THE CHURCH: ITS WORSHIP AND SACRAMENTS

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 subject of worship, as to its order and form, belongs properly to practical rather than systematic theology. It is, however, vitally related to biblical theology which gives it the concept of God upon which all true worship must rest. Christian worship, we may say, is a conscious act based upon a conviction of God as revealed through Jesus Christ For this reason the subject demands some discussion in any balanced system of dogmatics.

The ministry of the Word and the ministry of the Sacraments "these two," says Thomas á Kempis, "may be called the two tables set on either side in the spiritual treasury of the holy church. The one is the table of the holy altar, having this holy bread, that is the precious body of Christ. The other is the table of the laws of God, containing the holy doctrine, instructing man in right faith, and leading him into the inward secrecies that are called sancta sanctorum, where the inward secrets of scripture be hid and contained (Bk. IV, chapter 11).

Robert Will points out that there are two currents of life in the phenomena of worship, one proceeding from the transcendent reality, the other flowing from the religious life of the subject. The descending current includes all forms of revelation, the ascending, all forms of prayer. Nor does the mutual action of the two currents exclude the primacy of the divine action, for this is manifest, not only in the descending current of the Word and the Sacraments, but in the immanent action within the life of souls.]

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.

Justin Martyr in his first Apology, says "On the day called Sunday, all the Christians of a neighborhood meet together in one place, and listen to the reading of the gospels and the prophets. The presiding bishop preaches a sermon, exhorting them to holy living. All stand up, and pray. Bread is then brought in, with wine and water, the sacramental wine being invariably diluted. After further prayers, to which the people respond with audible "Ainens," the body and blood of Christ are distributed. Portions are sent to the sick, and a collection is taken for the poor.]

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.

Evelyn Underhill in her book entitled "Worship" points out that the prophetic element, although hidden in the corporate life, never dies out, but reappears in every "revival" as a protest against the supposed formality and unreality of the lethargic routine; reasserting the freedom and direct action of the Spirit, the priesthood of the individual, the prophetic office of "preachers of the Word," and the call to personal consecration. Wherever the institutional life becomes standardized, there is always a reaction toward the primitive group enthusiasm and the prophetic ministry described in the New Testament.]

 

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.

 

[Dr. Pond says that "neither the original institution of the Sabbath, nor the command in the decalogue, confines or fixes its observance to the seventh day of our week. God made the world in six days, and sanctified and blessed the seventh; but there is no certainty that this day corresponds to our seventh day, or Saturday, or that it corresponded to the seventh day of the ancient Jews. The command in the decalogue, also, requires us to labor six days, and to keep the seventh; but, as it does not fix upon any precise day from which the reckoning shall commence, it is impossible to determine, merely from this command, what particular day is to be observed. - Pond, Chr. Th., p.632. The institution of the Sabbath obviously consists of two parts; first, the appointing of one day in seven to be kept holy to the Lord; and, secondly, the fixing of a particular day to be observed. It is the first of these points which is settled in the original institution, and in the Fourth Commandment. The second has been settled, from time to time by other intimidation of the divine will. The Sabbath began on the seventh day from the commencement of the creation, or on the first day after the .creation of man. In the time of Moses it was observed on the seventh day of the Jewish week. Under the present dispensation, the Sabbath is fixed..on the first day of our Christian week. - POND, Chr. Th., pp. 632, 633.]

 

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.

[Man is the last of the geological series, such as fish, reptiles and mammalia, and is the crown and consummation of God's creative work. His existence, then, began at or near the close of the sixth creative day, so that God's Sabbath rest was man's first full day. If he began the calculation of the week from that time, then the first day of the week, and not the seventh, was the primitive and patriarchal Sabbath. "The holy rest day was the seventh from the first, in the count of God's works for man; but it was the first day in his created history. He appeared before his Maker on that day, in possession of all good, and in the probationary prospect of a confirmation of it forever. The day was therefore blessed and sanctified to man, as containing in its present and promised good his everlasting inheritance. No bloody rites and typical shadows had conducted him to the enjoyment of that glorious day; it arose to him as the rest of God. All was very good, and all was very satisfactory, to both God and man. But from this lofty probation he fell by transgressian under the curse of the whole law. All good was lost, and all threatened evil was incurred, and we must now keep our eye fixed upon this day of the Lord, till its lost blessing shall be recovered through His mediation" (Akers, Biblical Chronology. Cf. Potts, Faith Made Easy).]

.

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.

Ignatius, a disciple of St. John who wrote about 100 A.D. and therefore only about ten years or less after the death of St. John says this, "If those who were concerned with old things have come to newness of hope, no longer keeping (Jewish) Sabbaths, but living according to the Lord's Day, in which our life has arisen again through Him and His death."]

 

[ 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).

[There has never been wanting a tendency to make the Scriptures sufficient of themselves, without any supernatural accompanying influence, to effect the salvation of men. The ancient Pelagians and semiPelagians regarded the Word of God as the intellectual and moral discipline which best suits the spiritual nature of man, its honest use leading sincere inquirers to perfection. As human nature retains its original elements unimpaired, its natural powers are supposed to be sufficient under the influence of truth to guide to salvation. Modern rationalism has the same general estimate of the Word of God: not regarding it as in any specific sense the means of grace, but only as one among many instruments of moral discipline. - Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., III p. 297.]

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.

"Prayer," says Dr. Ryland, "has divided seas, rolled up flowing rivers, made flinty rocks gush into fountains, quenched flames of fire, .muzzled lions, disarmed vipers and poisons, marshaled the stars against the wicked, stopped the course of the moon, arrested the sun in his rapid race, burst open iron gates, recalled souls from eternity, conquered the strongest devils, commanded legions of angels down from heaven. Prayer has bridled and chained the raging passions of man, and routed and destroyed vast armies of proud, daring, blustering atheists.

Prayer has brought one man from the bottom of the sea, and carried another in a chariot of fire to heaven. What has prayer not done?"]

 

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).

[Christian fellowship is a privilege of church membership, and one of large spiritual profit. we are constituted for society, and are accordingly endowed with social affections. Life would be utterly dreary without its social element. But in no sphere is there deeper need of this element than in the religious. The Christian life would be lonely and lacking in spiritual vigor without the fellowship of kindred minds. On the other hand, the communion of souls alive in Christ is a fruition of grace. Here is a means of much spiritual profit. - Miley, Syst. Th., II, p.389.]

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.

[Dr. Pond gives the following marks of a sacrament. (1) It must be one of divine institution, it must he an ordinance of Christ. (2) It must be characterized .by significance and appropriateness. It must not be an idle ceremony. It must have meaning - an important meaning. (3) It must hold intimate and vital connection with the church. It must be included in the covenant of the church, and be a rite of the church. (4) It must be of universal and perpetual obligation.

"Sacraments, ordained of Christ, are not only badges or tokens of Christian men's professions, but rather they are certain signs of grace, and God's good-will toward us, by the which he doth work Invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in Him." This is the first paragraph of Article XVI of Methodism, as revised by John Wesley. It is the same as Article XXV of the Anglican creed with the omission of the words "sure witnesses and effectual." These words were added to the creed originally, in order to counteract the teaching of Zwingli, and especially the Socinians, but the word "effectual" had to be used to support the ex opere operatum of the sacramental churches, and to this Mr. Wesley objected.]

 

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."

Augustine held that the sacraments were "verba visibilia" or "visible words"; while Chrysostom said of them "one thing we see, another we believe." These statements have been received by the church generally as rightly indicating the meaning of the emblems.

The sacramentarian churches make a distinction between the matter and the form in the administration of the sacraments. The matter, refers to the physical elements and actions; the form, to the formula used in the consecration of the elements. The "res sacramenti" refers to the holy eucharist alone, and means the invisible substance present in the sacrament and constituting it the real vehicle of grace. The virtas secraimenti is applied to the efficacy of the sacrament, ex opere operate when validly performed.]

 

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 importance attached to the ex opere operato by the Roman Catholic church is shown in Canons VI, VII, and VIII of the Tridentine Decrees. "Whoever shall affirm that the sacraments of the new law do not contain the grace they signify, or that they do not confer the grace on those who place no obstacle in its way, as if they were only external signs of grace or righteousness received by faith, and marks of Christian profession, whereby the faithful are distinguished from unbelievers; let him he accursed." "Whoever shall say that grace is not always given by these sacraments, and upon all persons, as far as God is concerned, if they he rightly received, but that it is only bestowed sometimes and on some persons: let him he accursed." "Whoever shall say that grace is not conferred by the sacraments of the new' law, by their own proper ex opere opereto, but that faith in the divine promise is all that is necessary to obtain grace: let him be accursed."]

 

[ 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.

Dr. Pope harmonizes the signs and seals as follows: "As signs, they represent in action and by symbols, the great blessings of the covenant; as seals they are standing pledges of the divine fidelity in bestowing them on certain conditions, being the Spirit's instrument in aiding and strengthening the faith which they require, and in assuring to that faith the present bestowment of its object. - POPE, Compend. Chr. Th., III.]

 

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."

