Having considered the organization and ministry of the church, we must now turn our attention to its worship and ordinances. Here we have a changed aspect - not now the Church as the body of Christ, or an institute of evangelism; but as the temple of the Spirit, and hence an institute of worship. So, also, there is a changed aspect of the ministry, which is not now regarded as the focal point of the church's contact with the world, but with God - not as a priestly substitution, but as a prophetic leadership. The subject matter embraces not only the nature and forms of worship, but a consideration also of (1) the Sabbath; (2) the Means of Grace; and (3) the Sacraments, with a special consideration of (4) Baptism; and (5) the Lord's Supper.

The Worship of the Primitive Church. The worship of the early church was patterned in a general way, after the forms used in the Jewish synagogues. In the time of our Lord, this service included, (1) the Shema, preceded and followed by benedictions; (2) prayers, probably not set forms at this time ; and (3) lessons from the law and the prophets. Here the service originally ended; but as Hebrew ceased to be the spoken language, there was added later, (4) a translation or paraphrase of the readings into the vernacular; and (5) an exposition, not necessarily a sermon, which was frequently delivered in a sitting posture. In the Christian Church, previous to A.D. 100, the service consisted of the Eucharist or Lord's Supper, preceded by the agape or love feast, and followed by what Duchesne calls "the liturgy of the Holy Spirit." It seems probable, that at first the agape was a real meal, which the people ate until they were satisfied; and that following this, certain portions of the bread and wine having been set apart, were eaten solemnly as the Eucharist. Thus in the Didache, there is this statement, "After ye are filled, then give thanks." Early abuses, however, soon attached to this part of the service (Cf. I Cor. ii 20-22), and it seems to have been finally merged into the Eucharist. It is for this reason that the early worship is commonly stated to be twofold - the eucharist service, and the free worship. (1) The first part of the service included the reading of the Scriptures and prayer, as well as the consecration and distribution of the elements. The sermon also formed a part of the service, as did the singing of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. The letters of the apostles were read, during the agape, or just before the communion service. (2) The second part, or so-called "free worship" held a very large place in the Christian service, as it is represented to us by the most ancient documents. After the Eucharist, inspired persons began to speak before the assembly, and to manifest the presence of the Spirit which inspired them. The exercise of the prophetic gift seems to have been most in evidence. Duchesne in his Origines says, "There is as it were a liturgy of the Holy Spirit, a real liturgy, with real presence and real communion. The inspiration can be felt; it thrills the organs of some privileged persons; but the whole congregation is moved, edified, and even ravished to a greater or less extent, and transported, in the divine spheres of the Paraclete." It is to this evidently, that St. Paul refers (I Cor. 14:23); and abuses leading to disorder having crept in, he seeks to correct these by further instruction (I Cor. 14:26-33).

[ The earliest account of Christian worship after the close of the canon, is from the letters of Pliny, who was proconsul of Bithynia about AD 110. He states that the Christians were accustomed to meet together on a set day, before dawn, and sing responsive hymns to Christ as their God, and to pledge themselves in a sacrament to abstain from every form of evil, to commit no theft, rapine, or adultery, to falsify no word, and betray no trust. At a later period in the day they met together again, and joined in a harmless supper. - Pliny to Trajan, Letter 95.

Corporate and Individual Worship. Christian worship is both individual and social. Worship in its very nature is profoundly personal, but it is also the act of a person who is essentially social. The first words of the "Lord's Prayer" remind each individual worshiper of these social relationships. It is as "our" Father, not my" Father, that he comes into the divine presence. However lonely the individual worshiper may appear to be, he yet stands as a member of the whole family of God. Corporate worship emphasizes the unity of the church. It exalts the body of Christ, rather than the free exercise of its many members. It checks religious egotism, breaks down devotional barriers, and confers the supporting and disciplinary benefits of life in a family. For this reason, corporate worship is exceedingly important, whatever may be its outward form or manner of expression. On the other hand, individual worship is basic. There is a true secret of worship which belongs to every child of God. Advocates of corporate religion have sometimes revealed a tendency to regard these hidden and personal lives of prayer, as lacking in social value, or as being spiritually selfish. But this is a superficial view of the matter, for it is the character of the personal life that gives strength to corporate worship. The value of the prophetic or charismatic aspect of worship, lies in the fact that it stresses the spiritual exercises of the individual, and gives a strong ethical basis to Christian character. It is one of the tragedies of church history, that the balanced form of worship as found in the apostolic church, was so soon lost. Separated from one another, the corporate or sacramental form of worship, tended toward ritualism - a cultus, with cathedral, altar and priest; while the prophetic, or free individual worship, improperly governed, frequently resulted in the wildest forms of fanaticism. Thus from the simple, but twofold character of primitive worship with its balanced elements of the corporate and the free, a dualism arose, which through the centuries has developed into the two general types of Christianity which we now know as the catholic and the evangelical. The simplicity of worship as found in the apostolic church, had in it, both the sacramental phase with its emphasis upon unity, and the prophetic, with its freedom, its enthusiasm, its personal spontaneity, and its intense ethical demands. It will be seen then, that emphasis upon individual experience, must be carefully guarded and conserved, by a corresponding emphasis upon corporate worship. The warning, "not to forsake the assembling of yourselves together," has a philosophical as well as a religious basis.

[ Evangelical worship as re-established by the Reformers, was not intended to be an innovation, but a restoration of the ancient balance between the word and the Sacraments, and thus bring back the soul into a direct and immediate spiritual relation with God. The free churches have certain ideas of worship in common: (1) the higher the type of worship, the less importance is attached to external matters; (2) that an overemphasis upon the means of worship detracts from the highest communion with God; and (3) that the worthiest worship is that which is richest in ethical content. But as we have shown, this soon falls into the formal and commonplace without the balancing influence of corporate worship.

The Order and Forms of Worship. The order of divine worship has reference to the principles, according to which it must be conducted. These principles are fully set forth in the Holy Scriptures. (1) Worship must be offered to the Triune God. This is a fundamental principle. Whatever of worship is paid to one member of the Trinity, must be offered to all - or must be offered to the One in the unity of the other Two. (2) Worship must be mediatorial-spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. It is only through these mediatorial offices that we have the boldness (or liberty) to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus (Heb. 10:19); and it is "through him" that we have access by one Spirit unto the Father (Eph. 2:18). (3) Worship must be spiritual - that is, it must be inspired by the Spirit to be acceptable unto God. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). It is the touch of God upon the soul that is the source of all true worship. The forms of worship are also left to the discretionary powers of the church, in so far as they conform to the Scriptures (1) The time of worship is to be set by the church, but public worship must not be allowed to interfere with, or infringe upon, the rights of the family and the individual. The church may appoint special seasons for prayer and fasting, for preaching, and for thanksgiving. (2) The law of decency and order requires that public services be regulated. Spontaneity flowing from the presence of the Spirit in fresh anointing, is to be commended, but all mere caprice is to be put away as out of harmony with the dignity which should attach to divine service. (3) Simplicity must characterize the various forms of public service. An elaborate ritual which distracts the soul from its one true function of spiritual worship is detrimental; but a careless and indifferent spirit is death to any form of spiritual worship.

