The Ecclesiastical Observer.

MODERN VICARIOUSNESS IN RELATION TO THE THINGS OF THE KINGDOM.

THOUGH many, who desire to be called Christians, willingly cast overboard the vicarious sacrifice of Christ and eschew whatever of substitution can be found in apostolic teaching, there yet, more and more, prevails the desire to substitute where substitution is not allowable, and to thrust in the vicarious element where each must stand for himself.

The other day it fell to our lot to occupy a seat in the Dundee Free Presbytery when the case of the Rev. Mr. Knight was under discussion. That gentleman had thought well to preach in a Unitarian chapel, and in so doing took care to omit all reference to the Deity of Christ; in fact, to preach such a sermon as a Unitarian minister would preach. This, together with certain suspicious sentences, led to the conclusion, in certain quarters, that Mr. Knight is not over sound in his faith. But the chief point before the Presbytery was an article in a recent issue of the Contemporary Review, entitled "The Ethics of Creed Subscription," which article labours a question very simple in itself, and one that common honesty answers in few words and without hesitation, that question being-What is to be done on the supposition that a creed ceases to be a perfect expression of the faith of the church collectively or of the individual subscribers to it?

Human creeds, in our estimation, are useless and pregnant with evil. There is no church whose creed is the exact measure of the faith of its membership. Creeds keep out good men who differ but a little, and admit bad men who, for position or pelf, subscribe what they do not believe. Then, too, the creed-bound churches dare not enforce their standards, and generally look wide rather than see a man whose departures are anything like moderate. But our purpose is not now to decry all creeds and enforce the Bible as the only rule of faith. That we shall gladly do on another occasion. Our present purpose is to look at

Observer, Jan. 1, '73.

this creed business as it really exists, and to note Mr. Knight's question and position upon the supposition that churches are justified in imposing human and unauthorized standards.

We have intimated that Mr. Knight's question is one that honesty. must answer with brevity and despatch. The answer is this: When a church comes to believe contrary to its humanly expressed dogmas, if not prepared to sweep them all away in order to take to the Bible alone, it should so revise them as to express clearly and fully its altered faith -when an individual ceases to believe one or more of those items of the creed which the church deems fundamental, he should make known his change of faith and retire from membership. But this is not Mr. Knight's plan. He proposes a vicarious subscription, that thus the faithful minister may cease to believe the creed and yet continue to enjoy the stipend. He advocates the legitimacy of a subscription which is to an indefinite extent what he calls "vicarious "--that is, a subscription which is, so far, not an indication of the subscriber's convictions, but merely his deferential regard to the convictions of others. His own words are, "There is a sort of self-abandonment in the act of subscription, a sacrifice of the individual to the common weal; without, however, surrendering the right of the individual to carry on continuous thought;" and he adds, "In short, there is a sort of vicarious element in all healthy creed subscription." Again he says, "But suppose the dogma which the church regards as fundamental is not so regarded by the individual in question. The church cannot force him to think it fundamental if to his own mind it is altogether subsidiary, and it cannot expect a man to excommunicate himself." Now, as the committee reporting to the Presbytery put it, "Mr. Knight in this passage asserts the right and duty of a minister to remain in the church to which he has attached himself (though he has declared that the confession of the church is the confession of his faith) after he has come to disbelieve a dogma which the church regards as fundamental and without making known his change of opinion;" and that notwithstanding that as a condition of entering the ministry he declares that the confession of faith adopted by the church is the confession of his faith-each candidate having to say, "I hereby declare that I sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the confession of Faith approved by former General Assemblies of the Church to be the truths of God; and I do own the same as the confession of my faith."

Could we look upon Mr. Knight merely as an obscure Presbyterian preacher, his moral obliquity would not be worth our notice. But when we view the costly pile of church buildings now erecting by those who are called " Mr. Knight's people," and remember that the sentiment here reproduced is given to the world with all the weight appertaining to articles in the Contemporary Review, we are moved to protest both in the name of common honesty and in that of our common Christianity. Vicarious creed subscription is an imposition and a lie, and the man who makes it is a coward. Let those who have faith confess the faith they have. Every man, here, must bear his own burden and so fulfil the law of the church.

