day of sacred rest; Christ blessed the bread, by setting, it apart from a common to a holy use, or appointing it to be the visible symbol of his body. And while it belonged exclusively to Christ, as the Head of the Church, to appoint bread and wine to be the symbols of his body and blood, yet we are persuaded that the servants of Christ, in administering the Lord's supper, are warranted, according to the institution and example of Christ, to set apart by solemn prayer so much of the elements as shall be used from a common to a holy use. That there is a sense in, which the servants of Christ may be said to bless the elements, seems plain from 1 Cor. x. 16, where Paul denominates the sacramental cup "The cup of blessing which we bless." It is not pretended that any real change is thereby made upon the elements, but only a relative change, so that they are not to be looked upon an common bread and wine, but as the sacred symbols of Christ's body and blood.
2. The minister is also to take and break the bread. The breaking of the bread is an essential part of the ordinance, and, when it is wanting, the sacrament is not celebrated according to the original institution. It is, indeed, so essential, that the Lord's supper is sometimes designated from it alone, the whole being denominated from a part. The "breaking of bread" is mentioned among the institutions of the gospel (Acts ii. 42); and in Acts xx. 7, we are told that, "upon the first day of the week, the disciples came together to break bread:" in both of which passages the celebration of the Lord's supper is doubtless meant by the "breaking of bread." The rite is significant, and we are left in no doubt about the meaning of the action. Our Saviour himself explained it when he said, "This is my body, which is broken for you;" intimating that the broken bread is a figure of his body as wounded, bruised, and crucified, to make atonement for our sins. As an unbroken Christ could not profit sinners, so unbroken bread cannot fully represent to faith the food of the soul. Wherefore, to divide the bread into small pieces called wafers, and put a wafer into the mouth of each of the communicants, as is done in the Church of Rome, is grossly to corrupt this ordinance, for it takes away the significant action of breaking the bread.
3. The minister is further to take the cup, and give both the elements to the communicants. The cup, as well as the bread, is an essential element in this ordinance—the one representing the blood, and the other representing the body of Christ. To give both the elements to all the communicants, was the universal practice of the Church of God for about 1400 years; but the Church of Rome then departed from the primitive institution, and the practice of the ancient Church, by withholding the cup from the laity. The Council of Constance decreed, "that though Christ did administer this venerable sacrament to his disciples under both the kinds of bread and wine, yet notwithstanding this, the custom of communicating under one kind only is now to be taken for a law." And, "Though, in the primitive Church, this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds, yet, notwithstanding this, the custom that is introduced of communicating under one kind only for the laity is now to be taken for a law." The Council of Trent also declared, "That the laity, and the clergy not officiating, are not bound by any divine precept, to receive the sacrament of the eucharist under both kinds." "And further declares, that although our Redeemer in the last supper instituted this sacrament in two kinds, and so delivered it to the apostles, yet under one kind only, whole, and entire Christ and the true sacrament are taken; and that, therefore, those who receive only one kind are deprived of no grace necessary to salvation." The Church of Rome, it will be remarked, acknowledges both kinds, the bread and the wine, to have been instituted by Christ, and the ordinance to have been thus celebrated in primitive times; she is, therefore, guilty of an avowed opposition to the authority of Christ, has sacrilegiously mutilated this holy sacrament, and infringed the privileges of the Christian people. The command of Christ to drink the wine is as express as the command to eat the bread; nay, as foreseeing how, in after ages, this ordinance would be dismembered by the prohibition of the cup to the laity, he is even more explicit in his injunction concerning the cup than the bread. Of the bread, be simply said, "Take, eat;" but when he gave the cup, he said, "Drink ye all of it."—Matt. xxvi. 26, 27. According to the divine institution, therefore, both the elements are to be given to all the communicants. And as really as the bread and wine are given to the communicants, so Christ gives himself, with all his benefits, to the worthy receivers; and in taking these elements—in eating the bread and drinking the wine they profess to receive Christ by faith, and to rest their hope of pardon and salvation solely upon his death.
Section VII.—Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
Section VIII.—Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament, yet they receive not the thing signified thereby; but by their unworthy coming thereunto are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table, and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.
In the preceding sections we have a strong condemnation of the Popish doctrine respecting the sacrament of the Lord's supper, and here we have an explicit condemnation of the Lutheran doctrine. The Lutherans hold, that although the bread and wine are not changed into the body and blood of Christ, yet that his real body and blood are received by the communicants along with the symbols. This is called consubstantiation, to signify that the substance of the body and blood of Christ is present in, with, or under the substance of the elements. "This opinion, although free from some of the absurdities of transubstantiation, appears to us to labour under so many palpable difficulties, that we are disposed to wonder at its being held by men of a philosophical mind. It is fair, however, to mention, that the doctrine of the real presence is, in the Lutheran Church, merely a speculative opinion, having no influence upon the practice of those by whom it is adopted. It appears to them that this opinion furnishes the best method of explaining a Scripture expression; but they do not consider the presence of the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine as imparting to the sacrament any physical virtue, by which the benefit derived from it is independent of the disposition of him by whom it is received; or as giving it the nature of a sacrifice; or as rendering the bread and wine an object of adoration to Christians. And their doctrine being thus separated from the three great practical errors of the Church of Rome, receives, even from those who account it false and irrational, a kind of indulgence very different from that which is shown to the doctrine of transubstantiation."