THE SABBATH

The institution of the Sabbath is regarded as one of the permanent and divine ordinances of the church. It is, for this reason, sometimes treated by theologians in connection with the means of grace. Introduced as it was, at the time of man's creation, the Sabbath belongs to the race generally and in perpetuity. Its original design was a rest from physical labor, and with it a spiritual design, that man, thus ceasing from other occupations, might hold communion with his Creator. A right understanding of the Sabbath as an institution, therefore, must regard it as a period of rest after six days of labor. It consists of two parts, the holy rest, and the day on which this rest is observed. The first part belongs to the moral law, the second is purely positive. Thus as Dr. Wakefield indicates, God "did not bless and hallow the day as the seventh, but only as being the day on which the Sabbath, or holy rest, was to be kept. While, therefore, the Sabbath itself is a perpetual institution, morally binding upon all men, the law which determines the time of its observance is purely positive, and consequently may be changed. But though the day might be altered, without altering the substance of the institution, yet it could be altered only by divine authority. The same authority which instituted the Sabbath, appointed also the day on which it was to be observed; and no other authority is competent to change either the one or the other." Two considerations then, demand our attention, (1) The Sabbath as a universal and perpetual obligation ; (2) the change of the day as divinely authorized. To these must be added (3) the manner in which the Sabbath is to be observed.

The Sabbath as a Universal and Perpetual Obligation. When our Lord said, "The Sabbath was made for man," He referred to its original institution as a universal law, and not merely to the Jewish Sabbath as an enactment of the law of Moses. It belongs to all mankind, forms a part of the moral law as expressed in the Ten Commandments, and was never abrogated. It is sometimes stated that the law under the Mosaic dispensation was formulated into nine moral precepts, with a Sabbath commandment added, making ten in all. But there is no reason to suppose that the statement concerning the Sabbath is not so much a moral commandment as the other nine. The setting apart of a seventh of man's time to physical rest is essential to his well-being, if not his existence; and the devotement of this time to God, is a perpetual memorial of his spiritual mission, without which the social order would have no meaning. That the Sabbath is a moral obligation is seen from the argument of St. Paul concerning the relation of the law to faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law (Rom. 3:31). It is evident that St. Paul is not referring to the civil or ceremonial law of the Jews, but to the fundamental law as expressed in the Ten Commandments. Thus in Romans 7:7 he says, I had not known sin but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. The law which is mentioned here is that of the Decalogue, and it is this which Christianity establishes. If so, then the law of the Sabbath being a part of the Decalogue, is as binding upon Christians as formerly it was upon the Jews. We may say then with conviction that whoever denies the obligation of the Sabbath, denies the whole Decalogue, Christians observe the Sabbath as truly as did the Jews, but they celebrate it on another day. That this day was changed by our Lord, is our next question for consideration.

The Change of the Day as Divinely Authorized. When Jesus declared that "the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath," He doubtless intended them to understand that He had power to change the day on which the holy rest should be observed. The Scriptures clearly indicate that the Sabbath has been celebrated on different days, and this subject now demands our consideration.

The primitive and patriarchal Sabbath. The first notice of the Sabbath is found in Genesis 2:3, And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made..And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made (Gen. 2:2, 3). Here, in the institution of the Sabbath, it is distinctly declared to be a day of holy rest after six days of labor; and further, it is stated in this instance, to be a memorial of creation. Now it is evident that God's seventh day would not be man's seventh day. "The seventh day which God blessed in Eden," says Dr. Whitelaw, "was the first day of human life, and not the seventh day; and it is certain that God did not rest from His labors on man's seventh day, but on man's first." Hence Adam's first day, and each succeeding eighth day, would be his Sabbath - a reference strikingly similar to our Lord's appearances on the first and eighth days.

.

2. The Jewish Sabbath. The next mention of the Sabbath is in connection with the giving of the manna (Ex. 16:14-31). Here the manna is stated to have fallen for six days, that is, from the sixteenth to the twenty-first day of the second month; and that the day following, or the twenty-second, was the first seventh day Sabbath celebrated in the Wilderness of Sin. See, said Moses, for that the Lord hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days..So the people rested on the seventh day (Exod. 16:29, 30). That the Sabbath as a holy rest was re-established at this time, there can be no doubt; that it was celebrated on the same day as that of the patriarchal Sabbath, has been a matter of controversy. Thus if the twenty-second was a Sabbath day, the fifteenth should have been a Sabbath also. That it was not, seems to be indicated by the fact that they marched on that day (Exod. 16:1). Dr. W. H. Rogers holds that "the only change of the Sabbath by God's authority is for the Jews between the giving of the manna and the resurrection of Christ. The first day of the week, but always the seventh after six working days, was the day of the holy rest from Adam to Moses. The Sabbatism was separated from idolatry by changing it from Sunday to Saturday among the chosen people 'throughout their generations,' fifteen hundred years (Cf. Exod. 31:13, 14; Ezek. 20:12). At Christ's resurrection expired by statute limitation this peculiarity of exceptional change, leaving the divine rule for all mankind, requiring first-day Sabbath keeping, as had been the case for the first twenty-five hundred years of human history." It should be noted also that to the memorial of creation which the Sabbath represented, there was added also during this period, a secondary memorial - that is, a remembrance of their deliverance from the land of Egypt. This memorial was to last only "through their generations," and as indicated above expired by the statute of limitations. With the coming of "the last Adam" the Sabbath was restored to the original day on which it was celebrated by the first Adam.

3. The Christian Sabbath or "Lord's Day." That the Christian Sabbath was restored, or at least changed to the first day, has been the teaching of the church since apostolic times. As such it came early to be known as the "Lord's Day" to distinguish it from the Jewish Sabbath. That this change was divinely authorized is shown (1) by the example of Jesus; (2) by the authority of the apostles; and (3) by the practices of the early church. To this may be added (4) the testimony of the early apostolic fathers.

(1) Jesus placed approval upon the first day of the week, by meeting with His disciples on this day. The resurrection took place on the morning of the first day of the week. The four accounts of the evangelists agree that the Saviour arose early "the first day of the week" (John 20:1). His first meeting with the body of His disciples was on the evening of the resurrection day (John 20:19); and the second on the evening of the eighth day, which would of course, be the following first day of the next week. There were three more "first days" before the ascension, but it is not said whether Jesus met with His disciples on any or all of them. There were, however, three more appearances - to the five hundred brethren, to James, and to the apostles (I Cor. 15:1-4). (2) The apostles authorized the change, doubtless due to the unrecorded instructions of Jesus during the forty days (Cf. Acts 1:2). Twenty-five years later St. Paul preached at Troas, upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread (Acts 20:7), which indicates his appr9val of the day of worship. About one year later, he wrote to the Corinthians saying, As I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gathering when I come (I Cor. 16:1, 2). This clearly indicates that the apostle sanctioned the first day as the Christian Sabbath. (3) The practices of the early churches are further proof of worship on the first day of the week. This is shown by the passages just cited, and also by St. John's reference to the Sabbath as the "Lord's day" (Rev. 1:10). Since he uses the phrase without any reference to the first day, it is evidence that when the Apocalypse was written, the "first day" was generally known as the "Lord's day" in contradistinction to the Jewish seventh day.