[Dr. Dale points out that there "is one baptism - a thorough change of spiritual condition, assimilating the soul to the characteristic quality of the divine baptizer. (1) The baptism which John preached was this one baptism in swelling bud; the Holy Ghost and Lamb of God within it, not yet unfolded. (2) The baptism which John administered was this one baptism in symbol, making manifest, Jesus the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin' of the world. (3) The baptism of Christianity is John's baptism unfolded, revealing the Lamb of God slain and the Holy Ghost sent. (4) The symbol baptism of Christianity is the perpetuation of the symbolism of the baptism John preached, and of the one baptism of inspiration.]

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).

[ Too early, however, we see with respect to the administration, as well as to the conception of holy baptism, the commencement of a sad declension from the genuine simplicity of the Apostolic Age. Baptism is already in the first few centuries exalted in a manner which is sufficiently intelligible, but which must inevitably give rise to dogmatic misunderstanding. Baptism is regarded by Justin Martyr as supernatural illumination, and by a much-loved allusion the Christian Church is compared to fishes which are born in the water, and now swimming after their great fish are saved in and by that water (Tertullian, de Bapt c.i.) . Cyprian asserts that the Holy Ghost was united in a supernatural manner with the water of baptism, even as at the creation He moved life-giving over the waters. Baptism was thus considered absolutely necessary to salvation; since it not only secured, but directly brought about, the remission of previous sins, the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and the pledge of a blessed immortality. Since sins committed after baptism were considered unpardonable, this holy act was by many postponed as; long as possible; while, when it was administered, it was illustrated by a number of emblematical ceremonies. Among these were, since the fourth century, the abjuration of the devil; the anointing with the mystical oil; the churchly consecration of the baptismal water; and after baptism a new anointing, the laying on of hands, the kiss of peace, the clothing in white robes, the carrying of burning candles, the administration of milk and honey, the change of name and such like. where should we end if we would name everything which in former or later days has been practiced with respect to sponsors, seasons for baptism, the baptism of bells, altars and so forth? Of much more importance is it that the entire idea of baptism, in connection with these different things, departed more and more from that of the apostles. By Augustine in particular, and since his time, infant baptism was brought into direct connection with the dogma of original sin, and considered as the means for purifying from it the child to be baptized; so that unbaptized children could not possibly be saved . . . . Thus here was gradually formed, after the later scholastic development of doctrine, the conception which the Romish Church now recognizes as her own. To her baptism is the sacrament of regeneration, by means of water in the word, by which the grace of God is imparted in a supranatural manner to the person baptized for the forgiveness of all (inherited and actual) guilt, and for the sanctification of the life, and thus its administration is absolutely necessary. - Van Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics, II, pp. 750, 751.]

 

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).

[The effect of the baptism proper was affirmed (as by Augustine) to consist in absolution from the guilt of all foregoing sin, original and actual, and in such an impartation of grace as modifies, but does not wholly eradicate, the corruption or concupiscence in the moral nature. . . . . As regards the grace which ameliorates the inward corruption, and works a renewal in the heart, it was apprehended by different writers that this might be experienced in virtue of repentance and faith anterior to baptism. It was maintained, however, that in such case there was still ample occasion for baptism, since there was left a certain obligation to punishment, and baptism could remove this as well as confer an increase of positive grace. - Sheldon, History of Christian Doctrine, I, p.392.

Bellarmine summarizes the teachings of the church on baptism as follows: (1) Infants have no actual faith; (2) Nor spiritual manifestations; (3) They are justified absolutely without faith; (4) The habitus of faith, love and hope, is imparted to them; (5) They practically believe, partly because baptism itself is an actual confession of faith, and partly because of the vicarious faith of others. Habitus is defined as the condition which includes in itself at the same time a power to act. It may be infused, and then it is the condition of all corresponding activity; or acquired, and then it is the result of actions already performed (Cf. Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia, Art. Baptism).]

 

[ In the middle of the eighth century, an ignorant priest in Bavaria was accustomed in place of the regular baptismal formula which he intended to use, to utter a jargon of Latin words without intelligible meaning. Pope Zachary, to whom the case was referred, acknowledged the validity of these baptisms on the ground of the priest's intention. from this decision two startling conclusions were drawn by some later Roman Catholic divines: That, as the validity of a sacrament depends on the intention of the administrator, that is no sacrament, however ritually correct, in which the intention is lacking; and that, inasmuch as sectaries and heretics intend to baptize into the true church, the Roman Church, which is the only true church, has rightful jurisdiction over all persons so baptized. - CRIPPEN, History of Christian Doctrine, pp. 190, 191.

Baptism, together with the other two sacraments incapable of repetition, namely, confirmation and holy orders, was regarded as giving a certain indelible signature, or character to the recipient. "In these (three sacraments)," says Bonaventura "a triple character is impressed, which is not obliterated. In accordance with the first arises the distinction of believers from unbelievers m accordance with the second the distinction of the strong from the infirm and the weak; and in accordance with the third, the distinction of the clergy from the laity." - SHELDON, History of Christian Doctrine, I, p. 393.

In the third century heretical baptism was a matter of earnest controversy. Cyprian denied its validity, on ecclesiastical principles, but the authority of the Church at Rome prevailed resting its plea on the ground of the objective value of the rite, by whosoever performed in the name of the Holy Trinity. - POPE, Comp. Chr. Th., III, p. 319.

St. Boniface (755), "The apostle of Germany," introduced the practice of baptizing conditionally those whose former baptism was doubtful." - Crippen, History of Christian Doctrine, p. 191.

 

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.

[The Reformed position is expressed in the Second Helvetic Confession (1566) as follows: "Baptism is instituted by Christ. There is only one baptism in the church: it lasts for life, and is a perpetual seal of our adoption. To be baptized in the name of Christ Is to be enrolled, initiated, and received into the covenant, into the family and the inheritance of the sons of God, that, cleansed from our sins by the blood of Christ, we may lead a new and innocent life. we are internally regenerated by the Holy Ghost; but we receive publicly the seal of these blessings by baptism, in which the grace of God inwardly and invisibly cleanses the soul, and we confess our faith, and pledge obedience to God. Children of believers should be baptized; for to children belongs the kingdom of God: why, then, should not the sign of the covenant be given to them?"

The Belgic Confession (1561 was revised and approved by the Synod of Dort (1619). The statement Is as follows: "Baptism is the substitute for circumcision: by it we are received into the Church of God. As water washeth away the fiith of the body when poured upon it, as Is seen on the body of the baptized when sprinkled upon him, so doth the blood of Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost, internally sprinkle the soul, cleanse it from its sins, and regenerate us from children of wrath unto children of God. Not that this Is effected by the external water, but by the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God. Baptism avails us through the whole course of our life. Infants of believers ought to be baptized, and sealed with the sign of the covenant. Christ shed His blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful than for adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ hath done for them. Moreover, what circumcision was to the Jews, that baptism Is to our children. And for this reason Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ.]

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 Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), Cap. XXVIII is as follows: "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, or regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. 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."

Dr. Charles Hodge sums up the Reformed doctrine in three points: (1) The sacraments are real means of grace, that is, means appointed .and employed by Christ for conveying the benefits of His redemption .to His people. They are not as the Romanists teach, the exclusive channels; but they are channels. A promise is made to those who rightly receive the sacraments that they shall thereby and therein be made partakers of the blessings of which the sacraments are the divinely appointed signs and seals. The word "grace," when we speak of the means of grace, includes three things: 1. An unmerited gift, such as the remission of sin. 2. The supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit. 3. The subjective effects of that influence on the soul. Faith, hope, and charity, for example, are graces. (2) The second point in the Reformed doctrine on the sacraments concerning the source of their power. On this subject it is taught negatively that the virtue is not in them. The word virtue is of course here used in the Latin sense for power or efficiency. What is denied is that the sacraments are the efficient cause of the gracious effects which they produce. The efficiency does not reside in the elements, nor in the office of the person by whom they are administered . . . . nor on the character of the administrator in the sight of God; nor upon his intention; that is, his purpose to render them effectual The affirmative statement on this subject is, that the efficacy of the sacraments is due solely to the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit . . . . God has promised that His Spirit shall attend His Word; and He thus renders it an effectual means for the sanctification of His people. So He has promised, through the attending operation of His Spirit, to render the sacraments effectual to the same end. (3) The third point included in the Reformed doctrine is, that the sacraments are effectual as means of grace only, so far as adults are concerned, to those who by faith receive them. They may have a natural power on other than believers by presenting truth and exciting feeling, but their saving or sanctifying influence is experienced only by believers. - Hodge, Systematic Theology, III, pp. 499, 500.]

 

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."

The Church of England in Article xxv has this expression: "Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's will toward us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in Him."

The Protestant Episcopal Church, Article XXVII is as follows: "Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of regeneration, or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed, and grace increased, by virtue of prayer unto God. The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ."

The Methodist Episcopal Church, Article XVII has this statement concerning baptism: "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. The baptism of young children is to be retained in the church."]

 

["What is the Lutheran doctrine on this subject? The Lutherans agreed with the Reformed churches in repudiating the Romish doctrine of the magical efficacy of this sacrament as an OPUS operatum. But they went much farther than the Reformed in maintaining the sacramental union between the sign and the grace signified. Luther in his Smaller Catechism says baptism "worketh forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and confers everlasting salvation on all who believe"; . . . . that "it is not the water indeed which produces these effects, but the Word of God which accompanies and is connected with the water, and our faith, which relies on the Word of God connected with the water. For the water without the Word is simply water and no baptism. But when connected with the Word of God, it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life, and a washing of regeneration.