While our Confession rejects the doctrine of the Papists and of the Lutherans, respecting the Lord's supper, it teaches that "the body and blood of Christ are as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses." Christ is not present in body at his table; and, therefore, we cannot see him there after the flesh; but he is present spiritually, and may be discerned by faith. From this it follows that the participation of Christ's body and blood, in the holy supper, is spiritual. There is an external representation and confirmation of it, in participating of the sacred and instituted elements, which symbolise the broken body and shed blood of Christ. And while the worthy receivers outwardly partake of the visible elements in this sacrament, they inwardly, by faith, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and the benefits of his death.
From the nature and ends of this sacrament, it is manifest that the ignorant and ungodly are unfit for partaking of it. They may receive the outward elements; but they receive not the thing signified thereby. As they are unfit for communion with Christ, so they are unworthy of occupying a seat at his table. They cannot venture to approach to it without contracting a great sin, and exposing themselves to the judgments of God. The Scripture declares, that "whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord;" and that such "eat and drink damnation to themselves."—1 Cor. xi. 27, 29. Not that all unworthy communicants must necessarily perish eternally. The word in our version unhappily rendered "damnation," properly signifies judgment; and the judgment intended must be determined by the context. That the judgments inflicted on the Corinthians were chiefly of a temporal nature is evident from the words that are immediately added: "For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep." Temporal judgments may be still inflicted for the profanation of this ordinance, but those of a spiritual nature are chiefly to be dreaded; and this sin, if unrepented, must, like other sins, expose to eternal punishment. This being the case, it must be the duty of the office-bearers of the Church to be careful in excluding the ignorant and ungodly from this ordinance. All were not permitted to eat of the Passover; neither ought there to be a promiscuous admission of all to the Lord's table. To admit the immoral and scandalous, is to profane the ordinance, and to corrupt the communion of the Church. But those who have a right to this ordinance in the judgment of the office-bearers of the Church, who can only judge of their knowledge and external conduct, may have no right to it in the sight of God. Every one, therefore, ought impartially and faithfully to examine himself as to his state before God, and his consequent right to partake of that feast which he has prepared for his children. The injunction of the apostle is express, and he enjoins self-examination as a means of preventing the sin of unworthy communicating: "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup."—1 Cor. xi. 28.
Chapter XXX. Of Church Censures
Section I.—The Lord Jesus, as king and head of his Church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.
To suppose, as some have done, that the government of the Church is ambulatory, or that no particular form has been appointed by Christ, but that he has left it to be moulded according to the wisdom or caprice of men, and varied according to the external circumstances of the Church, is to impeach the love of Christ to his Church, and his fidelity to Him who hath appointed him to "reign over the house of Jacob." No human society can subsist without government; how absurd, then, to suppose that the Church of Christ, the most perfect of all societies, has been left by her king destitute of what is essential to the very being of society! Under the Old Testament a most perfect form of government was prescribed to the Church; but order and discipline are as necessary to the Christian as they were to the Jewish Church. And can it be reasonably supposed, that while the government of the latter was minutely prescribed, that of the former has been totally neglected! All sects of Christians, indeed, plead the authority of Scripture for that form of government which they prefer; and thus they implicitly acknowledge that the outlines, at least, of some particular form may be found in the Scriptures.
Even the advocates of the divine right of ecclesiastical government differ widely respecting the precise form of it which has been appointed by Christ. Papists, conceiving that the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of Peter, and the vicegerent of Christ, is the visible head of the whole Church, maintain that in him the supreme government of the universal Church is reposed, and that from him all other bishops derive their authority. Episcopalians, holding a distinction of rank among the ministers of religion, vest the government of the Church in bishops, archbishops, &c. Independents, conceiving that every congregation forms a complete Church, and has an independent power of jurisdiction within itself, lodge the government of the Church in the assembly of the faithful. Presbyterians, holding, in opposition to Episcopalians, that all the ministers of the Word are on a level, in respect of office and authority; and, in opposition to Independents, that particular congregations are only parts of the one Church, maintain that the government of the Church is committed, under Christ, to the presbytery, or the teaching and ruling elders; and that there is a subordination of courts, in which the sentence of inferior courts may be reviewed, and either affirmed or reversed. It would be out of place here to examine the claims of these different systems. That the Presbyterial form is "founded upon, and agreeable to, the Word of God," is, in our judgment, fully established in "the Form of Church Government" drawn up by the Westminster Assembly.
It is only necessary to advert to the opinion of the Erastians, who maintain that the external government of the Church belongs to the civil magistrate. This opinion is directly opposed to all that the Scriptures say about the spiritual nature of the kingdom of Christ. That remarkable declaration of Christ, "My kingdom is not of this world," plainly shows that his kingdom, though in the world, is totally and specifically distinct from all others in it; and when he forbade the exercise of such dominion over his subjects as the kings of the Gentiles exercised, the different nature of the government to take place in it was clearly pointed out. Among the various office-bearers which Christ has "set in the Church," the civil magistrate is never mentioned. And were it true that it belongs to the civil magistrate to model the government of the Church, Christ must have left his Church more than three hundred years without any government; for it was not till the fourth century that the Church received any countenance from the civil powers.