[ Concerning the instructions given by Jesus to the apostles during the forty days, Justin Martyr in giving his reasons for keeping the first -day, says, "Because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour, on the same day arose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before Saturn (Saturday) ; and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration." This shows clearly that the belief was current among the early fathers who associated with the apostles, that they had been given the authority to celebrate the Sabbath on the first day of the week, as a memorial not only of the first creation, but of the new creation by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

[ We can give only a few of the references to the fathers. Irenaeus says, "On the Lord's day every one of us Christians keeps the Sabbath; meditating in the law, and rejoicing in the works of God." Justin Martyr states that "on the day called Sunday there is a gathering in one place of all who reside either in the cities or country places, and the memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read." The Didache has this direction for the saints, "But on the Lord's day do ye assemble and break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions, in order that your sacrifice may he pure." Clement of Alexandria says that "a true Christian, according to the commands of the gospel, observes the Lord's day by casting out all bad thoughts, and cherishing all goodness, honoring the resurrection of the Lord, which took place on that day." Tertullian says, "Sundays we give to joy," "to observe the day of the Lord's resurrection." Origen wrote that the Lord's day was placed above the Jewish Sabbath. Eusebius has this decisive passage, "The Word (Christ) by the new covenant translated and transferred the feast of the Sabbath to the morning light, and gave us the symbol of true rest the saving Lord's day - the first (day) of light in which the Saviour obtained the victory over death. On this day, which is the first of the light, and of the true Son, we assemble, after an interval of six days, and celebrate the holy and spiritual Sabbath; even all nations redeemed by Him throughout the world, assemble and do those things according to the spiritual law which was decreed for the priests to do on the Sabbath (that is the Jewish Sabbath) these we have transferred to the Lord's day, as more appropriately belonging to it, because it has the precedence, and is the first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath."]

(4) Since some of the early apostolic fathers were associated with the apostles, their writings from the historical standpoint, furnish conclusive evidence as to the current thought of that time. Here we may mention Ignatius, Polycarp, Ireneus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Theodoret, Eusebius, Origen, the Didache or "Teachings of the Twelve" and many other authorities. All of these indicate that the first day of the week was the Lord's day, and that it was set apart and distinguished from other days in that it was the day of the resurrection. It was, therefore, a holy day, or a holy Sabbath.

The Manner in Which the Sabbath Is to Be Observed. Since the Sabbath as a holy rest day is enjoined upon the church as a perpetual obligation, the manner of its observance should be given brief consideration. The original commandment is Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. To this, both in the Exodus account, and in that found in Deuteronomy, there is the added explanation which forms the basis of the memorial aspect of the day. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it (Exodus 20:9-11; cf. Deut. 5:12-15 where deliverance from Egypt is made a secondary memorial for the Jewish dispensation.) We are to understand from this that the day is to be set apart for the worship of God and devoted to the spiritual interests of mankind. For this reason, all secular work is prohibited, except that which is commonly known as a work of necessity or mercy. This truth is brought out clearly by Isaiah also, as follows: If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; and 8halt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words (Isa. 58:13). Thus the Old Testament fixes the Sabbath day as a time of worship and communion with God. It is a cessation of labor, whether of the body or the mind, in order to permit time for spiritual things. Our Lord gives us in the New Testament, two principles also, which parallel the twofold aspect of the Sabbath as found in the Old Testament. The first has reference to the holiness of the day, God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Here the true inwardness of the Sabbath is seen - a spiritual rest of the soul, from which flows that worship which is in Spirit and in truth. The second, concerns man's interests, And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath (Mark 2:27, 28). Here it is clearly taught, that those things which pertain to man's highest welfare, that is, his spiritual interests, are to be permitted on the sabbath day; and this is a true and sure test as to the kind and extent of secular labor on the Sabbath day.

THE MEANS OF GRACE

The means of grace, or the media gratiae of the theologians, are the divinely appointed channels through which the influences of the Holy Spirit are communicated to the souls of men. They are sometimes defined as "the ordinances and institutions appointed of God for the establishment and spread of the kingdom of grace among men" (MACPHERSON) ; or "the motives or means by which holy and gracious affections are awakened in the soul" (POND) . The Protestant doctrine stands midway between the exaggerated supernaturalism of the Roman Catholic church, which holds that the ordinances have power in themselves to confer grace; and the abstract position of the mystics who seek to do away with all external means. In a general sense, therefore, it is proper to regard all spiritual helps as means of grace, but theology has usually stated these as (1) the Word of God; and (2) Prayer - these being known as the universal means of grace. Following this is (3) the fellowship of the saints ; and (4) the sacraments - these being known as the economic means of grace.

[ A church consciousness which does not seek by means of preaching to submit itself to the testing of God's word, and by its fullness to be edified, will very soon find itself reduced to an indistinct, powerless spiritualism, which knows no difference between the sayings of men and the saving doctrine of Christ. And the preacher who makes himself only "the mouth of the congregation," and who does not prepare himself, if need be alone fortifying himself with Holy Scripture and the ecumenical testimony - to speak against the erring consciousness of the congregation, infected as it is with the spirit of the day, will soon become the servant of the church in such a sense, that he can no longer be the Lord's servant. The preacher, therefore, is rightly called "the minister of the Word"; and it is also in harmony with the word of God, that the church shall test and prove that which they hear, according to the pattern of the apostolic church. "Lot the prophets," says St Paul, "speak two or three, and let the others judge" (I Cor. 14:29). - Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, p. 414.]

The Word of God as the Universal Means of Grace. The Scriptures claim to be the universal channel of grace. Their sufficiency is everywhere declared, both in the Old and the New Testaments. The Word of God is the sword of the Spirit - the instrument by which He operates in converting and sanctifying the souls of men. Christians are said to have been begotten through the gospel (I Cor. 4:15); to have been born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever (I Peter 1:23); and to sanctify them through thy truth (John 17:17). St. Paul makes the word a means of grace by linking it directly to faith - faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Rom. 10:17). Resting securely on the basis of God's Word, faith opens the door of access to God, and lays hold of the purchased blessings. Here the importance of the ministry is seen in a new light. It is through the preached word that grace is administered to the hearers - not primarily now, to win men to God, but to deepen their love to Christ. The goal which St. Paul sets is that they being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and the length, and the depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth all knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God (Eph. 3:17-19). It is of course highly important to bear in mind the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Word. The preaching of the Word is to be in demonstration of the Spirit and of power (I Cor. 2:4). Apart from the Spirit's operation upon the hearts of men, the Word has no power. It derives its efficacy as a means of grace, only as it becomes the instrument of the Spirit. This truth taught with such accuracy by the theologians of the Reformation, must not be neglected or set aside. Again, the Word must be preached in all its offices, or spiritual growth will be retarded. The Scripture is given for doctrine, or instruction in the truths of the gospel; for reproof, of neglect or failure; for correction, of wrong tendencies, and for instruction in righteousness, or the art of holy living (II Tim. 3:16). Not only are the Scriptures to be read and studied privately, but they are to be read in the family (Deut. 6:6, 7; cf. II Tim. 1:5; 3:15); and also in the public services of the church (Deut. 31:12; Joshua 8:34, 35; Luke 4:16-18 furnishes examples of this practice. It is expressly enjoined I Tim. 4:13).