"What was the Zwinglian doctrine on this subject?" That the outward rite is a mere sign, an objective representation, having no efficacy whatever beyond that due to the truth represented.

"What is the doctrine of the Reformed churches . . . . on this subject?" They all agree (1) that the zwinglian view is incomplete. (2) That besides being a sign, baptism is also the seal of grace, and, therefore, a present and sensible conveyance and confirmation of grace to the believer who has the witness in himself, and to all the elect a seal of the benefits of the covenant of grace, to be sooner or later conveyed in God's good time. (3) That this conveyance is effected, not by the bare operation of the sacramental action, but by the Holy Ghost, which accompanies His own ordinance. (4) That in the adult the reception of the blessing depends upon faith. (5) That the benefits conveyed by baptism are not peculiar to it, but belong to the believer before or without baptism, and are often renewed to him afterward. - A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, pp. 500, 501.

That our Lord intended baptism to be the initiating ordinance into His visible Church is evident from the fact that He connected it, by positive injunctions with that grand commission which He gave to His apostles to "preach the gospel to every creature." This initiatory character of baptism is alluded to by the apostle when he inquires of the Corinthians, "were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" (I Cor. 1:13). Here he evidently assumes the principle that if he had baptized any persons in his own name, he would thereby have represented himself as the head of a sect. But as they were baptized in the name of Christ, they were thereby united to His Church by this initiatory rite." - Wakefield, Christian Theology, p. 560.]

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

Baptism as a sign of the new covenant, corresponds to circumcision. Like that, its administration is a constant exhibition of the placability of God to man; like that, it is the initiatory rite into, a covenant which promises pardon and salvation to a true faith, of which it is the outward profession; like that, it is the symbol of regeneration, the washing away of sin, and "the renewing of the Holy Ghost"; and like that, it is a sign of peculiar relation to God, Christians becoming, in consequence, "a chosen generation a peculiar people" - His Church on earth, as distinguished from "'the world." "For we," says the apostle, "are the circumcision," we are that peculiar people, and Church now, which was formerly distinguished by the sign of circumcision, "which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh."

But as a sign, baptism is more than circumcision; because the covenant, under its new dispensation, was not only to offer pardon upon believing, deliverance from the bondage of fleshly appetites, and a peculiar spiritual relation to God, all of which we find under the Old Testament; but also to bestow the Holy Spirit, in His fullness, upon all believers; and of this effusion of "the power from on high," baptism was made the visible sign; and perhaps for this, among some other obvious reasons, was substituted for circumcision, because baptism by effusion or pouring, was the natural symbol of this heavenly gilt. The baptism of John had special reference to the Holy Spirit, which was not to be administered by bin', but by Christ, who could come after bin'. This gift honored John's baptism only once, in the extraordinary case of our Lord; but it constantly followed upon the baptism administered by the apostles of Christ, after His ascension, and the sending of the promise of the Father . . . For this reason Christianity is called "the ministration of the Spirit"; and so far is this from being confined to the miraculous gifts often bestowed in the first age of the Church, that is, it made the standing and prominent test of true Christianity to "be led by the Spirit"

As a seal also, or confirming sign, baptism answers to circumcision. By the institution of the latter, a pledge was constantly given by the Almighty to bestow the spiritual blessings of which the rite was the sign, pardon and sanctification through faith in the future seed of Abraham; peculiar relation to Him as "his people" and the heavenly inheritance. Of the same blessings, baptism is also the pledge, along with that higher dispensation of the Holy Spirit which it especially represents in emblem. Thus in baptism there is on the part of God a visible assurance of His faithfulness to His covenant stipulations. But it is our seal also; it is that by which we make ourselves parties to the covenant, and thus "set to our seal, that God is true." In this respect it binds us, as, in the other, God mercifully binds Himself for the stronger assurance of our faith. We pledge ourselves to trust wholly in Christ for pardon and salvation, and to obey His laws; "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"; in that rite also we undergo a mystical death unto sin, a mystical separation from the world, which St. Paul calls "being buried with Christ in [or by] baptism"; and a mystical resurrection to newness of life, through Christ's resurrection from the dead If we bring all of these considerations together, we shall find it sufficiently established that baptism is the sign and seal of the covenant of grace under its perfected dispensation. - Watson, Theological Institutes, II, pp. 626-628.]

 

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.

The early document known as "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" which dates back to the early part of the second century, makes it clear that either immersion or pouring was regarded as valid baptism at that early date. "And touching baptism thus baptize: having flrst declared all of these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if thou have not living water, baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. But If thou have neither, pour on the head water thrice in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" (Section VII). In the spread of the gospel to colder climes, baptism by sprinkling or pouring naturally commended itself as more practicable. In tbe case of the sick, baptism by immersion in most cases would be impossible.

Dr. Owen says that baptizw signifies to wash, as instances out of all authors may be given"; and also, "No one place can be given in the Scriptures wherein baptizw doth necessarily signify, either to dip or to plunge." "In this sense," he continues, "as it expresseth baptism, it denotes to wash only, and not to dip at all, for so it is expounded" (Titus 3:5ff) Owen, Works, Vol. XXI, p. 557.]

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).

[Both Dr. Wakefield and Mr. Watson point out other scriptures which are sometimes used in an attempt to support a belief in immersion as the only valid mode of baptism. (1) "These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing" (John 1:28). Here it is only necessary to remark that the persons whom John baptized in Bethabara could not have been baptized in Jordan, for Bethabara was beyond Jordan. This receives additional support from the text which states that Jesus "went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode" (John 10:40). It is impossible to escape the conclusion that John at first baptized in Bethabara beyond Jordan, and not in its waters. (2) Another passage cited is this: "And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there" (John 3:23). Here it is assumed that the "much water" spoken of was required only for baptism The meaning of the terms employed in the original is in accordance with those historical facts which show that there was no lake or other body of water near Aenon. "Aenon is derived from the Hebrew ayin, the eye, and signifies, according to Parkhurst and others, a well, a fountain, or a spring of water. In the Greek phrase hudata polla, which is rendered 'much water,' but 'many waters'; conveying the idea of many fountains or springs, rather than a great quantity of water. Thus Matthew 13:3, "And he spake [polls, not much, but] many things unto them'; Mark 1:34, 'And cast out [polls] many devils'; John 8:26, 'I have [polls] many things to say'; Acts 2:43, 'And [polls] many wonders and signs were done'; Revelation 1:15, 'And his voice as the sound of [nudaton pollon] many waters'." We are therefore safe in the conclusion that Aenon did not contain a large quantity of water, and that it was insufficient for the numerous immersions which are supposed to have taken place in it - WAKEFIELD, Christian Theology, pp. 579, 580.]

[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 spiritual relations, but it is impossible that the same visible sign should be emblematical of both. (6) Our union with Christ through the Spirit, and the spiritual consequences thereof, are illustrated in Scripture by many various figures, for example, the substitution of a heart of flesh for a heart of stone (Ezek. 36:26); the building of a house (Eph. 2:22); the ingrafting of a limb into a vine (John 15:5); the putting off of filthy garments, and the putting on of clean (Eph. 4:22-24); as a spiritual death, burial and resurrection, and as being planted in the likeness of His death (Rom. 6:3-5); as the application of a cleansing element to the body (Ezek. 36:25). Now baptism with water represents all these, because it is an emblem of spiritual regeneration, of which all these are analogical illustrations. Yet it would be absurd to regard water baptism as a literal emblem of all these, and our Baptist brethren have no scriptural warrant for assuming that the outward sign in this sacrament is an emblem of the one analogy more than of the other. - A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, pp. 482, 483.]

3. The symbolism of the burial has been a favorite argument with the immersionists, and is based upon such scriptures as, Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4); and again, 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. 2:12). The argument for immersion rests entirely upon the words "buried with him 'by' or 'in' baptism"; and it is assumed that the apostle is here speaking of water baptism, and, therefore, defining the mode. That these texts have no reference either to water baptism or to its mode is ably and concisely stated by Dr. Wakefield, as follows: "We conclude, therefore, from a very careful examination of the whole subject, that in the passages under consideration the apostle has no allusion whatever either to water baptism itself or to its mode ; but that he is speaking of a spiritual death, burial, resurrection, and life. He inquires, Romans 6:2, How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? and in this question he gives us a key to the whole passage dead to sin. And, therefore, being thus dead to sin, we should not continue in sin. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? that is, so many of us as were united to Jesus Christ by the baptism of the Holy Spirit were made partakers of the benefits of His death. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body (I Cor. 12:13). This moral change by which believers are united to Christ, and constituted living branches in 'the True Vine,' includes in it a death to sin, a burial of 'the old man,' and a resurrection from spiritual death to a new life of holy obedience. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that is, as Christ was buried in the grave, so we, by the baptism with the Spirit, are brought into this state of death to sin, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Indeed, the .whole argument of the apostle shows that he is speaking of the work of the Spirit, and not of water baptism. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection; knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin (Rom. 6:5, 6). And again, Likewise reckon ye yourselves also to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom. 6:11). Can water baptism accomplish the moral change of which the apostle is here speaking? Surely no one will affirm this, unless he has adopted the wild notion that 'immersion is the regenerating act'" (Wakefield, Christian Theology, p. 582).