"The formal and specific difference betwixt the Church and the kingdoms of the world, and, consequently, between civil and ecclesiastical authority, in respect of origin, ends, subjects, laws, privileges, means, extent, &c., has, by many writers, been very particularly explained. No doubt, the Church on earth hath some things in common with other societies, and the authority in both may often have the same objects, materially considered, they admit also of a mutual respect, and reciprocal acts and duties towards each other; but none of these are inconsistent with their formal distinction, but rather suppose it; so that all the power and peculiar actings of each, whatever matters they respect, must ever be of the same nature with that of the society they belong to—in the one wholly spiritual, and in the other always and wholly secular. When following their proper line, and keeping within their proper sphere, they can never jar or impede one another by interference: like two straight and parallel lines, they can never meet or be confounded together. Whatever dangers have arisen, or may arise, from abuse, none can arise merely from the distinct and independent nature and actings of these societies; so that there can be no reason for subjection one of them to the other. The common plea of the necessity of one undivided supreme power in all states, and of the danger of an "imperium in imperio', applies only to societies and powers of the same nature and order, and is impertinently urged for a supremacy of temporal rulers over a Church of Christ, whose authority is of a different kind."
Section II.—To these officers the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed, by virtue whereof they have power respectively to retain and remit sins, to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the word and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel, and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.
Section III.—Church censures are necessary for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren; for deterring of others from like offences; for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump; for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the gospel; and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer his covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.
Section IV.—For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the church are to proceed by admonition, suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season, and by excommunication from the Church, according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person.
In opposition to the Erastians, who assign the power of indicting the censures of the Church to the civil magistrate, our Confession here affirms, that the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed to the officers whom Christ has appointed in his Church. "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," said Christ to Peter, "and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."—Matt. xvi. 19. By "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," we are to understand the power and authority of exercising government and discipline in the Church; in virtue of which, those entrusted with these keys have power to "bind and loose," by inflicting and removing censures; and their proceedings, when conducted agreeably to Scripture, are ratified in heaven. Presbyterians maintain that these keys were given to Peter, as an apostle and elder; and, therefore, that the gift extends to all the apostles, and after them, to all ordinary elders, to the end of time. The same thing that is expressed in the above passage by binding and loosing, is elsewhere expressed by remitting and retaining sins. But Christ addressed these words to all the apostles: "Peace be unto you; as the Father hath sent me, so send I you. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."—John xx. 21, 23. It is true that this power is ascribed to the Church: "Tell it unto the Church," &c. (Matt. xviii. 17); but by the Church, in this passage, is to be understood the rulers or elders of the Church; and this text further confirms the doctrine of our Confession, that the power of discipline is committed solely to the office-bearers of the Church. The Church and the State may take up the same cases, but under a different consideration; it is only when viewed as crimes against the State that they come under the cognisance of civil rulers, and are to be punished with civil pains; viewed as scandals against religious society, they come under the cognisance of the rulers of the Church, and can only be removed by ecclesiastical censures.
Church censures are necessary for vindicating the honour of Christ and his religion—maintaining the purity of his worship—reclaiming offenders—deterring others from the like offences—removing contagion from the Church—and preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer the seals of his covenant to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.
The censures of the Church are spiritual in the nature and effects. They are appointed by Christ for the benefit of offenders, and have a tendency, as means, to promote their recovery, and not their destruction. As offences differ in degrees of guilt and circumstances of aggravation, the Church is to proceed according to the nature and degree of the offence committed. In some cases a simple admonition will suffice.—Tit. iii. 10. A greater degree of guilt will call for a rebuke, solemnly administered in the name of Jesus Christ.—Tit. i.13; 1 Tim. v. 20. Scandals of greater magnitude will require the suspension of the offender from the sacrament of the Lord's supper for a season.—2 Thess. iii. 14. This is called the lesser excommunication; and the highest censure which the Church has the power to inflict is called the greater excommunication.—Matt. xvii;. 17. We have an example in the case of the incestuous man, who was delivered "unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."—1 Cor. v. 5. It does not, according to the Popish notion, consist in literally delivering up the offender to the devil, but in casting him out of the Church into the world, which is described in Scripture as Satan's kingdom.
Chapter XXXI. Of Synods and Councils
Section I.—For the better government and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils.
The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in their act approving of the Confession of Faith, 1647, inserted a caveat: "That the not mentioning in this Confession the several sorts of ecclesiastical officers and assemblies, shall be no prejudice to the truth of Christ in these particulars, to be expressed fully in the Directory of Government." The views of the Church of Scotland, and also of the Westminster Assembly, on this subject, are therefore to be more fully ascertained in "The Form of Presbyterial Church Government," agreed upon by that Assembly, and usually bound up with the Confession of Faith. In that document they declare: "It is lawful and agreeable to the Word of God, that the Church be governed by several sorts of assemblies, which are congregational, classical, and synodical;" and also: "That synodical assemblies may lawfully be of several sorts, as provincial, national, and ecumenical;" and further, that "It is lawful, and agreeable to the Word of God, that there be a subordination of congregational, classical provincial, and national assemblies, for the government of the Church." Here we have a distinct specification of the several sorts of ecclesiastical assemblies, and also an explicit statement of the due subordination of the judicatories of the Church; which we are now accustomed to denominate kirk-sessions, presbyteries, provincial synods, and General Assemblies. At present, however, we have only to notice the statement in the section of the Confession under consideration. In opposition to the Independents, who maintain that every congregation has an independent power of government within itself, and deny all subordination of judicatories, our Confession asserts that, "for the better government and further edification of the Church" (that is, for attaining the end better than can be accomplished in smaller meetings of Church officers), "there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils." Of this we have an example in the synod which met at Jerusalem to settle the question about circumcision. "The question, whether or not the Gentiles who had made a profession of the Christian religion were bound to submit to circumcision, was of common concern, and could only be settled by the judgment and decision of office-bearers delegated from the Church as a whole; and we find that the judgement or decision of these office-bearers, when met judicially to consider the question, was considered as binding upon the whole Church. Nor is it any valid objection to this court forming a model for the imitation of the Church in after ages, that it was composed partly of apostles; for the apostles were also elders, as every higher office in the Church includes the official power belonging to inferior offices; and we do not find that, in the whole discussion, the apostles, as judges, claimed any superiority over their brethren, who are called elders. At any rate, the decision was promulgated as the joint decision of both.—Acts xv. 21-31."