But this most recent instance of bad vicariousness by no means stands alone. Some time since we entered a building called a church,

Observer, Jan. 1, 73.

and there listened to a minister of the so-called Catholic Apostolic Church (Irvingite), whose sacred vestments were intended to indicate his special call and sanctity. The sermon was upon the text, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." During the first half of the discourse the preacher urged, and proved, that, according to the appointment of Christ, faith must precede baptism-that baptism without faith is invalid. His statements were exactly such as are often heard in Baptist Chapels. Having proved, beyond the power of refutation, the invalidity of baptism unless preceded by faith, he next enquired how Infant Baptism would be affected by that conclusion. Of course the logical answer is-Infant Baptism is thereby entirely out of court, as necessarily antagonistic to one of the conditions imposed by the Lord. Jesus. But not so with this preacher-he sought refuge in vicariousness-as the Presbyterian Minister may declare faith in a creed he does not believe, on the ground that other people do believe; so the infant is treated as having faith, when it has none, because certain other persons, called sponsors, believe what the infant cannot believe, and, in many instances, never will believe. Now this farce is at best but a piece of superstition and more worthy of the juggler than of the minister of Christ. The man was right in part-baptism without faith is invalid. Infant baptism, therefore, is useless and wrong. A vicarious faith has no place in Christianity, and so far as men are to be saved by faith the personal faith of the saved can alone avail. A vicarious faith is a falsehood, a delusion, and a snare.

There is yet another case waiting attention. largely going out of fashion.

Infant Baptism is

In some quarters the want of a substitute is decidedly felt. A newspaper, now on our table, intimates that on a recent Sunday morning there was a large congregation in St. George's Hall, Langham Place, London, owing to an announcement by the Rev. C. Voysey, that the services for the dedication and benediction of children (infants) would be then performed for the first time. By the side of the reading desk stood a respectable young couple. Having, seemingly, lost faith in Infant Baptism they were happy to find a substitute. There was a baby of course-a fine male infant, a few months old. After prayer Mr. Voysey descended from the platform, and taking his place in front of the parents of the child, commenced the "Order of Service for Dedication and Benediction of Children," composed by himself, and performed then for the first time, beginning with an exhortation, in which occurred the following passages:-"The father and mother of this child now present desire us to join in giving thanks to the Lord and Giver of life for His precious gift to them; for all His mercy in supporting them under their anxieties, and for granting a happy issue out of much pain and sorrow. They have brought this child into the congregation of those who love the Lord and trust Him, that we may with one accord make our prayers on his behalf, that he may grow up in health of mind, body and estate, and be a blessing to his family, to his country, and to the world at large. By this our solemn service, we would, as it were, dedicate and consecrate this infant's soul and body to the service of God." Then followed prayers for the parents and child, with responses from the choir. After the singing of a hymn, Mr. Voysey turned to the father and mother and

Observer, Jan. 1, '73.

this creed business as it really exists, and to note Mr. Knight's question and position upon the supposition that churches are justified in imposing human and unauthorized standards.

We have intimated that Mr. Knight's question is one that honesty must answer with brevity and despatch. The answer is this: When a church comes to believe contrary to its humanly expressed dogmas, if not prepared to sweep them all away in order to take to the Bible alone, it should so revise them as to express clearly and fully its altered faith -when an individual ceases to believe one or more of those items of the creed which the church deems fundamental, he should make known his change of faith and retire from membership. But this is not Mr. Knight's plan. He proposes a vicarious subscription, that thus the faithful minister may cease to believe the creed and yet continue to enjoy the stipend. He advocates the legitimacy of a subscription which is to an indefinite extent what he calls "vicarious "—that is, a subscription which is, so far, not an indication of the subscriber's convictions, but merely his deferential regard to the convictions of others. His own words are, "There is a sort of self-abandonment in the act of subscription, a sacrifice of the individual to the common weal; without, however, surrendering the right of the individual to carry on continuous thought; and he adds, "In short, there is a sort of vicarious element in all healthy creed subscription." Again he says, "But suppose the dogma which the church regards as fundamental is not so regarded by the individual in question. The church cannot force him to think it fundamental if to his own mind it is altogether subsidiary, and it cannot expect a man to excommunicate himself." Now, as the committee reporting to the Presbytery put it, "Mr. Knight in this passage asserts the right and duty of a minister to remain in the church to which he has attached himself (though he has declared that the confession of the church is the confession of his faith) after he has come to disbelieve a dogma which the church regards as fundamental and without making known his change of opinion;" and that notwithstanding that as a condition of entering the ministry he declares that the confession of faith adopted by the church is the confession of his faith-each candidate having to say, "I hereby declare that I sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the confession of Faith approved by former General Assemblies of the Church to be the truths of God; and I do own the same as the confession of my faith."

Could we look upon Mr. Knight merely as an obscure Presbyterian preacher, his moral obliquity would not be worth our notice. But when we view the costly pile of church buildings now erecting by those who are called " Mr. Knight's people," and remember that the sentiment here reproduced is given to the world with all the weight appertaining to articles in the Contemporary Review, we are moved to protest both in the name of common honesty and in that of our common Christianity. Vicarious creed subscription is an imposition and a lie, and the man who makes it is a coward. Let those who have faith confess the faith they have. Every man, here, must bear his own burden and so fulfil the law of the church.

But this most recent instance of bad vicariousness by no means stands alone. Some time since we entered a building called a church,