[Mr. Watson in his "Institutes" gives the following argument against immersion as the only mode of baptism. "Although the manner In which the element of water is applied in baptism is but a circumstance of this sacrament, it will not be a matter of surprise to those who reflect upon the proneness of men to attach undue importance to comparative trifles, that it has produced so much controversy. The question as to the proper subjects of baptism is one which Is to be respected for its importance; that as to the mode has occupied more time, and excited greater feeling, than it is in any view entitled to. It cannot, however, be passed over, because the advocates for immersion are often very troublesome to their fellow Christians, unsettle weak minds, and sometimes, perhaps, from their zeal for a form, endanger their own spirituality. Against the doctrine that the only legitimate mode of baptizing is by immersion, we may observe that there are several strong presumptions. (1) It is not probable, that if immersion were the only allowable mode of baptism, it should not have been expressly enjoined. (2) It is not probable, that in a religion designed to be universal, a mode of administering this ordinance should be obligatory, the practice of which is ill adapted to so many climates, whether it would either be exceedingly harsh to immerse the candidates, male and female, strong and feeble, in water; or, in some places, as in the higher latitudes, for a greater part of the year, impossible. Even if immersion were in fact the original mode of baptizing in the name of Christ, these reasons make it improbable that no accommodation of the form should take place, without vitiating the ordinance. (3) It is still more unlikely, that in a religion of mercy there should be no consideration of health and life in the administration of an ordinance of salvation, since it is certain that in countries where cold bathing is little practiced, great risk of both is often incurred, especially in the case of women and delicate persons of either sex, and fatal effects do sometimes occur. (4) It is also exceedingly improbable, that in such circumstances of climate the shivering, the sobbing, and bodily uneasiness produced, should distract the thoughts, and unfit the mind for a collected performance of a religious and solemn devotion. (5) It is highly improbable that the three thousand converts at Pentecost, who, let it be observed, were baptized on the same day, were all baptized by immersion; or that the jailer and 'all his' were baptized in the same manner in the night. Finally it is most of all improbable, that a religion like the Christian, so scrupulously delicate, should have enjoined the immersion of women by men, and in the presence of men. In an after age, when immersion came into fashion, baptistries, and rooms for women, and changes of garments, and other auxiliaries to this practices came into use, because they were found necessary to decency; but there could be no such conveniences in the first instance; and accordingly we read of none." - WATSON, Theological Institutes, II, pp. 647ff.

Those who suppose the apostle to speak of water baptism as a burial, and consequently by immersion, must admit the following consequences: (1) That it is impossible for persons to be dipped or plunged "into Jesus Christ," or "into his death." (2) That St. Paul and those to whom he wrote were at that very time living in the watery grave; for he does not say, we were buried, but "we were buried with him by baptism." Is it possible for a person to be buried and exhumed at the same time? (3) That if the burial of which the apostle speaks is a baptism, then one baptism is made to perform another baptism; for "we are buried with him by baptism"; or in other words, and in Baptist language, we are immersed by an immersion. Thus, one immersion is made to perform the other. (4) That the term death is only another name for water; for the text says, "we are buried by baptism into death." Is there no difference between water and death? (5) That our Lord himself is immersed with each one of His disciples, and rises with Him from the watery grave; for "we are buried with him by baptism," and "are risen with him." And, (6) That those who are immersed rise from the water by an exercise of faith, and not by the arm of the administrator; for the apostle says, that in baptism we are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God." If these consequences are absurd and ridiculous, so is that theory of which they are the legitimate results. - Wakefield, Christian Theology, p. 581.

Two phrases of Scripture are regarded by the immersionist as quite conclusive of his theory: "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death"; and "Buried with him by baptism." These phrases must be interpreted in the light of the passages to which they belong; for only in this manner can their true meaning be reached. In each passage the ruling idea is the moral change wrought in the attainment of salvation. This change is expressed as a death, a crucifixion, a burial, a resurrection. There is in these forms of expression, and for the purpose of illustration, a comparison with the crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. what then is the part of the baptism in the expression of this moral change? Simply that of a sign; nothing else. There is then no reference to the mode of baptism. Nor is there in either phrase, the slightest proof of immersion. Miley, Systematic Theology, II, p. 404.]

The Subjects of Baptism. All who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and have been regenerated, are proper subjects for Christian baptism. This is established by the direct statement of Jesus Christ, He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved (Mark 16: 16). The same fact is also taught by the apostle Peter, Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 10: 47, 48). Dr. Wakefield points out that "this passage proves, in addition to the object for which it is here adduced, that men may receive the Holy Ghost, and, consequently, may be regenerated without being baptized. Therefore baptism cannot be the regenerating act, as is confidently affirmed by some" (WAKEFIELD, Christian Theology, p. 562). But in addition to adult believers the church has always held that the children of believers are, likewise, the proper subjects of baptism; nor does it deny baptism to the children of unbelievers. This position was called in question by the Anabaptists of the Reformation period, and their followers still object to it. We do not think the controversy demands any extended treatment, since our church in harmony with the orthodox belief of both ancient and modern times, definitely states its position in the creed. We shall consider briefly the following subjects: (1) The History of Infant Baptism; (2) Objections to Infant Baptism; (3) Arguments in favor of it from the Abrahamic Covenant.

1. The history of infant baptism reveals the fact that the practice has existed in the church from the earliest times. Justin Martyr, who was born about the time of St. John's death, states that "there were many of both sexes, some sixty and some seventy years old, who were made disciples of Christ in their infancy," doubtless referring to baptism. Origen (185-254) expressly declares that "the church hath received the tradition from the apostles, that baptism ought to be administered to infants." About the middle of the third century, Fidus, an African bishop, directed a question to Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, as to whether or not the baptism of infants might take place before the eighth day. Cyprian placed this before the synod in 254 A.D., at which sixty-six bishops were present, and it was unanimously decided that it was not necessary to defer baptism until the eighth day. Augustine in the fourth century says that "the whole church practices infant baptism. It was not instituted by councils, but was always in use"; and again, "I do not remember to have read of any person, whether Catholic or heretic, who maintained that baptism ought to be denied to infants." It seems impossible to account for these historical statements unless the practice of infant baptism has come down to us from the days of the apostles.

[Dr. Wall sums up the history as follows: "First, during the first four hundred years from the formation of the Christian Church Tertullian only urged the delay of baptism to infants, and that only in some cases; and Gregory only delayed it, perhaps, to his own children. But neither any society of men nor any individual, denied the lawfulness of baptizing infants. Secondly, in the next seven hundred years there was not a society nor an individual who even pleaded for this delay; much less any who denied the right or the duty of infant baptism. Thirdly, in the year eleven hundred and twenty, one sect of the Waldenses denied baptism to infants, because they supposed them to he incapable of salvation. But the main body of that people rejected the opinion as heretical, and the sect which held it soon came to nothing. Fourthly, the next appearance of this opinion was in the year fifteen hundred and twenty-two" (Cf. WAKEFIELD, Christian Theology, p. 573).

Pelagius, the opponent of Augustine, was reported to have rejected infant baptism, but he denied the charge in strong terms. He says, "Men slander me as if I denied the sacrament of baptism to infants. I never heard of any, not even the most impious heretic who denied baptism to infants."]

 

2. The objections to infant baptism are usually made on the following grounds: (1) That the practice has no express warrant in the Scriptures; (2) That the Scriptures declare that belief must precede faith, and since infants cannot believe, therefore, they should not be baptized; (3) That infants cannot consent to the covenant of which baptism is the seal, and, therefore, should not be bound by this ordinance; and (4) that baptism can do infants no good, and, therefore, it is useless to baptize them. These objections will be answered in the positive argument which follows.

3. Infant baptism is connected immediately with the Abrahamic covenant, and can be fully understood only in the light of the Old Testament teachings. (1) God has but one Church. It is built upon the protevangelium, and first took its visible form in the covenant with Abraham. Thus St. Paul declares that the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed (Gal. 3:8). The promise made to Abraham and his seed, not only included temporal blessings, but the Messiah himself, and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed (Gen. 22:18). The temporal blessings were fulfilled in the human posterity of Abraham, but Christ as the divine seed is the source of the universal spiritual blessings. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed which is Christ (Gal. 3:16). And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise (Gal. 3:29). It was on .the basis of this promise that St. Peter in his sermon at Pentecost, made the universal offer of salvation, For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar o~ even as many as the Lord our God shall call (Acts 2:39). (2) The covenant made between Abraham and his seed was sealed by the rite of circumcision. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised (Gen. 17:10). The child which was not circumcised on the eighth day was to be cut off by a special judgment of God, as having broken the covenant. Hence the rite was the constant publication of the covenant of grace among the descendants of Abraham, and its repetition the constant confirmation of that covenant.