Section II.—As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with about matters of religion; so if magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons upon delegation from their Churches, may meet together in such assemblies.
The Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in the act by which they adopted the Confession, make a special reference to this section, and expressly declare that they understood it "only of kirks not settled or constituted in point of government;" and while they admit that "in such kirks a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, may be called by the magistrates' authority and nomination, without any other call, to consult and advise with about matters of religion," they assert that this "ought not to be done in kirks constituted and settled," and that it is always free to the ministers and ruling elders "to assemble together synodically, as well pro re nata as at the ordinary times, upon delegation from the Churches, by the intrinsical power received from Christ, as often as it is necessary for the good of the Church so to assemble, in case the magistrate, to the detriment of the Church, withhold or deny his consent." Our Reformers, it is well known, were ever jealous of the least encroachment upon the independence of the Church. Her intrinsic power to convene her own Assemblies occupied a prominent place in all their contendings with the Crown. Their maxim was: "Take from us the freedom of Assemblies, and take from us the Evangel." At the period of the first Reformation this power was both claimed and exercised. The Church held her first Assembly, in 1560, solely in virtue of her own proper authority, under Christ her head; and for at least twenty years—during which time there were no fewer than thirty-nine or forty Assemblies—the sovereign was not present, either in person or by a representative, as afterwards became the custom. At the era of the second Reformation, the intrinsic power of the Church was nobly vindicated by the famous Assembly held in Glasgow in l 638. Although the king's commissioner dissolved the Assembly in his master's name, and discharged their further proceedings, under the highest penalties, yet the Assembly, claiming an intrinsical power from the Lord Jesus Christ, continued their sessions and proceeded with the important business for which they had met. It must be acknowledged, however, that in the Act of 1592—which has been considered as the Magna Charta of the Established Church, and which the Act of 1690 revived and confirmed—the right of the Church to appoint her own Assemblies was not sufficiently secured. This right is conceded only when neither the king nor his commissioner is present. Accordingly, immediately after the Revolution, the Assemblies of the Church were often abruptly dissolved, and repeatedly adjourned, by the royal authority.
"This point (the power of freely meeting and dissolving by the Church's own authority), that so often was contested between the Crown and the Presbyterian courts in Scotland, is of far greater importance to ecclesiastical independence and liberty than at first it may appear to be. Without this being retained and secured, a little reflection may show that the exercise of any other powers they may claim, may be rendered, by the will of a superior, not only precarious, but altogether nugatory and void. It is well known that this arbitrary exercise of prerogative, in calling and dissolving Parliaments, had rendered them powerless, and they were in danger by it of being utterly abolished; nor did the nation reckon their civil liberties at all secure, till annual or regular meetings of Parliament were secured by law. The danger would be equal and the effect similar, if ecclesiastical assemblies were made, in this respect, wholly dependent on the Crown; of which the history of the English Convocation affords a striking evidence."
Section III.—It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience, to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of mal-administration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word.
This section is evidently intended as a decision upon another important principle in the controversy with Independents, who, while they admitted that congregations might, in difficult cases, consult with advantage synods of ministers, denied to these synods any authority over the congregations. Presbyterians readily grant that the power of Church rulers is purely ministerial. Christ is the alone Lord and Lawgiver in his Church; so that their business is only to apply and enforce the laws which he has enacted. Their deliberations, however, are to be considered, not an merely consultative, but authoritative; and, so far as their decisions accord with the laws of Christ, laid down in his Word, being formed in his name, and by authority conferred by him, they must be binding upon the conscience. The Synod of Jerusalem did not merely give a counsel or advice, but pronounced an authoritative decision upon the case referred to them. They "ordained decrees," "laid a burden" upon the Churches, and enjoined them to observe certain "necessary things," and their decision was cheerfully submitted to by the Churches concerned.—Acts xv. 28, xvi. 4.
Section IV.—All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.
Although Papists maintain that infallibility is lodged somewhere in the Church, they are not agreed among themselves whether it resides in the Pope, or in a general council, or in both united. It is here affirmed that all councils may err. Councils being composed of men, every one of whom is fallible, they must also be liable to error when collected together. It is also asserted that many of them have erred; and this is sufficiently evident from the fact, that different general councils have made decrees directly opposite to each other. In the Arian controversy, several councils decreed in opposition to that of Nice. The Eutychian heresy was approved in the second Council of Ephesus, and soon after condemned in the Council of Chalcedon. The worship of images was condemned in the Council of Constantinople, and was approved in the second Nicene Council, and again condemned at Francfort. Finally, the authority of councils was declared, at Constance and Basil, to be superior to that of the Pope; but this decision was reversed in the Lateran.
Section V.—Synods and councils are to handle or conclude nothing but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or by way of advice for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.