Prayer or Communion with God. Prayer as combined with the Word is also a universal means of grace. When the promises of the Word are pleaded in prayer, they become effective in the spiritual life of the Christian; and when the sacraments are received in faith, they become likewise, channels of blessing. Thus prayer appears to be the concomitant of all other means of grace. Prayer is defined by Mr. Watson as "the offering of our desires to God through the mediation of Jesus Christ, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and with suitable dispositions, for things agreeable to His will." Thus to be acceptable to God prayer must be offered through the mediation of Christ; it must be offered in faith and in a spirit of humility; and it must be according to the will of God. The elements of a well-ordered prayer are usually classified as (1) adoration, which ascribes to God the perfections which belong to His nature, and which should be uttered in deep devotion, reverence, confidence and affection; (2) thanksgiving, or the pouring forth of the soul in gratitude; (3) confession, or deep penitence, submission and humility; (4) supplication, or a prolonged and earnest looking to God in dependence, for needed blessings; and (5) intercession, or a pleading for our fellowmen, with sincere desires for their spiritual welfare. Four of these elements are mentioned by St. Paul in a single verse (I Tim. 2:1). As in the case of the Word as a means of grace, prayer is classified as (1) private prayer; (2) family prayer ; (3) public prayer; to which is added another (4) ejaculatory prayer. By this is meant those short, occasional expressions of prayer or praise, flowing from a devotional frame of mind, or what is commonly known as a "spirit of prayer." Prayer is an obligation - a duty devolving upon all men. If it be neglected or omitted, there can be no advance in spiritual things.

[ Devotion is the first step in raising up the soul to God, a relation of intercourse, of contemplation, a union with God, in edifying thought. But worship is an act; and the exercise of contemplation must lead on to a practical surrender of the will, in the offering of the heart. This, as a definite act of worship, takes place in prayer. Prayer, therefore, demands a deeper and more weighty inwardness than devotion, and .many may be devotional who are not yet really prayerful. For in devotion man's relation to God is for the most part only an edifying reflection; a relation in which God is certainly present, and in which the soul certainly feels God's nearness, but in which withal, God is present, so to speak, in the third person only; in prayer, on the other hand, God is immediately present in the second Person, as a personal Thou, corresponding to the human 1. In devotion, the man's relation to God is of a general kind, as the God of creation and of the whole church; in prayer that general relation is narrowed into one purely individual and direct between the man and God. In prayer, I hold communion with the God of all creation and of the church universal, as my God, the God of the individual man. This immediate relation between God and the soul, when the soul breathes forth its longings for the light of God's countenance, and calls upon Him, and when God himself gives His Holy Spirit to the suppliant, this union, "unio mystica," is the essence of all true prayer. But the distinctive thing about Christian prayer is that it is prayer in the name of Jesus" (John 16:23, 24). - Martensen, Chr. Dogm., p. 415.

Christian Fellowship. The Christian community is everywhere represented as a means of grace, both in the creeds and in the Scriptures. "The privileges and blessings which we have in association together in the Church of Jesus Christ are very sacred and precious. There is in it such hallowed fellowship as cannot otherwise be known. There is such helpfulness with brotherly watchcare and counsel as can be found only in the church. There is the godly care of pastors, with the teachings of the Word, and the helpful inspiration of social worship. And there is co-operation in service, accomplishing that which cannot otherwise be done." (Covenant, Manual, pp.214, 215). The scriptures command us to exhort one another daily . . . . lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin (Heb. 3:13); and to obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give an account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you (Heb. 13:17). St. Paul exhorts the church to assist those who are tempted. He says, Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted (Gal. 6:1).

The Sacraments. In this connection we shall treat the sacraments in a general way as the economic means of grace, reserving other important questions concerning them for later consideration. In some sense, the sacraments are similar to all other means of grace, but in another, there are marked differences. These differences are due to the fact that they are not only individual but federal transactions; that is, they are signs and seals of a covenant. It is for this reason that they are known as the economic means of grace. Since a covenant implies the condescension of God in entering into relations with His people, the signs and seals must be mutual. By them, both the divine and human fidelity are pledged in sacred agreement. It is for this reason that a peculiar sacredness has always attached to these ordinances. Their efficacy, however, like that of the other means of grace, depends upon the Holy Spirit working in and through the faith of the believer.

THE SACRAMENTS

The term sacraments as used in theology, signifies an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof. This is the definition of the Methodist Catechism. According to the Westminster Larger Catechism, "A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ in His Church, to signify a seal, and exhibit unto whose that are within the covenant of grace, the benefits of His mediation ; to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces, to oblige them to obedience." The term sacramentum was originally applied to the money deposited in a sacred place by parties to a suit at law. Later it came to apply to any civil suit, and then to the oath taken by newly enlisted soldiers in the Roman army. From this it was carried over to the sacred or ordinances of the church. Tertullian uses it in the twofold sense - first as applying to the army oath, and then to the Christian sacraments. As understood by the early Christians, the ordinances were religious rites which carried with them the most sacred obligation of loyalty to the church and to Christ. In the Greek church, the term mystery (musthrion) was used instead of sacrament, not, however, in the Pauline sense of a hidden truth revealed, but purely as an emblem. In ecclesiastical Latin, the term sacrament came to signify anything consecrated, while musthrion was used as a symbol or sign of a consecrated or sacred thing. Baptism, however, was held to represent more of the sacramental character as an oath of allegiance, while the Eucharist contained more of the mystery.

The Marks of a Sacrament. Since the Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches hold that there are seven sacraments, and the Protestant churches reduce the number to two, it is essential to understand what constitutes a sacrament. Dr. A. A. Hodge in his commentary on the Presbyterian Confession of Faith gives us the following marks. (1) A Sacrament is an ordinance immediately instituted by Christ. (2) A sacrament always consists of two elements: (a) an outward visible sign, and (b) an inward spiritual grace thereby signified. (3) The sign in every sacrament is sacramentally united to the grace which it signifies; and out of this union the scriptural usage has arisen of ascribing to the sign whatever is true of that which the sign signifies. (4) The sacraments were designated to represent, seal, and apply the benefits of Christ and the new covenant to believers. (5) They were designed to be pledges of our fidelity to Christ, binding us to his service, and at the same time badges of our profession, visibly marking the body of professors and distinguishing them from the world. Perhaps it is safe to say, that a rite in order to be properly termed a sacrament, must net only exhibit a general resemblance between the sign and the thing signified, but that there must be also the words of institution, and the promise which binds them together.

The Nature of a Sacrament. There are widely divergent opinions in the church, as to the manner in which divine power is attached to the outward and visible sign of the sacrament. (1) There is the sacramentarian view, according to which the sacraments contain the grace they signify; and when administered, convey this grace ex opere operato, that is, of necessity, apart from and independent of the faith of the communicant. (2) At the other extreme is the rationalistic view, which holds that the sacraments are purely symbolical, and that any power which attaches to them is to be found in the moral influence upon the mind, arising from meditation upon the events which they commemorate. This view is widely prevalent in the church. (3) There is a third or mediating view, which regards the sacraments as both signs and seals, signs as representing in action and by symbols, the blessings of the covenant; seals, as pledges of God's fidelity in bestowing them. This is the position generally held by the Protestant churches.