[ In order to perceive the bearing of this passage (Acts 2:39) upon the question before us, it is only necessary to consider the resemblance that there is between the declaration of Peter, "the promise is to you, and to your children," and the promise of God to Abraham. This resemblance is seen in two particulars: (1) Each stands connected with an ordinance by which persons were to be admitted into the visible church; in the one case by circumcision, in the other by baptism. (2) Both agree in phraseology. The one knows that seed and children are terms of the same import. It follows, therefore, from these two points of resemblance, that the subjects in both cases are the same; and as it is certain that in the promise of God to Abraham both parents and infant children were included, it must be equally certain that both are included in the announcement of Peter. Here, then, we have an express warrant for infant baptism. - Wakefield, Christian Theology p.571.

That children were included in this covenant is too plain a fact to be questioned. They were initiated by the same rite whereby the promises of the covenant were sealed unto Abraham. Their Initiation was not made a matter of the divine sufferance, but a matter of the divine command. why then should they be denied the rite of baptism, which in the Christian Church occupies the place that circumcision occupied in the Abrahamic covenant? It will be no answer to ask in objection, what benefit can baptism render infants? because the same objection would work equally against their circumcision under the Abrahamic covenant. If the reply should be that the children are not in the spiritual state which baptism signifies, the answer is that the same objection would have excluded them from the rite of circumcision. Again, if the reply should be that infants are incapable of the faith, on the condition of which the blessings of the gospel are offered, the answer is that they were equally incapable of the mental exercises which in the case of adults were conditional to the spiritual blessing of the Abrahamic covenant. Infant circumcision under that covenant warrants the right of infants to baptism under the Christian covenant which indeed, is not another, but the very same in its full development. On the ground of such facts only a divine order could annul the right of infants to Christian baptism; but no such order has been given. - Miley, Systematic Theology, II, pp. 406, 407.]

 

(3) The Christian Church is the continuation of the Abrahamic covenant in its universal unfoldings. The promise implicit in the covenant is unfolded in the rich fullness of the blessing of Christ. Hence we read that Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also; and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised (Rom. 4:11, 12). That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith (Gal. 3:14). Thus as we have indicated, the Abrahamic covenant is carried out to its highest degree in the gospel dispensation. (4) Baptism supersedes circumcision. The initiatory rite of circumcision passed away with the rites and ceremonies .peculiar to the Old Testament phase of the covenant, and baptism becomes in its place, the initiatory rite of the New Testament. That baptism carries with it the same federal and initiatory character is clear from the statement of St. Paul that ye are complete in him, which .is the head of all principality and power: 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. 2:10-12). Here the rite of circumcision is brought into immediate connection with baptism as a New Testament ordinance, and this baptism is expressly stated to be "the circumcision of Christ." We may now sum up the arguments concerning the scriptural warrant for the practice of infant baptism, in the words of Dr. Wakefield. "We have shown that the Abrahamic covenant was the general covenant of grace; that children were embraced in that covenant, and were admitted into the visible church by circumcision; that Christianity is but a continuation, under a new form, of that covenant which God made with Abraham; and that baptism is now the sign and seal of the covenant of grace, as circumcision was under the former dispensation. From these premises it necessarily follows that as the infant children of believing parents, under the Old Testament, were proper subjects of circumcision, so the infant children of Christian believers are proper subjects of baptism" (WAKEFIELD; Christian Theology, pp. 569, 570).

[It is sometimes urged, by way of objection, that if infants are baptized they should also be admitted to the Lord's Supper. To this our reply is, that as baptism is passively received, it may be administered to all infants; but to partake of the supper requires an agency of which many of them are physically incapable. Again, as the Lord's Supper is to be a memorial to each participant, infants are intellectually incapable of receiving it according to its intention. To this we have an exact parallel in the Jewish Passover; and though all Jewish children were circumcised at eight days old, yet they did not eat the Passover until they could comprehend its design. - WAKEFIELD, Christian Theology, p. 571.]

To this may be added the fact that in three different instances, it is said that households were baptized - that of Lydia (Acts 16:15), the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:33), and that of Stephanus (I Cor. 1:16). While there is of course no positive proof, we may regard the above statements as at least presumptive evidence that there were children in the households of those who were baptized. Further still, we have from the lips of our Lord himself, the declaration that children belong to the kingdom of God (Mark 10:4); and if so, they are entitled to this recognition as a witness to the faith of the parents in the words of their Lord. We maintain, therefore, that there is a warrant for infant baptism, and that the arguments just given are a sufficient answer to the objections previously mentioned. If it still be maintained that only believers are to be baptized, and infants excluded, then we insist that the argument proves too much. If only those who believe and are baptized will be saved; and if children cannot believe and therefore cannot be baptized, then by force of the argument, the logical conclusion is that they cannot be saved. This we think no one will allow, for it is in direct opposition to the words of our Lord mentioned above (Mark 10:4). When Christ made the statement, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16), He was speaking of adult believers, to whom the disciples were sent with the gospel, and who were therefore capable of responding to their preaching. His words have no reference in this place, to the question of infant baptism.

[St. Peter preserves the correspondence between the act of Noah in preparing the ark as an act of faith by which he was justified, and the act of submitting to Christian baptism, which is also obviously an act of faith, in order to the remission of sins, or the obtaining a good conscience before God. This is further strengthened by his immediately adding, "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ": a clause which our translators by the use of a parenthesis, connect with "baptism doth also now save us"; so that their meaning is, we are saved by baptism through the resurrection of Jesus Christ; and as he "was raised again for our justification," this sufficiently shows the true sense of the apostle, who, by our being "saved," clearly means our being justified by faith. The text, however, needs no parenthesis, and the true sense may be thus expressed: "The antitype to which the water of the flood, baptism, doth now save us; not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but that which intently seeks a good conscience toward God, through faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ." But however a particular word may be disposed of, the whole passage can only be consistently taken to teach us that baptism is the outward sign of our entrance into Gods covenant of mercy; and that when it is an act of true faith, it becomes an instrument of salvation, like that act of Noah, by which when moved with fear, he "prepared an ark to the saving of his house," and survived the destruction of an unbelieving world. - Watson, Theological Institutes, II, p. 625.

Mr. Wesley was trained to believe in a possible regeneration of infants. In his sermon on "The New Birth" he says, "It is certain our church supposes that all who are baptized in their infancy are at the same time born again." "Nor is it an objection of any weight against this, that we cannot comprehend how this work can be wrought in infants. For neither can we comprehend how it is wrought in a person of riper years." For himself he never distinctly defined this: "But whatever be the case with infants, it is sure all of riper years who are baptized are not at the same time born again." His views of the preliminary grace signified by the new birth of infants have been more fully expressed by later expositors of Methodist doctrine. Mr. Watson's summary may be accepted as giving their meaning. "To the infant child it is a visible reception into the same covenant and church, a pledge of acceptance through Christ, the bestowment of a title to all the grace of the covenant as circumstances may require, and as the mind of the child may be capable, of receiving it." "It secures, too, the gift of the Holy Spirit in those secret spiritual influences by which the actual regeneration of those children who die in infancy is effected; and which are a seed of life in those who are Spared." - Pope, Compend. Chr., III, p.324.]

THE LORD'S SUPPER

"We believe that the Memorial and Communion Supper instituted by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, is essentially a New Testament sacrament, declarative of His sacrificial death, through the merits of which believers have life and salvation, and promise of all spiritual blessings in Christ. It is distinctively for those who are prepared for reverent appreciation of its significance, and by it they shew forth the Lord's death till He comes again. Being a Communion feast, only those who have faith in Christ and love for the saints should be called to participate therein" (Creed, Article XIV).

The Institution of the Lord's Supper. The circumstances under which this sacrament was instituted, were solemn and impressive. It was the night of His betrayal, as Jesus and His disciples celebrated the Passover together. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it [eujloghvsa"], and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said,, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks [eujcaristhvsa"], and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins (Matt. 26:26-28; Cf. Mark 14 22-24; Luke 22:19, 20). The preceding references are historical, and describe the events connected with the holy institution. The following verses set forth St. Paul's doctrinal interpretation of the institution. 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? For we being many are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread (I Cor. 10:16, 17). For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come (I Cor. 11:23-28).

[ This sacrament is called the Lord's Supper because the Lord himself appointed it, and because it was first instituted in the evening, and at the close of the paschal supper. It is called the communion, as herein we hold communion with Christ and with His people. It is also called the eucharist, a thanksgiving, because Christ, in the institution of it, gave thanks; and because we, in participation of it' are required to be thankful. - Wakefield, Christian Theology, p. 590.]

As baptism was substituted for circumcision, so also, the Lord's Supper superseded the Passover. Under the old covenant, the Passover was the eminent type of our Lord's redemptive sacrifice, which from age to age had represented the faith and hope of the ancient people. And since Christ himself as the true Passover was about to fulfill the Old Testament symbol, a new rite was necessary to commemorate this spiritual deliverance and confirm its benefits. At the Feast of the Passover, the head of each family took the cup of thanksgiving, and with his family gave thanks to the God of Israel. So also, when Jesus had finished the usual paschal ceremony with His disciples, He proceeded to a new and distant action. He took bread [the bread from the paschal table], and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper [the paschal cup], saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed .for you (Luke 22:19, 20). Thus there exists a continuity of symbolism in the Old and New Testaments; and yet the old was brought to a sharp close, and the new .rite which superseded it had an equally distinct beginning. That this rite was intended to be permanent is evident from the fact that St. Paul received of the Lord .the word which enjoined upon him, the necessity of establishing it in all the churches which he founded (I Cor. 11:23).