While our Confession denounces any Erastian interference of the civil magistrate in matters purely spiritual and Ecclesiastical, it no less explicitly disavows all Popish claims, on the part of the synods and councils of the Church, to intermeddle with civil affairs, unless by way of petition, in extraordinary cases, or by ray of advice, when required by the civil magistrate. Our Reformers appear to have clearly perceived the proper limits of the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and to have been very careful that they should be strictly observed. "The power and policy ecclesiastical," say they, "is different and distinct in its own nature from that power and policy which is called civil power, and appertainseth to the civil government of the commonwealth; albeit they be both of God, and tend to one end, if they be rightly used, viz., to advance the glory of God, and to have godly and good subjects." "Diligence should be taken, chiefly by the moderator, that only ecclesiastical things be handled in the Assemblies, and that there be no meddling with anything pertaining to the civil jurisdiction." Church and State may co-operate in the advancement of objects common to both; but each of them must be careful to act within its own proper sphere—the one never intermeddling with the affairs which properly belong to the province of the other.
Chapter XXXII. Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead
Section I.—The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption; but their souls (which neither die nor sleep), having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them. The souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies; and the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Besides these two places for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.
I. It is here supposed that death is an event common to all men. "It is appointed unto men once to die."—Heb. ix. 27. This is the immutable appointment of Heaven, which cannot be reversed, and which none can frustrate. When meditating upon this subject, the royal Psalmist exclaimed: "What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death? Shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave?"—Ps. lxxxix. 48. Job speaks of death as an event which certainly awaited him, and of the grave as the common receptacle of all mankind: "I know that thou wilt bring me to death, and to the house appointed for all living."—Job xxx. 23. Our own observation abundantly confirms the declaration of Scripture. Nor are we at a loss to account for the introduction of death into our world, and its universal prevalence over the human race: "As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."—Rom. v. 12.
There is, indeed, a vast difference between the death of the righteous and that of the wicked. To the latter, death is the effect of the law-curse, and the harbinger of everlasting destruction; but to the former, death is not the proper punishment of sin, but the termination of all sin and sorrow, and an entrance into life eternal. To them death is divested of its sting, and rendered powerless to do them any real injury. Not only is it disarmed of its power to hurt them—it is compelled to perform a friendly part to them. It is their release from warfare—their deliverance from woe—their departure to be with Christ. But although death is no real loss, but rather great gain to the righteous; yet, as it consists in the dissolution of the union between the soul and the body, it is an event from which they are not exempted.
God could, no doubt, if he pleased, easily save his saints from natural death. Of this he gave a proof in the case of Enoch and of Elijah. For good reasons, however, he has determined otherwise. 1. That the righteous, as well as others, should be subjected to temporal death, is best adapted to the present plan of the divine government, and seems necessary, if not to the preservation, at least to the comfort of human society. According to the plan of the divine government, rewards and punishments are principally reserved for a future world. But if the righteous were exempted from death, while the wicked fell under its stroke, this would be a manifestation of the final destiny of every man that is removed out of this world. Death, therefore, happens to the righteous in the same outward form, and attended with the same external circumstances, as it happens to the wicked, that there may be no visible distinction between them. 2. Were the righteous to be distinguished from the wicked by being translated to heaven without tasting of death, this would introduce great confusion into society. Without producing any salutary effect upon the wicked, it would render them more regardless of character, and remove one powerful stimulus—the prospect of future fame—which animates them to noble exertions for the benefit of society. It would also greatly affect the character and the happiness of the living. Were the parent singled out as the object of the divine displeasure, by being subjected to death, this would fix a brand of infamy upon his children; or if the child were taken away in a manner so expressive of its future destiny, this would pierce the heart of the parent, especially if serious, with inexpressible anguish. No class, indeed, would be more affected by such a state of things than the righteous themselves. Hence death is the common lot of the godly and of the wicked. 3. This arrangement affords occasion for a richer display of the power and grace of God. As the hour of death is the most trying to men, so the power and grace of God are most gloriously displayed, in supporting his people in that solemn hour; in enabling them, in the exercise of faith and hope, to rise superior to the fear of death, and to triumph over this last enemy as conquerors. And how illustriously will his power be displayed in raising up their bodies at the last day! 4. Another reason, we conceive, why the righteous are subjected to temporal death, is, that they may be conformed to Christ, their glorious head. He tasted of death before he was crowned with glory and honour; and they also must enter into glory through "the valley of the shadow of death."
II. The bodies of men after death return to the dust, and see corruption. So humiliating and deeply affecting is the change which death produces on the human body, that it becomes obnoxious to the view, and necessity compels the living to remove it from their sight. It is committed to the grave, in which it putrefies; and after a certain time is reduced to dust, so that it cannot be distinguished from the vegetable mould with which it is mingled. These things, however, are offensive only to the living; they occasion no uneasiness to the dead. To the wicked, indeed, the grave is a prison, where they are kept in close confinement until the resurrection; but to believers it is a place of rest, where, exempted from all pain and weariness, they shall enjoy profound repose till the resurrection morn, when, awakened as from a long refreshing sleep, they shall rise, with renovated life and vigour, to enjoy everlasting felicity.
III. The souls of men survive the dissolution of their bodies, and have an immortal subsistence. Some have held that death is the utter extinction of man's being, others, that the soul shall sleep between death and the resurrection, alike inactive and unconscious as the body that is then dissolved into dust. In opposition to these notions, equally absurd and uncomfortable, our Confession affirms, and the Scripture clearly teaches, that the souls of men subsist in a disembodied state, after such a manner as to be capable of exercising those powers and faculties which are essential to them. "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul."—Matt. x. 28. These are the words of Him who made man, and who perfectly knows the constituent parts of his nature; and he affirms, not only that the soul is distinct from the body—not only that it does not, in fact, die with the body, but that it is impossible to kill the soul by any created power. Our Saviour taught the same doctrine in parabolic language: "It came to pass that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments." - Luke xvi. 22, 23. Both the beggar and the man of wealth died; both left their bodies in the dust; but the souls of both retained their existence and their consciousness after their separation from their bodies. No doubt the death of the righteous is frequently described in Scripture as a sleep; but such language is obviously figurative, and gives no countenance to the notion that the soul falls asleep when disunited from the body. When the dead are said to be asleep, a metaphor is used, founded upon the striking resemblance between death and sleep; and, at the same time, by another figure of speech, a part is spoken of as the whole. They are said to sleep, and to be unconscious and inactive, because these things are true of their bodies.