[ There should he a clear understanding of the formulas that distinguish the different positions concerning the sacraments "To produce grace ex opere operato, says Bailly, "is to confer it by the power of the external act instituted by Christ, provided there is no hindrance. But to produce grace ex opere operantis is to confer it on account of the merits and dispositions of the receiver or minister."

Signs and Seals. There has been little difference of opinion in the church concerning the sacraments as signs, but widespread controversy concerning their character as seals. Overemphasis upon the former, as we have seen, led to the rationalistic view of the sacraments as mere symbols; undue emphasis upon the latter, to the sacramentarian view of the seals as reservoirs of grace. During the middle ages, two views were held as to the communication of this grace. Thomas Aquinas held to what is commonly known as the ex opere operato, or the view that the sacraments are channels of grace apart from any faith on the part of the communicant. Duns Scotus on the other hand, held to the ex opere operante, which does not regard the sacraments as having power in themselves, except by a certain concomitance, the power accompanying them producing the sacramental effect through faith on the part of the communicant. The former developed into the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church as elaborated by the Council of Trent ; the latter is essentially that held by the Protestant churches. Perhaps the simplest and most thorough explanation of the signs and seals, is the classic passage in Watson's Institutes, generally cited as an authoritative statement by Protestant theologians of the Arminian type. He says (1) "They are the signs of divine grace. As such they are visible and symbolical expositions of the benefits of redemption. In other words, they exhibit to the senses, under appropriate emblems, the same benefits that are exhibited in another form in the doctrine and promises of the Word of God." (2) "They are also seals. A seal is a confirming sign, or, according to theological language, there is in a sacrament a signum significans, and a signum confirmans; the former of which it is said, significare, to notify or declare; the latter, obsignare, to set one's seal to, to witness. As .therefore, the sacraments, when considered, as signs, contain a declaration of the same doctrines and promises which the written Word of God exhibits, but addressed by a significant emblem to the senses; so also as seals, or pledges, they confirm the same promises which are assured to us by God's own truth and faithfulness in His Word (which is the main ground of all affiance in His .mercy), and by His indwelling Spirit by which we are 'sealed,' and have in our hearts 'the earnest' of our heavenly inheritance. This is done by an external and visible institution ; so that. God has added these ordinances to the promises of His Word, not only to bring His merciful purpose toward us in Christ to mind, but constantly to assure us that those who believe in Him shall be and are made partakers of His grace." (WATSON, Institutes, II, pp. 611, 612. Cf. WAKEFIELD, Christian Theology, p. 555.) The true Protestant doctrine, therefore, avoids the excesses of Roman Catholicism on the one hand, and the deficiencies of rationalism on the other, embodying in its doctrine of the signs and seals, all the truth that is contained in other views of the sacraments.

[ The sacraments are the seal of the covenant of grace, both on the part of God and on the part of men. They are seals on the part of God by which He declares His gracious intention of bestowing His favors .upon us, and by which He binds Himself to fulfill His covenant engagements. While we look upon these symbols we feel our minds impressed with His condescension and love, our faith in His promises is confirmed, and the most devout affections toward Him are excited. On our part also they are seals by which we enter into the most solemn obligations with Him, according to the term of the covenant which He proposes to our acceptance. While, by the reception of these visible tokens, we profess to "lay hold upon the hope set before us," we seal the solemn contract, as with our own signature, that we will dedicate to God ourselves and our all - that he will be His alone and His forever." - WAKEFIELD, Chr. Th., p. 555.

Additions to the Sacraments. Protestantism admits but two sacraments - baptism and the Lord's Supper. All additions to these are regarded as pseudo-sacraments. In the early church, the term sacrament, translated as it was from the Greek word musthvrion, came to be applied to all things where the word mystery was used. The Greek church early adopted the seven mysteries, and the Roman church at a later time, the seven sacraments, but these are not identical. During the middle ages, the school men were divided as to the exact number, but the matter was finally settled by Peter Lombard, who fixed the number as seven, and states them in this order - baptism, the Lord's Supper, confirmation (of catechumens), ordination, extreme unction, auricular confession (penance), and wedlock. These were not established, however, as a dogma until the Council of Florence (A.D. 1442), and were later confirmed by the Council of Trent (A.D. 1547). The additional five so-called sacraments were rejected by the Protestant churches, either on the ground that they were not appointed such by our Lord, or that they were not true symbols of inner grace.

It is remarkable that the Greek and Roman communions, differing in so much besides, agree in accepting seven sacraments. Both base their acceptance on the authority of the church as interpreting the will of Christ, and vindicate them as enfolding and hedging round and sanctifying the whole of life at its several stages: Baptism is the sanctification of birth, confirmation of adult life, penance of the life of daily sin, the Eucharist of life itself, orders of legitimate authority, matrimony of the church's law of continuance and increase, and unction of the departure hence . . . .They were variously illustrated and defended by the scholastics. It was supposed that each was symbolized by or symbolized one of the seven cardinal virtues, faith, love, hope, wisdom, temperance, courage, righteousness; they were explained by the analogy of the spiritual life with the physical, as birth, growth into adult age, nourishment, healing, reproduction, instruction, death . . . . baptism, confirmation, and orders, were held to have an indelible character, never effaceable, and never to be repeated. - POPE, Compend. Chr. Th., III, pp. 305, 306.

The creed of Pope Pius IV regards the Seven Sacraments as binding upon every member of the Roman Catholic church. It reads as follows: "I profess that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the new law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though not all for everyone, to wit, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony, and that they confer grace; and that of those, baptism, confirmation, and orders cannot be reiterated without sacrilege."

BAPTISM

"We believe that Christian baptism is a sacrament signifying acceptance of the benefits of the atonement of Jesus Christ, to be administered to believers, as declarative of their faith in Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and full purpose of obedience in holiness and righteousness. "Baptism being the symbol of the New Testament, young children may be baptized, upon request of parents or guardians who shall give assurance for them of necessary Christian training.

"Baptism may be administered by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, according to the choice of the applilcant" (Manual, ¶ 18).

Definitions of Baptism. The above statements from the Creed do not of course, give us a formal definition of baptism, for this is presupposed. Webster, however, defines baptism as "the application of water to a person, as a sacrament or religious ceremony, by which he is initiated into the visible Church of Christ." Dr. Summers defines it as "an ordinance instituted by Christ, consisting in the application of water by a Christian minister to suitable persons, for their initiation into the visible Church, and consecration to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." Dr. Miley says that "Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not baptized, but it is also a sign of regeneration, or the new birth." Dr. Pope defines it as "the rite ordained by our Lord to be the sign of admission into the Church, and the seal of union with himself and participation in the blessings of the Christian covenant."