[ Mr. Watson in commenting on I Cor. 11:23-26 says, "From these words we learn, (1) That St. Paul received a special revelation as to this ordinance, which must have had a higher object than the mere commemoration of an historical fact, and must be supposed to have been made for the purpose of enjoining it upon him to establish this rite in the churches raised up by him, and of enabling him rightly to understand its authority and purport, where he found it already appointed by the first founders of the first churches. (2) That the command of Christ, 'This do in remembrance of me,' which was originally given to the disciples presented with Christ at the last Passover, is laid by St Paul upon the Corinthians. (3) That he regarded the Lord's Supper as a rite to be 'often' celebrated, and that in all future time until . the Lord himself should 'come' to judge the world. The perpetual obligation of this ordinance cannot therefore be reasonably disputed." Watson, Theological Institutes, II, pp. 661, 662.]

[ The following is a summary of Dr. Pope's excellent discussion of the Lord's Supper in relation to the Passover: (1) Now the ancient rite was an annual commemoration of the typical redemption of the Hebrew people; and the Lord's Supper is the solemn act of the Church's commemoration of the redeeming death of the Saviour of the world. St. Paul adds "in remembrance of me" to the giving of the bread as well as the cup . . . . Our Saviour blessed the elements and gave thanks: offering the praise of His own atonement which His people continue forever. Hence the rite is the great expression of the Church's gratitude for the gift of Christ, and especially His atoning death. It is the feast of thanksgiving within the Christian assembly, and it is the feast of testimony before the world, "Showing forth" His death. (2) The ancient Passover was also the annual ratification of the covenant between God and His people . . . . When our Lord substituted His Supper, He used language that included all, and specially referred to the solemn covenant transaction in which Moses divided the blood of atonement into two parts: half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar, to denote the propitiation of God; with the remainder he sprinkled all the people, to signify to them the divine favor, and the book of the covenant also, to signify the ratification of the covenant of which that book was the record: "This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you." These words of Moses our Lord connect with the new Passover of His new covenant: "Drink ye all of it: for this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins." . . . . The Holy Spirit uses this sacramental ordinance for the assurance of faith: hence the meaning of the term Sacrament as applied to this solemnity. (3) But the ancient Passover was the rite that kept in annual remembrance the birth of the people as such and their community life in the bond of the covenant. when our Lord ordained His Supper, He distributed to each and laid emphasis on the All . . . . The Supper is the sacrament of union with Jesus the True Vine; and of union with one another in Him; hence it might seem that the elements represent not only the sacrificed body of Christ, but the spiritual body itself saved by that sacrifice and made a part of Himself. The real bond of union, however, is not the bread and the wine; it is the common participation of life in Christ by the Spirit. But the sacramental eating and drinking together is the outward and visible sign of that union. The Supper therefore is the perfect badge of common discipleship: the mutual pledge of all the offices of brother love. - Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., III, pp. 326, 327.]

During the apostolic age there were a number of .terms used to express the meaning of the Lord's Supper, at least five of these words being found in the New Testament. (1) It was called the Eucharist (eujcarisrevw, to give thanks), referring to Christ's taking the cup and giving thanks. Sometimes also the eulogesas (from eujlogevw, to praise, or bless), as in the reference to Jesus' act in blessing the bread. The two words were often interchanged also. Thus St. Paul speaks of "the cup of blessing." On account of the appropriateness of the term "Eucharist" it has always been popular among English speaking people. As such it is a solemn thanksgiving for the blessings of redemption. (2) It was known also as the Communion. The Acts of the Apostles joins together "the breaking of bread" and "the fellowship" (Acts 2:42). The fellowship meal, however, was in itself regarded as a communion and was sealed by the kiss of peace. (Rom. 16:16; I Cor. 16:20; II Cor. 13:12; I Thess. 5:26; I Peter 5:14). St. Paul emphasizes this communion with one another as being inseparable from the communion with Christ. He notes that we are one body as we partake of the one loaf which is the body of Christ (I Cor. 10:16). Jesus emphasizes the same aspect of communion in His Parable of the Vine and the Branches (John 15:1-8). (3) It was regarded as a Memorial Feast, a commemoration of the death of Jesus. This phase was not greatly stressed at first, for to the early Christians, Christ was not a dead hero, but the One who was alive forevermore. The memorial aspect, therefore, was more closely associated with the redemptive death of Christ and the eschatological hope. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come (I Cor. ii 26). (4) It was looked upon as a Sacrifice (qusiva) . As such, it not only commemorated the sacrifice of Christ, but was itself regarded as a sacrifice. This distinction must be kept clearly in mind - the interpretation of the death of Jesus as a sacrifice, and the interpretation of the community meal as a sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice was since for all (Heb. 9:25, 26), and could not be repeated. It superseded all animal sacrifices, and was regarded as something new and final for men. The community meal was called a Sacrifice, in that it was itself a thank offering or a "sacrifice of praise" (Heb. 13:15. Cf. Phil. 2:17; 4:18); and also because it was attended by almsgiving for the poor. (5) Finally, it was called the Presence, or the Mystery (musthvrion) . The first carried with it the idea of Christ as a host at His table, and is drawn from the Emmaus account, where Christ's presence was made known in the breaking of Bread. The second emphasizes more especially, the sacred food as a channel of grace and power. St. John is the primary witness here. Christ is the "bread of life" (Cf. John 6:53). The apostle does not depart from spiritual conceptions, however, and we are not to conclude that lie held to any benefit from the flesh apart from the Word. There were other terms expressive of the Lord's Supper also, but the five mentioned above represent the principal phases of the sacrament as set forth in the Scriptures.

[ Apart from matters of doubtful interpretation, these passages plainly teach, First, that the Lord's Supper is a divine institution of perpetual obligation. Second, that the material elements to be used in the celebration, are bread and wine. Third, that the important constituent parts of the service are: (1) The consecration of the elements. (2) The breaking of the bread and pouring of the wine. (3) The distribution and the reception by the communicants of the bread and wine. Fourth, that the design of the ordinance is, (1) to commemorate the death of Christ. (2) To represent, to effect and to avow our participation in the body and blood of Christ. (3) To represent, effect and avow the union of believers with Christ and with each other. And (4) to signify and seal our acceptance of the new covenant as ratified by the blood of Christ. Fifth, conditions for profitable communion are: (1) Knowledge to discern the Lord's body. (2) Faith to feed upon' Him. (3) Love to Christ and to His people. The main points of controversy concerning the ordinance are: (1) The sense in which the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. (2) The sense in which the communicant receives the body and blood of Christ in this ordinance. (3) The benefits which the sacrament confers, and the manner in which those benefits are conveyed. (4) The conditions on which the efficacy of the ordinance is suspended. - Hodge, Systematic Theology, III, p. 612.]

The Development of the Doctrine in the Church. Following the apostolic age, there began very early a tendency to depart from the symbolical interpretation of the elements and actions as set forth in the New Testament, and to substitute in its stead a realistic interpretation of the Lord's Supper. This trend was found especially in the Greek Fathers - Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Gregory of Nyssa. With their bent toward mysticism, their tendency was naturally toward the realistic view, according to which the bread became the actual body of Christ, and the wine His blood. The history of this doctrine may be best summed up by considering it in the following stages of development. (1) The Patristic Period; (2) The Nicene and Post-Nicene Periods; (3) The Medieval Period; and (4) The Reformation Period. Following this we shall consider the Nature of the Lord's Supper, and in the discussion we shall deal more fully with the Reformation theories and their later developments.

[ There are other terms by which the Lord's Supper was sometimes designated. It is called prosforav or "offering" because of the gifts and offerings made to the poor in connection with this service. It is called Suvnaxi" "the assembly" because the nature of the service implied an assembly of the believers. It is called the "missa" or Mass, probably from the words used in the dismissal of the congregation. The term "Mass," however, was used long before it took on the meaning which attaches to it in the Roman Catholic Church.

Concerning the origin of the term "Mass" Dr. Charles Hodge gives us the following: "This word has been variously explained; but it is almost universally, at the present time, assumed to come from the words used in the dismission of the congregation. (Ita, missa est, 'Go, the congregation is dismissed.') First the unconverted hearers were dismissed, and then the catechumens, the baptized faithful only remaining for the communion service. Hence there was in the early church a missa infidelium, a missa catechumenorum, and finally a missa fidelium. There seems to have been a different service adapted to these several classes of hearers. Hence the word missa came to be used in the sense of the Greek word leitourgiva or service. As under the Old Testament the offering of sacrifice was the main part of the temple service, so in the Christian Church, when the Lord's Supper was regarded as an expiatory offering, it became the middle point in public worship and was called emphatically the service, or mass. Since the Reformation this has become universal as the designation of the eucharist as celebrated in the Church of Rome." - Hodge, Systematic Theology, III, p. 614.