IV. The souls of the righteous, immediately after death, are admitted into the happiness of the heavenly state. Some, who allow that the souls of believers possess consciousness, and experience happiness in their disembodied state, conceive that at death their souls pass into an intermediate state, and that they will enter into heaven only when the final judgment takes place. The Church of Rome maintains that the souls of the saints, on leaving their bodies, must pass for a time into a place called purgatory, that they may be purified by fire from the stains of sin, which had not been washed out during the present life. That Church further teaches, that the pains and sufferings of purgatory may be alleviated and shortened by the prayers of men here on earth; by the intercession of the saints in heaven; and, above all, by the sacrifice of the mass, offered by the priests in the name of sinners; and that, as soon as souls are released from purgatory, they are immediately admitted to eternal happiness. Of this doctrine there is no trace in the Bible; it is a cunningly devised fable, invented by designing men to impose upon the credulous, and to fill their own treasures. The Scripture speaks only of a heaven and a hell, into one of which all departed souls have entered; and, accordingly, our Confession affirms: "Besides these two places for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none."
The immediate admission of the souls of the righteous into heaven is confirmed by numerous passages of Scripture. Our Lord's promise to the penitent thief: "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise" (Luke xxiii. 43), implies that, ere that day was finished, his soul should be in the same place with the soul of Christ, and should enjoy all the felicity which the word "paradise" suggests. When Stephen, with his expiring breath, called upon God, saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit" (Acts vii. 59), he manifestly expected that his soul should immediately pass into the presence of his Saviour. The same thing is implied in the language of Paul: "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better."—Phil. i. 21, 23. Certainly if he had not expected to be admitted into the presence of Christ until the resurrection, he would not have judged it gain to die; and, instead of desiring, he would have been loath to depart; for while he was in the body he was honourably engaged in the service of Christ, and enjoyed delightful communion with him. But the apostle tells us that the reason of his desire to depart was, that he might be with Christ—in a state of blessedness far superior to anything found in this present world. The same apostle says: "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."—2 Cor. v. 8. No words could express in a clearer manner the immediate transition of the soul from its present habitation into the presence of Christ. The believer's absence from the body and his presence with Christ are closely connected; the latter succeeds the former without any interval. Accordingly, the Apostle John heard a voice from heaven, saying to him: "Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, from henceforth" (Rev. xiv. 13), that is, they are blessed from the time of their death.
If the souls of believers are admitted into heaven immediately after death, it is evident that a wonderful change must then take place upon them, in order to qualify them for the new state into which they are introduced. Unless they were completely freed from every stain of impurity, they would be unfit for the society of the heavenly world! and incapable of enjoying the felicities of that world. Our Confession accordingly asserts, that their souls are then "made perfect in holiness," and in Scripture the souls of departed saints are called "the spirits of just men made perfect."—Heb. xii. 23.
V. The souls of the wicked are at death cast into hell. While some have maintained that the souls of the wicked shall never be tormented in hell, others have held that they shall not be adjudged to that place of torment till after the resurrection; but, according to the representation of our Saviour, as soon as the rich man died, "in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments."—Luke xvi. 23. The spirits of those who in the time of Noah were disobedient, were, when the Apostle Peter wrote his epistle, shut up in the prison of hell.—1 Pet. iii. 19.
Section II.—At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed: and all the dead shall be raised up with the selfsame bodies, and none other, although with different qualities, which shall be united again to their souls forever.
Section III.—The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonour; the bodies of the just, by his Spirit, unto honor, and be made conformable to his own glorious body.
1. Such as remain alive upon the earth at the last day shall not die, but undergo a wonderful change. This truth was first revealed to the Church in Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (xv. 51): "Behold I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed." When Christ shall descend from heaven to judge the world, some will be found alive upon the earth; these shall not die, and sleep for a short time in the dust of the earth; but they will experience a change equivalent to that which shall pass on those who shall then be raised from the grave, and, as we are informed, the dead saints will be raised before the living are changed. "The dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." - 1 Thess. iv. 16,17.
II. There shall be a general resurrection of the dead. This is a doctrine which unassisted reason could not discover. The wisest of the heathen philosophers derided it. When Paul preached at Athens, which was called the Eye of Greece, the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers mocked when he spake of the resurrection of the dead. But it cannot be reckoned an incredible thing that God should raise the dead. If he be omnipotent and omniscient, as he certainly is, otherwise he would cease to be God, this cannot be considered impossible. He who formed the human body out of dust, and breathed into it the breath of life, must be able to raise and animate it again after it has been reduced to dust. To the power of God our Saviour referred, as an answer to all the cavils which might be brought forward against the doctrine of the resurrection. To the Sadducees, a sect of the Jews who denied this doctrine, he said: "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." - Matt. xxii. 29. But it is only by the revelation of the will of God that we are infallibly assured of the certainty of the resurrection. It was revealed in the writings of the Old Testament. Job expressed the strongest confidence of the resurrection of his body.—Job xix. 25. The prediction of the Prophet Daniel is equally explicit.—Dan. xii. 2. This doctrine held a prominent place in the discourses of our Lord and his apostles. Nothing could be more explicit than our Lord's declaration: "The hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth," &c.—John v. 28, 29. After our Lord's ascension this was the grand theme of the testimony of his apostles, as upon it the truth of the whole system of Christianity rested. Hence Paul thus argued with the Corinthians: "Now, if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen. And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." - 1 Cor. xv. 12-14. The resurrection of the saints is firmly established by the resurrection of Christ himself. In the chapter to which we have now referred, the apostle shows the infallible evidence which he and his brethren had for the resurrection of Christ, and then argues that the resurrection of believers necessarily follows from the admission that Christ their head is risen. The grave cannot always retain what is so intimately connected with the living Redeemer. "Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept."—1 Cor. xv. 20. See also 1 Thess. iv. 14; Rom. viii. 11.