The Institution of Christian Baptism. The practice of water baptism as a sacred ordinance was not first introduced by Christ, but was long familiar to the Jews as a religious rite. The precise time when it came into use is not known; but it was one of the rites by which proselytes were inducted into the Jewish religion, and thereby became partakers of the benefits of the covenant. The second step in the development of the ordinance was the baptism of John, which differed both from the proselyte baptism which preceded, and the Christian baptism which followed it. John's baptism was not merely a rite by which proselytes were brought into the Jewish religion, but was "unto repentance" as a preparation for Christ and the New Covenant. The third step in its development was Christian baptism, which differed from that of John in that it does not look forward to the coming of the Messiah, but confesses that Jesus as the Messiah has come, and also the Holy Spirit in whose dispensation it is to be administered. Christ was born under the Old Testament, and by His identification with a sinful race, was brought under its condemnation. And while He knew no sin, He nevertheless declared that it was necessary to be baptized with John's baptism in order to fulfill all righteousness. Christian baptism was instituted by our Lord in a direct injunction - baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matt. 28:19); an injunction which at once instituted the ordinance and prescribed the formula by which it was to be administered.

Following the Day of Pentecost, the rite of baptism was observed in connection with conversion as an indispensable ordinance, there being no recorded instance of conversion with which it is not connected. The full formula does not always occur, however, although it may be said to be implied even where it is not directly stated. In Acts 2:38 St. Peter in his pentecostal sermon exhorts the believers to be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ, and they that gladly received his word were baptized (Acts 2:41); in Acts 8:16 it is stated that the Samaritans were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; while in Acts 10:48, St. Peter commands the household of Cornelius to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Likewise, also, the Ephesian disciples were baptized under the ministry of St. Paul (Acts 19:4-6). It will be noticed, also, that once the disciples were baptized, and later received the gift of the Holy Ghost after the imposition of hands; and once, at the house of Cornelius, the disciples received the Holy Ghost and were later baptized with water. In the later apostolic times baptism was regarded as having superseded the Jewish rite of circumcision. As a national custom it continued to exist, but to the church this was a matter of indifference for the rite was interpreted spiritually. Thus St. Paul says, In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead (Col. 2:11,12).

Development of the Doctrine in the Church. Great importance was very early attached to the rite of baptism - not as a sign and seal of all Christian blessings, but in that it was regarded as the means of conveyance, by which those blessings were imparted. In the later Ante-Nicene age, it may be said that baptism was universally regarded as the rite of admission to the church; and since it was held that there could be no salvation apart from the church, baptism came to be associated with regeneration. At first it was looked upon solely as the completing act in the appropriation of Christianity the seal of positive adoption into the family 6f God. By the middle of the second century, however, it was regarded as procuring full remission of all past sins, and consequently we find it spoken of as "the instrument of .regeneration and illumination." The Fathers taught this doctrine, not in the modern sense of a grace bestowed, or a change wrought by means of regeneration, but that baptism was itself regeneration. Pseudo-Barnabas (c. 120) refers ~o "that baptism which leads to the remission of sins"; and adds, "we descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up bearing fruit in our heart." So also Hermas (c. 140) says, "They descend into the water dead, they arise alive." There were, however, some limitations which attached to the doctrine as it was held by such writers as Justin Martyr, Clement, Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian. They held to the earlier belief that baptism was efficacious only in connection with a right inner disposition and purpose on the part of the candidate. Origen says, "He who has ceased from his sins receives remission in baptism. But if anyone comes to the fount still harboring sin, he obtains no remission of his sins" (In. Luc. Hom. XXI). They held also, that baptism was not absolutely essential to the initiation of the new life in regeneration, but only as a completing process, as previously mentioned. Tertullian in speaking of baptism says, "The washing is a sealing of faith, which faith is begun and is commended by the faith of repentance. We are not washed in order that we may cease sinning, but because we have ceased, since in the heart we have been bathed already" (De. Poenit. VI).

The Nicene and Post-Nicene periods witnessed a further crystallization of the earlier positions, and hence the idea universally prevailed that the divine life dwelt in the corporate body of the church, and could be transmitted to its members only through the instrumentality of the sacraments. Baptism, therefore, as the rite of initiation took on added importance, and came to be regarded as essential to salvation. Ambrose (c. 397) understood John 3:5 to mean that "None can ascend into the kingdom of heaven except by the sacrament of baptism; indeed, it excepts none, neither infant nor him that is prevented by any necessity." Augustine's position, like many other of his doctrines, was of a twofold character. From his earlier viewpoint, baptism was regarded as symbolical. It was the external rite of entrance into the church, but the inner spiritual union was effected only by the Spirit through faith. He held also, that in infant baptism, the sponsors merely assumed the responsibility for the Christian education of the child, their confession being before God, the confession of the child. His later viewpoint was widely different. He maintained that baptism carried with it not only the forgiveness of actual sins, but of original sin also. While he held that concupiscence still remained in the heart, he maintained that its complexion was changed. In the unbaptized it was sin; but in the baptized, it was a sickness, the perfect cure of which could be wrought only in heaven. His views concerning infant baptism also underwent a marked change. He held that the church furnished a substitutive faith, and the Holy Spirit implanted in the unconscious babe the germ of a new life; so that regeneration was wrought in the heart before the conscious conversion of the child. It was this idea of passive receptivity advanced by Augustine, which later became in the Roman Catholic Church, the basis of the opus operatum, against which Protestantism so violently reacted. It will be necessary, therefore, to consider the later development of this doctrine in (1) The Roman Catholic Church;

(2) The Lutheran Church; and (3) The Reformed Church.

1. The Roman Catholic Doctrine. Since baptism was regarded as operating solely for the remission of past sins, there grew up very early a system of penance for sins committed after baptism. Later this became a separate ordinance or sacrament. Likewise, also, it had been a custom from earliest times to accompany baptism with the laying on of hands in imitation of the apostles (Cf. Acts 8:17; 19:6), and also to anoint with oil as a symbol of the anointing from the Holy One (I John 2:20-27). This came to be known as "Confirmation" and in the fourth century was universally recognized as a separate sacrament. Later it was insisted that the validity of the rite depended upon the consecrating of the oil by a bishop; and gradually in the West, the whole ceremony came to be regarded as the peculiar function of the bishop. The schoolmen of the Middle Ages did little more than to elaborate the positions advanced by Augustine. They distinguished between the material and the form of baptism - the material being the water, and the form being the formula by which it was administered. St. Thomas especially followed Augustine in maintaining that baptism impressed an indelible character upon the soul through regeneration. On the negative side, baptism was held to cleanse from all sin, actual and original; and on the positive side to incorporate the recipient with Christ, and bestow all the gifts and graces of the new life. On the question of infant baptism also, he held with Augustine that babes do not believe through their own act, but through the faith of the church in which they are baptized. This faith comes from the Holy Spirit as the inner unity of the church, who makes equal distribution of her spiritual life, so that infants share in it potentially, though not then in the exertion of its spiritual power. Confirmation also was believed to confer "an indelible character," which, however, presupposed that imparted in baptism. The doctrinal decisions and ritualistic prac tices which had long been current in the Roman Catholic Church, were confirmed by the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