 

1. The Patristic Period. This period marked the beginnings of doctrinal development along two lines which afterward were united: (1) the sacramental Presence in the Communion, which later developed into the doctrine of transubstantiation; and (2) the sacrificial offering in the Eucharist which later became the Mass. The earlier Fathers took but little cognizance of the distinctions which later were regarded as important, and consequently their statements are often ambiguous. Both Ignatius and Irenaeus indicate a trend away from symbolism in such statements as "His body is reckoned to be in bread," and "He made it His own body by saying, ''This is my body, that is, the figure of my body.'' Clement of Alexandria (220) states that the wine is "a symbol of the blood." Cyprian often speaks of the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, yet at other times apparently regards the elements as symbols or emblems.

2. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Periods. The lines of development were more marked during these periods and may be indicated as follows: (1) Chrysostom and others began to speak of the Eucharist as a repetition of that great oblation of Christ. At first this was merely an oblation of gratitude for the gifts of God in nature and grace, but the resemblance was soon carried farther. It soon came to be identified with consubstantiation or a coexistence of the actual body and blood of Christ with the consecrated elements, which seems to have prevailed very early in both the East and the west. This is found in the writings of Hilary (368), Cyril (386), Gregory of Nyssa (395), Ambrose (397), and Chrysostom (407). Some of these lean far toward the doctrine of transubstantiation or a change in the substance of the elements. Eusebius (331), Athanasius (373), Gregory Nazianzen (391) and Nilus (457) make a more or less clear distinction between the sign and the thing signified. (2) The next step in the development of transubstantiation is found in Gregory the Great (604) who speaks of "the daily sacrifice." Thus the sacrifice which Cyprian mentioned as being "the Lord's passion which we offer" came to be regarded as the "atoning sacrifice" which was to be repeated at every celebration. (3) In 818 A.D. Paschasius Radbertus formally propounded the doctrine that the material elements are by divine power through the prayer of consecration, literally changed into the very body that was born of Mary; and consequently after the prayer of consecration, the outward appearance of the bread and wine is a mere veil that deceives the senses. Rabanus Maurus (825) and Ratramus (832) opposed this position and Gerbert (1003) defended it - the matter finally resulting in one of the greatest controversies of the Western Church.

3. The Middle Ages. During the Middle Ages the schoolmen gave much attention to the subject of the sacraments. (1) In 1030 A.D., Berengarius wrote a treatise affirming that the body 0# Christ is present in the Eucharist, though not in essence, only in power; that the elements are not changed in substance ; and to secure this power, there must not only be the prayer of consecration, but faith on the part of the recipient as well. He was opposed by Humbert (1059) and Lanfranc (1089), and later was compelled to retract his statements by Gregory VII. (2) The doctrine of Radbertus and Humbert was defined under the title of transubstantiation by Hildebert of Tours (1134) and was imposed as an article of faith by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D. At the same time, the Mass was decreed as the bloodless repetition of the one sacrifice, and its efficacy to avail for the quick and the dead. (3) Thomas Aquinas (1274) popularized the doctrine of transubstantiation by means of four hymns. Together with other schoolmen, he held to a distinction between substance and accident, the substance being that which underlies all properties and accidents those properties which are discernible by the senses. (4) Peter Lombard (1164) taught that the substance of the bread was converted into Christ's body, and the wine into His blood, but yet the whole Christ was present on the altar under each species. Along with the growth of this sentiment, which Thomas Aquinas afterward termed "concomitance," there grew up also a sentiment favoring communion in one kind. Robert Pulleyn (1144) first suggested withholding the cup from the laity on the ground of sacrilege through the possible spilling of "the very blood of Christ." This was sanctioned by Alexander of Hales (1245), Bonaventura (1274) and Aquinas, and was confirmed by the Council of Constance in 1415 A.D. Thomas Aquinas also elaborated the doctrine of concomitance by teaching that the elements were converted in to the body and blood of Christ, and that His soul is united to the body, and His divinity to the soul. This prepared the way for the practice of Eucharistic adoration. As early as 1217, Pope Honorius III had instituted the "elevation of the host" or the lifting up of the sacramental elements as an act of reverence, but in 1264, the Adoration of the Host was established as a sacrifice. The Eastern Church differed from the Western in that it maintained communion in both kinds for the laity, used leavened instead of unleavened bread, and retained infant communion.

[ One of the numerous theories concerning the eucharist prevalent more or less in the early church, was that which is known In the history of doctrine as impanation. As in man the soul is united to the body imparting to it life and efficiency without itself becoming material, or rendering the body spirit; and as the Eternal Logos became flesh by taking to Himself a true body and a reasonable soul, without receiving anything human into His divine nature, or imparting divinity to His humanity; so the same Logos becomes united with a consecrated bread, without any substantial change in it or in Him. His relation to the bread, however, is analogous to that of the soul to the body in man and of the Logos to humanity in the person of our Lord. As the assumption of our nature by the Son of God is expressed by the word "incarnation," so His assumption and union with the bread in the Lord's Supper is called "impanation." - Hodge, Systematic Theology, III, p. 648.]

[The Roman Catholic Doctrine is given in the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (1551). "In the Eucharist are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ" - Canon I.

"The whole substance of the bread (is converted) into the body," and "the whole substance of the wine into the blood." - Canon 2.

"The whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every

part of each species, when separated." - Canon 3. .

"The principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sms." - Canon 5.

"In the Eucharist, Christ is to be adored." - Canon 6.

"All and each of Christ's faithful are bound to communicate every year."~Canon 9.

"Sacramental confession is to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin." - Canon 11.

The authoritative teaching of the Lutheran Church is to be found in the Augsburg Confession (1530) Article X. "The true body and blood of Christ are truly present under the form of bread and wine, and are there communicated to and received by those that eat in the Lord's Supper." Later, Melanchthon changed . this article, a departure which occasioned much controversy. This change is expressed in the Formula of Concord (1540) as follows: "we believe, teach, and confess that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and that they are truly distributed and taken together with the bread and wine."

The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (1562), Article XXVIII. "The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, . the bread which we break is a (heavenly and spiritual) partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ."]

 

4. The Reformation Period. The Reformers revolted against the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the mass. Three lines of development may be distinctly traced: (1) that in Germany under Luther; (2) that in Switzerland under Zwingli; and (3) that under Calvin the Genevan reformer, also in Switzerland. The first issue was in the doctrine of consubstantiation as held by the Lutheran Church; the second, in the commemorative idea as held by the Reformed churches with a strong tendency toward Socinianism; and third, the more orthodox doctrine of the Reformed churches as expressed in the signs and seals. The Anglican formularies are a combination of the Lutheran and Reformed doctrines, both Zwinglian and Calvinistic. The Roman Catholic teaching is renounced. Article XXVIII states that "Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a .sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in .the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the means whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped." Article XVIII of the Methodist Creed is identical with the above except that the word "it" is dropped in the first paragraph, as a comparison of the full text of the creeds will show. The Westminster Confession of the Presbyterian churches is substantially the same also. These views will be considered more fully in the following section.

The Nature of the Sacrament. The various views concerning the nature of the Lord's Supper, are determined largely by the construction put upon the words, This is my body, and This is my blood (Matt. 26:26-28). These varying interpretations give us (1) The Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation; (2) The Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation; (3) The Zwinglian doctrine of Commemoration; and (4) The Calvinistic doctrine of the Signs and Seals.

[The Heidelberg Catechism (1563). "What is it to eat of the crucified body and 'drink the shed blood of Christ? It is not only to embrace with a believing heart all the sufferings and death of Christ, and thereby to obtain the forgiveness of sins and life eternal, but moreover, also, to be so united more and more to His sacred body by the Holy Ghost, who dwells both in Christ and in us, that although He is in heaven, and we are upon the earth, we are nevertheless flesh of His flesh, and bone of His bone, and live and are governed forever by one Spirit, as .members of the same body are by the one soul."

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) Article XXIX. "The Lord's Supper (is) to be observed for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His death, the sealing of all benefitsthereof which 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." "Worthy believers do inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive and feel upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of His death."]

1. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is held by the Roman Catholic Church, and the steps in its historical development have already been indicated. Here the words This is my body and This is my blood, are taken in the most literal sense possible. It is believed that when our Lord pronounced these words, He changed the bread and wine upon the table into His own body and blood, and delivered it into the hands of the apostles. Since that time it is held that the priests through apostolic succession, have the power of making a similar change by means of the prayer of consecration and the pronouncement of the same words. The accidents of the bread and wine remain, that is, the bread tastes like bread, and the wine like wine; but the substance underlying these accidents is regarded as being changed, so that the bread is no longer bread, but the body of Christ; and the wine is no longer wine, but the blood of Christ. Since the blood is included in the body, the laity receive only the bread, and the priest the wine. There are several important consequences which attach to this doctrine. (1) The bread and the wine, having been changed into the body and blood of Christ, are by the priest presented to God as a sacrifice. While this sacrifice differs from others as being without the shedding of blood, it is nevertheless regarded as a true propitiatory offering for the sins of both the living and the dead. (2) This body and blood contain within them the grace they signify, and therefore confer it ex opere operato, that is, they have intrinsic value in themselves and this grace is imparted to all through the mere partaking of the sacrament. No special disposition is necessary on the part of the recipient, not even faith, for the sacrament operates immediately upon all who do not obstruct it by mortal sin. (3) The bread having been changed into the body of Christ, any unused portion was sacredly kept as the "reserved host." (4) Since Christ's divinity was attached to His body, it was regarded as highly proper to worship them upon the altar; and further, to carry them about that they might receive the homage of all who met them, Against this unscriptural doctrine, Protestants not only objected, but revolted, and hence the Reformation doctrine is more simple and scriptural.