III. The dead shall be raised with the selfsame bodies, although with very different qualities. The very tern resurrection implies that the same bodies shall be raised that fell by death; for if God should form new bodies, and unite them to departed souls, it would not be a resurrection, but a new creation. Our Saviour declares: "All that are in the graves shall come forth." This certainly implies that the same bodies which were committed to the graves shall be raised; for, it new bodies were to be produced, and united to their souls, they could not, with truth, be said to come out of their graves. The Apostle Paul affirms, that the same body shall be raised which is sown in corruption, and declares: "This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality;" pointing, as it were, to that corruptible and mortal body which he then carried about. But, though the bodies of the saints will be the same in all essentials as to substance, they will be vastly changed as to qualities. "Flesh and blood" in their present state of grossness and frailty, "cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." The resurrection-body, therefore, shall be wonderfully changed, in respect to qualities, that it may be fitted for the employments and felicities of the heavenly state. "It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." - 1 Cor. xv. 42-44. With regard to the wicked, the Scriptures give us no specific information with respect to the state and qualities of their bodies. All that we learn is, that they shall rise "to shame and everlasting contempt;" from which it is evident that they shall be raised to dishonour.
How solicitous should we be to obtain the resurrection of the just! This was Paul's great desire, and the object of his earnest pursuit.—Phil. iii. 11. If we would attain to a blessed resurrection, let it be our concern to be "found in Christ". United to him by the inhabitation of his Spirit and by a living faith, we need not be slavishly afraid of death or of the grave; for Christ is "the resurrection and the life, and he that believeth in him, though he were dead, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth in him shall never die."
Chapter XXXIII. Of the Last Judgment
Section I.—God hath appointed a day, wherein he will judge the world in righteousness by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged; but likewise all persons, that have lived upon earth, shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.
Section II.—The end of God's appointing this day, is for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of his justice in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fullness of joy and refreshing which shall come from the presence of the Lord: but the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.
There is a particular judgment which passes upon every individual immediately after death; for "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement."—Heb. ix. 27. There is also a general judgment, which shall take place after the resurrection of the dead, at the last day. The present sections—1. Declare the certainty of a future judgment; 2. Affirm that the administration of this judgement is committed to Jesus Christ; 3. Point out the parties who shall appear before his tribunal; 4. The matters to be tried; and, 6. The sentence to be pronounced.
I. The certainty of a future judgment. We are told that Paul reasoned before Felix of judgment to come.—Acts xxiv. 26. He proved this truth by arguments drawn from the nature and reason of things; and such arguments are not to be overlooked by us, though our faith stands upon a more sure foundation.
1. The certainty of a future judgment appears from the dictates of conscience. Men, even when destitute of supernatural revelation, apprehend an essential difference between good and evil. When they do what is right, their conscience approves and commends their conduct; and when they do what is wrong, their conscience reproaches and condemns them. If they have committed some atrocious crime, conscience stings them with remorse; and this it does although the crime be secret, and concealed from every human eye. Whence does this arise, but from an awful foreboding of future retribution? The Apostle Paul, accordingly, shows that all mankind have a witness in themselves that there shall be a future judgment.—Rom. ii. 15.
2. Reason infers a future judgment from the state of things in this world. Here we take for granted these two fundamental principles of religion—the being of God, and his providence in the government of the world. All who acknowledge these truths must, and do, believe that God is infinitely just and righteous, infinitely wise and holy, infinitely good and merciful; and that he cannot be otherwise. From this it necessarily results that it must be well with the righteous, and ill with the wicked. But the most superficial view of the present state of things is sufficient to convince he that God does not, in this world, dispense prosperity only to the good, and adversity only to the evil: "There be just men, unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked; again, there be wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous."—Eccl. viii. 14. The promiscuous dispensations of Providence have perplexed the minds of men in every age, and tried the faith of the children of God.—Ps. lxxiii. 4-17; Jer. xii. 1, 2; Hab. i. 13. But reason rightly exercised would lead us to the conclusion that, upon the supposition of the being and providence of God, there must be a day coming when these things will be brought under review, and when a wide and visible difference shall be made between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.
3. God has given testimony to this truth in all the extraordinary judgments which he has executed since the beginning of the world. Though much wickedness remains unpunished and undiscerned in this world, yet God sometimes executes judgment upon daring offenders, show that he judges in the earth, and to give warning to men of a judgment to come. In signal judgments, "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against the ungodliness of men;" and an intimation is given of what he will further do hereafter.—2 Pet. ii. 5, 6, iii. 5, 7.