2. The Lutheran Doctrine. The Protestant teaching, both Lutheran and Reformed, had for its starting point a valid objection to the ex opere operato of the Roman Catholic Church, or the doctrine that the mere administration of baptism saved the baptized person. The Reformers also contended that the "concupiscence remained after original sin had been pardoned in baptism, was really sin." They insisted that faith was necessary on the part of the recipient in order to make the ceremony a means of grace. Luther's teaching on this subject is usually traced through three stages: (1) Following Augustine's earlier position, he distinguished between the sign and the thing signified, and between them put faith as the means by which men realized the meaning of the sign. The sign is the outward baptism with water, the seal is the new birth, and faith makes real this spiritual baptism. (2) In the second stage, Luther considered baptism as a sign and a seal, to which God added His Word as a promise of divine strength and comfort. The chief thing, however, is the promise, and those who believe it and are baptized will be saved. (3) In the third stage, he more closely identified the water and the Word, teaching that to the sign and the Word, were added the command and ordinance of God; and that the former were given together in such a manner that the water of baptism is converted into the divine element. This position, however, does not appear in the Confessions except in the German original of the Schmalkald Articles. The Augsburg Confession represents Melanchthon's position, that baptism is a perpetual witness that the forgiveness of sins and the renewing of the Holy Ghost belong especially to the baptized the operating cause of this condition being faith. For these reasons Lutheranism has always held a high theory of the sacraments, and ordinarily regards baptism as essential to salvation, since through it by divine appointment, the blessings of remission and regeneration are conveyed by means of faith and the Word.

[ The Augsburg Confession (1530) Article ix Is as follows: "Baptism is necessary to salvation, by (it) the grace of God is offered; and children are to he baptized, who by baptism, being offered to God, are received into God's favor."]

3. The Reformed Doctrine. The Reformed Churches started with the idea that salvation is not conditioned upon any external work or ceremony, and therefore saved themselves from much confusion in the development of their doctrine. To them, baptism was but the initiatory sign which marks one as the follower of Christ. Zwingli attributed no sanctifying power to bap tism per se, but only to faith. Thus he did away entirely with the mystery, and viewed the sacraments partly as acts of confession, and partly as commemorative signs. Calvin adopted the principles of Zwingli, but in his development of them, more nearly approached the Lutheran conception. To him, they were not merely memorials, but also pledges of grace that is, they were accompanied with an invisible gift of grace. Since Lutheranism, especially the school of Melanchthon, also

regarded the sacraments as pledges of grace, a point of union was formed between Calvin and Luther. Bishop Martensen who takes his stand upon the point of agreement between Luther and Calvin, makes it clear that there is after all an essential difference between them arising out of the different conceptions of predestination. "According to Calvin's doctrine," he says, "there is no real connection between predestination and baptism. The twofold election has been settled from eternity; and baptism, therefore, can be of no avail to those who have not been elected in the hidden decrees of God. Lutheran predestination, on the other hand, obtains its true expression in baptism. For baptism, according to Luther, is the revelation of the consoling decree that 'God will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.' We do not need in agony to inquire after a hidden decree, according to which we are either elected or rejected; for every one may read in his baptism his election to blessedness" (MARTENSEN, Christian Dogmatics, p.424). We may say then, that in general, less stress was laid upon the necessity of baptism in the Reformed Church than in the Lutheran; and that the Reformed position, through the medium of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church, became essentially the teaching of Methodism.

4. Later Doctrinal Developments. (1) The Anglican doctrine as expressed in the Thirty-Nine Articles is a combination of the Lutheran and Reformed creeds. There are, however, two views as to the interpretation of the formularies - those who are more Lutheran and sacramentarian, and therefore suppose that the soul is renewed by an infusion of life; and those who more nearly approach the Reformed position of a change in . relations only. (2) The Baptist doctrine differs from Christianity at large on two points - it maintains that baptism as a rite, belongs solely to adults as an expression of their faith ; and that the only valid mode of baptism is immersion in water. (3) The Methodists hold to a mediating position. On the one hand, they repudiate the Socinian view that baptism is merely a sign or badge of a Christian profession; and on the other, they reject the rite as an impressive ritualistic emblem of the washing away of sin. They hold that baptism is both a sign and a seal, and therefore is not without its accompanying grace to the recipient who complies with the conditions of the covenant. This position will be given further consideration in our discussion of the meaning, mode and subjects of baptism.

The Nature and Design of Christian Baptism. From the history of baptism, and the scriptural statements concerning it, we are able to arrive at the nature and design of the ordinance. It is a solemn sacrament 'signifying the acceptance of the benefits of the atonement of Jesus Christ" ; and it is a pledge with "full purpose of obedience in holiness and righteousness." From the divine standpoint, it is also a pledge of the bestowal of grace. Dr. Wakefield defines baptism and indicates its four essential elements as follows: "Baptism, as a Christian ordinance, may be defined to be the application of pure water to a proper subject, by a lawful administrator, in the name of the sacred Trinity. (1) It is the application of pure water, as the language of the apostle clearly indicates, Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water (Heb. 10:22). (2) The water must be applied to a proper subject; not to an inanimate object, but to a human being under certain circumstances. (3) The ordinance must be performed by a lawful administrator; and as the commission to baptize was given to ministers of the gospel alone, no others have a right to perform this office. And, (4) It must be administered in the name of the sacred Trinity, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matt. 28:19, 20). "Two things concerning baptism stand out clearly here (1) Its universal and perpetual obligation; and (2) Its sacramental import.

[The Heidelberg Catechism defines the sacraments as follows: "They are holy, visible signs and seals, ordained by God for this end, that He may more fully declare and seal by them the promise of His gospel unto us: to wit, that not only unto all believers in general, but unto each of them in particular, He freely giveth remission of sins and life eternal, upon the account of that only sacrifice of Christ, which He accomplished upon the cross."

1. The universal and perpetual obligation of baptism is indicated by two things - Our Lord's express command (Matt. 28:19, 20); and the apostolic practice (Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12). Baptism is a solemn ordinance which should be strictly observed. It is clearly evident from the above scriptures, that the apostles administered baptism immediately upon profession of faith; and if it was deemed necessary then, it can be no less so now. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women (Acts 8:12). Baptism is an ordinance of perpetual obligation. Some have argued that because Christ baptizes with the Holy Ghost, water baptism is no longer necessary. That it superseded John's baptism, is doubtless true; but we have already indicated that there is a wide distinction between John's baptism with water as a preparatory rite, and Christ's baptism with water as a sign and seal of an inward work of grace. Nor does the text (Heb. 9:10) which refers to "divers washings, and carnal ordinances" present any argument against Christian baptism. The Christians rejected these Jewish rites, it must be admitted, but water baptism was administered by the apostles after the opening of the Christian dispensation, which clearly indicates that baptism was not included in the rites of which the apostle here speaks. Baptism being an initiatory rite is to be administered only once. It establishes a permanent covenant and is not therefore to be repeated. The baptized one may fall away, but the gracious promise of God still stands. It cannot be made of none effect. If he falls away, he needs to repent . and believe, and the Father stands ready to restore him, but he does not need to be rebaptized, As an initiatory rite also, baptism is the visible act by which members are admitted into the Church of Christ as a visible society. This has been the faith of the church from the beginning, and to deny it is to deny that the church has any initiatory ordinance.