4. That there is a judgment to come is confirmed by the most explicit testimonies of scripture. Enoch predicted the approach of this day of universal decision as a salutary admonition to that profligate age in which he lived.—Jude 14, 15. Solomon addressed this solemn warning to the voluptuous: "Know that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment."—Eccl. xi. 9. Job put his friends in mind that there is a judgment; and the Psalmist frequently represents it in very solemn language.—Job xix. 29; Ps. l. 3-6, xcviii. 9. Our Lord, during his personal ministry, frequently foretold his coming to judgment; and the testimonies to this truth in the writings of his apostles are numerous.—Matt. xxv. 31-46, Rom. xiv. 10, 12; 2 Cor. v.10.
5. This truth is confirmed by the resurrection of Christ. The Apostle Paul, having affirmed that "God will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained," adds, "whereof he hath given assurance to all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."—Acts xvii. 31. The resurrection of Christ is a specimen and pledge of a general resurrection—that grand preparative for the judgment. It is an incontestable proof of our Lord's divine mission, and is, therefore, an authentic attestation of all his claims. In the days of his humiliation, when he was accused and condemned before the tribunal of men, he plainly warned them of a future judgment, and declared that he himself would be the judge: " Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."—Matt. xxvi. 64. Now, since God hath raised him from the dead, although be was condemned as a blasphemer for this very declaration, is not this an undeniable proof from heaven of the truth of what he then asserted?
IL The administration of the future judgement is committed to Jesus Christ: "He is ordained of God to be the judge of quick and dead."—Acts x. 42. It is, indeed, frequently said, that "God shall judge the world;" and the Psalmist declares, "None else is judge but God."—Ps. l. 6. How are these declarations to be reconciled? The words of Paul enable us to solve the difficulty. He has told us that "God will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained."—Acts xvii. 31. It thus appears that God the Father judges the world by the Son. The supreme judiciary power is in the Godhead, and the exercise of that power is committed to Christ, as mediator—John v. 22.
There is a peculiar fitness and propriety in this constitution: - 1. It is fit that this high office should be conferred upon Christ, as an honorary reward for his extreme abasement and ignominious sufferings. 2. Inasmuch as men are to be judged after the resurrection in an embodied state, it is fit they should have a visible judge. 3. It is also fit that Christ should be the supreme judge, as it must contribute greatly to the consolation of the saints that they shall be judged by him who is a partaker of their nature, who redeemed them to God by his blood, and who is their advocate with the Father. 4. It may be added, that hereby the condemnation of the wicked will be rendered more conspicuously just; for if a Mediator—a Saviour—the Friend of sinners—condemns them, they must be worthy of condemnation indeed.
III. We are next to consider the parties who shall appear before the tribunal of Christ. The Scripture says nothing of the judgment of good angels, but it clearly teaches that the apostate angels will be judged. - Jude 4; 2 Pet. ii. 4. That men universally shall stand before the judgment-seat of Christ is expressly declared.—2 Cor. v. 10. We are told that Christ "shall judge the quick and tile dead at his appearing."—2 Tim.. iv. 1. This expression, "the quick and the dead," comprehends all mankind. By the dead, are to be understood all who died before the period of Christ's coming to judgement; and by the quick, such as shall then be found alive.
IV. The matter to be tried. This is expressed in the most comprehensive terms: "God shall bring every world into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."—Eccl. xii. 14. All the works of the sons of men will be tried, and they shall receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil. Not only the actions of the life, but also the words of men shall be judged; for our Saviour has assured us that "for every idle word which men shall speak, they shall give an account in the day of judgment."—Matt. xii. 36. And not only the actions and words, but also the very thoughts of men shall be brought into judgement; for we are told "God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ." - Rom. ii. 16.
V. The sentence to be pronounced will be answerable to the several states in which mankind shall be found. They shall receive their doom according to their works. - Rev. xx. 13. It is to be remarked, that the good works of the righteous will be produced in that day, not as the grounds of their acquittal, and of their being adjudged to eternal life, but as the evidences of their gracious state, as being interested in the righteousness of Christ. But the evil deeds of the wicked will be brought forward, not only as evidences of their being strangers to Christ, but also as the grounds of their condemnation. To the glorious company on his right hand the King will say: "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." How different the sentence that will be passed on the guilty crowd on his left hand! To them he will say: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." The sentence shall no sooner be passed than it shall be executed. While fallen angels and wicked men shall be driven from the presence of the Judge into the pit of eternal perdition, the righteous shall be conducted into heavenly mansions, end "shad go no more out." "These shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal." The same expression being applied to the happiness of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked, we may conclude that both will be of equal duration.
Section III.—As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin, and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity: so will he have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly. Amen.
The day of the eternal judgment is fixed in the counsels of God; but, that we may be kept habitually watchful, the knowledge of that day is wisely concealed from us. Though a long series of ages may elapse before Christ shall come in the clouds of heaven to judge the world, let every one remember that the day of his own death is equally important to him as the day of the universal judgment; for where death leaves him, judgment will find him. Let him, therefore, "be diligent, that he may be found of God in peace, without spot and blameless." Let every reader study to improve the talents with which he is entrusted, and be solicitous to obtain the approbation of his Master in heaven. How highly will he commend all those who have been diligent and faithful in his service! He will bestow upon them that best of plaudits: "Well done, good and faithful servant;" and will introduce them into "the joy of their Lord." Well may the genuine believer "love the appearing" of Christ; for when Christ shall appear, he also shall appear with him in glory. And since Christ proclaims in his Word, "Surely I come quickly", let every Christian joyfully respond, "Amen. Even so, come Lord Jesus."
The End