[WATSON ON BAPTISM AS A SIGN AND A SEAL

2. The sacramental import of baptism is to be found in the fact that it is a sign and seal of the covenant of grave. (1) As a sign, it represents spiritual purification. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you (Ezek. 36:25, 26). So also our Lord declares, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5). Here, evidently, the sign is the outward baptism with water, and the thing signified is the inner work of the Spirit. St. Paul refers to the twofold work of the Spirit - the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Titus 3:5). As a sign, therefore, baptism not only symbolizes regeneration, but also the baptism with the Holy Spirit which is the peculiar event of this dispensation. Accordingly the pouring out of the "Spirit upon all flesh," as prophesied by Joel, is in the New Testament called a baptism. It is to this that John the Baptist referred when he said, He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire (Matt. 3:11); and to which Jesus himself referred when He said to His disciples, Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence (Acts 1:5). (2) Baptism is also a seal. "It is," says Dr. Shedd, "like the official seal on a legal document. The presence of the seal inspires confidence in the genuineness of the title-deed ; the absence of the seal awakens doubt and fears. Nevertheless, it is the title-deed, not the seal, that conveys the title" (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, II, p. 574). On God's part, the seal is the visible assurance of faithfulness to His covenant - a perpetual ceremony to which His people may ever appeal. On man S part, the seal is that act by which he binds himself as a party to the covenant, and pledges himself to faithfulness in all things ; and it is also the sign of a completed transaction - the ratification of a final agreement.

The Mode of Baptism. This subject has been one of long and serious controversy. From the days of the Anabaptists of Reformation times, and the Baptists of a later day, it has been asserted that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism; while others, the great body of the Church in all ages, have ever maintained that it may be administered by sprinkling or pouring, or to use a term which includes both, by effusion. The question is not, whether immersion is a valid baptism - this has never been denied, but whether it is the only form of baptism authorized by the Scriptures. Our position as a church is clear, "Baptism may be administered by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, according to the choice of the applicant." It is sufficient, therefore, to merely indicate briefly the arguments which are offered for and against immersion as the only valid mode of baptism. The arguments most frequently urged in favor of immersion are (1) The meaning of the word baptivzw, to baptize; (2) The circumstances which attended many of the recorded baptisms; and (3) the symbol of the burial. The church generally has regarded these propositions as insufficient to establish a belief in immersion as the only valid mode of baptism. Without any effort at controversy we may summarize the arguments as follows, referring the student for further study to the more elaborate treatises upon this subject.

1. It is contended that the word baptivzw always means to dip or to plunge. It is a fact, however, beyond all controversy, that the majority of lexicographers give it a broader meaning; and that the classical writers use it to express a variety of ideas. Dr. Dale states that baptivzw is a derivative, modifying the meaning of its root baptw. The word means (1) to do a definite act, to dip; (2) to effect a definite change of condition, to dye; (3) to effect a thorough change of condition by assimilating quality or influence, without color, to temper, to steep, to imbue. The classical writers, Plutarch, Hippocrates and Aristotle frequently used the word to signify nothing more than to moisten, tinge and sprinkle. That the word employed to designate Christian baptism is used in the Scriptures other than in the sense of immersion is very evident. Except they [baptize] wash, they eat not (Mark 7:4); which as the previous verse indicates refers to the washing of the hands. The Pharisee (Luke 11:38) marveled that Jesus sat down to eat without first baptizing or washing, as was the custom of the Pharisees. St. Paul declares that the Israelites were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and the sea (I Cor. 10:i, 2), using the word baptize as referring to the passing between the waters, overshadowed by the cloud. That the word baptivzw is used in a broader meaning than that of to dip or to plunge, is a sufficient refutation of the claim that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism.

[The primary word Bavptw occurs four times in the New Testament (Luke 16:24; John 13:26; Rev. 19:13), but never in connection with the subject of Christian baptism. Its classical meaning was, (1) to dip; (2) to dye. - A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, p.483.

2. A study of the circumstances attending the recorded baptisms in the Scriptures, makes it clear also, that baptism does not always signify immersion. The cases usually cited in proof of immersion are the following: Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan (Matt. 3:5, 6); and Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water (Matt. 3:16); and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip (Acts 8:38, 39). Here the whole strength of the argument depends upon the meaning of the original Greek prepositions, en (en), eis (ei"), ek (ek), and apo (apo). It is well known that these prepositions are used in the Scriptures with different meanings, thus apo means from, far more frequently than it does out of; that ek also means from as well as out of; and that eis means to or unto as well as into. From the meaning of the original words, therefore it would be as faithful a translation as the present one to say that Jesus came up straightway from the water; and that Philip and the eunuch went down to the water, and came up from the water. Schleusner in his celebrated lexicon points out that en has thirty-six distinct meanings; eis, twenty-six; ek, twenty-four; and apo, twenty. It is evident, therefore, that a true interpretation can be found only in a study of the historical circumstances and usages, and not necessarily in a literal interpretation of the prepositions. Here we may refer briefly to such scriptures as the baptism of Saul, where it is stated that he arose and was baptized (an) literally, standing up he was baptized (Acts 9:18); the baptism of Cornelius and his friends, where it is evident that they were baptized in the house where the Holy Spirit had fallen upon them, and further, it is implied in the words, "Can any man forbid water," that is, forbid water to be brought in order to the baptism (Acts 10:47, 48); and lastly, the baptism of the jailer and his household at night, which must necessarily have taken place in the jail, and could not therefore with certainty be said to be immersion (Acts 16:31-33).

[Baptist interpreters insist that the Bible teaches that the outward sign in this sacrament, being the immersion of the whole body in water, is an emblem both of purification and of our death, burial and resurrection with Christ we object to this interpretation, (1) in neither of these passages (Rom. 6:3, 4; Col 2:12) does Paul say that our baptism In water is an emblem of our burial with Christ. He is evidently speaking of that spiritual baptism of which water baptism is the emblem; by which spiritual baptism we are caused to die unto am, and live unto holiness, in which death and new life we are conformed unto the death and resurrection of Christ (2) To be baptized into his death is a phrase perfectly analogous to baptism unto repentance (Matt. 3:11), and for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4), and into one body (I Cor. 12:13), that is, In order that, or te the effect that we participate in the benefits of his death. (3) The Baptist interpretation involves an utter confusion in reference to the emblem. Do they mean that the outward sign of immersion is an emblem of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, or of the spiritual death, burial and resurrection of the believer? But the point of comparison in the passages themselves is plainly "not between our baptism and the burial and resurrection of Christ, but between our death to sin and rising to holiness, and the death and resurrection of the Redeemer." (4) Baptists agree with us that baptism with water Is an emblem of spiritual purification, that is, regeneration, but insist that it is also an emblem (in the mode of immersion) of the death of the believer to sin and his new life of holiness. But what is the distinction between regeneration and a death unto sin, and life in holiness? (5) Baptists agree with us that water baptism is an emblem of purification. But surely it is impossible that the same action should at the same time be an emblem of a washing, and of a burial and a resurrection. One idea may be associated with the other in consequence of their spi