[ The only ground of such a doctrine lies in the assumption of a literal sense of the words "This is my body," "This is my blood," transubstantiation itself is a mere inference from this assumption. The bread and wine must be changed into the flesh and blood of Christ if they are really present in the supper, because there is no other way of accounting for their presence. This is the manner in which the doctrine is constructed. Without a literal sense of the words of institution it has not the slightest ground in Scripture. - Miley, Systematic Theology, II, p. 413.]

[THE TRIDENTINE DOCTRINE

In the first place the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant - that our Saviour himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that nevertheless He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in His own substance by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God: for thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most holy sacrament, have most openly professed that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the last supper when, alter the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified, in express and clear words which recorded by the holy evangelist, and afterward repeated by St. Paul, whereas they carry with them that proper and most manifest meaning in which they were understood by the Father - it is indeed a crime the most unworthy that they should be wrested, by certain contentious and wicked men, to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which as the pillar and ground of truth, has detested, as satanical, these inventions devised by impious men; she recognizing, with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting, the most excellent benefit of Christ. - Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, II, pp. 126, 127.

Dr. Charles Hodge in his Systematic Theology (In, pp. 688ff) has an excellent discussion of the Protestant objections to the Roman Catholic position. We can only give a brief summary here. "Protestants reject the doctrine that the eucharist is a true propitiary sacrifice:

(1) Because it is not only destitute of all support from the Scriptures, but is directly contrary to the whole nature of the ordinance, as exihibited in its original institution and in the practice of the apostolic church. (2) Because it is founded on the monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation. If the whole substance of the bread be not changed into the substance of Christ's body, and the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood, and if the whole Christ, body, soul, and divinity be not really and truly present under the form (or species) or appearance of the bread and wine, then the priest in the mass has nothing to offer. He in fact offers nothing, and the whole service is a deceit. (3) The Romish doctrine is that the apostles were priests, and were invested with authority and power to continue and perpetuate in .the Church the priestly office by ordination and the imposition of hands by which the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit are conveying All this is unscriptural and false. First, because a priest is a man appointed to be a mediator between God and other men. But there is no such office under the Christian dispensation, save in the person of Jesus Christ. Second, Christian ministers are never called priests in the New Testament. Third, Christ and the apostles uniformly assume that the way is open for the return of every sinner to God without human intervention. (4) The Romish doctrine is derogatory to the sacrifice of the cross. It opposes that the work of Christ in making satisfaction for the sins of men, needs to be constantly repeated. (5) The doctrine of the sacrificial character of the eucharist, is an integral part of the great system of error, which must stand or fall as a whole. Romanism is another gospel. Moehler, whose philosophical and mitigated Romanism, has called down upon him no little censure from his stricter brethren, represents the doctrine of the eucharist as the point in which all the differences between the Romanists and Protestants converge."

Dr. Joseph Stump insists that the Lutheran Church does not teach the doctrine of consubstantiation, although she is frequently accused of doing so. He holds that consubstantiation means the combining of the body and blood of Christ into a third substance, and this the Lutheran Church does not teach. He further insists that neither inspanation nor subpanation is taught by the Lutherans, the former holding that the body and Hood are locally included or inclosed in the bread and the wine, the latter that the are located under them. They teach rather, that the body and blood of Christ are not locally, but sacramentally connected with the bread and the wine; and that only during their actual use by the communicant, are the body and blood present. Hence there can be no reserved host, for before and after the actual administration, the elements are only bread and wine. - Stump, The Christian Faith, pp. 353, 354.

The mind of Luther so powerful to throw off dogmas which had nothing but human authority to support them, was, as to the sacrament, held in the bonds of early association. He concluded that the body and blood of Christ are really present in the Lord's Supper; but aware of the absurdities and self-contradictions of transubstantiation, he laid hold of a doctrine which some writers in the Romish church itself, had continued to prefer to the papal dogma above stated. This was designated by the term consubstantiation, which allows that the bread and wine remain the same after consecration as before. Thus he escapes the absurdity of contradicting the very senses of men. It was held, however, by Luther, that though the bread and wine remain unchanged, yet that, together with them, the body and blood of Christ are literally received by the communicants. Some of his immediate followers did not, however, admit more on this point, than that the body and blood of Christ were really present in the sacrament; but that the manner of that presence was an inexplicable mystery. Yet, in some more important respects, Luther and the Consubstantialists wholly escaped the errors of the Church of Rome as to this sacrament They denied that it was a sacrifice; and that the presence of the body and blood of Christ gave to it any physical virtue acting independently of the disposition of the receiver; and that it rendered the elements the objects of adoration. Their error, therefore, may be considered rather of a speculative than of a practical nature; and was adopted probably in deference to what was conceived to be the literal meaning of the words of Christ when the Lord's Supper was instituted. - Watson, Theological Institutes, II, pp. 663, 664.

If we would get at the idea which lies at the foundation of the .Lutheran doctrine regarding the Lord's Supper, we must bear in mind that it is an idea independent of those scholastic forms, in which the old theology endeavored to develop it, and especially independent of that doctrine regarding Christ's unlimited ubiquity, the one-sidedness of which we have referred to in our Christology. It is, in fact, the idea of Christ as the head of that new creation whose final end is redemption and perfecting of human nature as a whole, as undivided body and soul. As Christ is not a spirit only, but the incarnate logos; as man, created in God's image, is in the true conception of Him, the center in which spirit and nature unite; as the resurrection of the body is the last eschatological event which Christianity presents; the Lord's Supper is an act of union with Christ, as the principle of that holy marriage of spirit and nature which is the final end of creation. The Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper is thus, in the truest sense of the expression, prophetically Christian, that is it recognizes in the Eucharist the actual anticipation of that union with the Saviour, the perfection of which will be reached in the consummation of all things. It sees, accordingly, in the Lord's Supper, not only, like Calvin, an aliment for the soul but an aliment for the whole new man, for the future man of the Resurrection, who is germinating and growing in secret, and who shall be manifested in glory, in exact likeness with the glorified humanity of his Lord. Holy Scripture itself thus associates the doctrine concerning the last things with the Lord's Supper, not only in the words of the Apostle Paul, "Ye do shew forth the Lord's death fill he come" (I Cor. 11:26); but in the words of our Lord himself, "I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom" (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:1618). However these words may be interpreted as regards particulars, they plainly give us to understand that the Lord's Supper is an actual prophecy, type, and anticipation of the Union with the Saviour, which will take place in the realm of bliss; and not only of union with the Lord, but of the inward fellowship of love by which believers shall he united to one another in that blessed kingdom. For in the Lord's Sup per believers are all united together into one body, because, as the apostle says, they are partakers of one bread. (I Cor. 10,17) . - Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, pp. 436, 437.

Zwingli asserted as strongly as Calvin the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament, denying with him the carnal and corporeal presence, either in the form of transubstantiation or consubstantiation. "Christ," he says, "is spiritually present in the consciousness of the believer. In the recollection of His sufferings and death, and by faith in these, His body is spiritually eaten. We trust in the dying flesh and blood of Christ, and this faith is called the eating of the body and blood of Christ." . . . . Zwingli regarded the sacrament of the Supper as a means of grace and sanctification, because of its didactic character; . because, by evidently setting forth before the eyes Jesus Christ crucified (Gal. 3:1), it teaches in a vivid . and special manner the great truth of Christ's atonement and redemption, and confirms the soul of the believer in it. It is an object lesson. In this respect, the function of the sacrament is like that of the Word. Gospel truth is taught in both alike. Both alike are employed by the Holy Spirit in enlightening, strengthening, and comforting the mind of the believer. - Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, II, pp. 370, 371.

The Lutheran asserts that Christ is "spiritually present in the sacrament of the Supper as to the manner, but corporeally as to the substance." That is to say, the substance of Christ's spiritual and glorified body as it once existed on earth, is actually present in and with the sacramental emblems. Consequently, the spiritual and glorified body of Christ is present in the bread and wine, wherever and whenever the sacrament is administered. This requires the ubiquity of Christ's glorified body, whereby it can simultaneously be in heaven and on earth. But the glorified body of Christ, like that of His people, though a spiritual body, has form, and is extended in space. The description of Christ's body after His resurrection and ascension proves this. But one and the same form cannot occupy two spaces at one and the same moment. Christ's glorified body can pass from space to space instantaneously, but cannot fill two spaces at the same instant. When Christ's body passed through, the "doors being shut" (John 20:26), and stood in the midst of the disciples, His body was no longer on the outside of the doors, and could not be.]

2. The doctrine of Consubstantiation was adopted by Luther respecting the presence of Christ in the sacrament. While protesting against the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation, he yet felt the need of conserving in an objective manner, the saving significance of the ordinance. He accepted, therefore, the words of institution in their literal significance, but denied that the elements were changed by consecration. He maintained that the bread and the wine remained the same, but that in, with and under the bread and the wine, the body and blood of Christ were present in the sacrament for all partakers and not merely for believers. With the bread and wine, therefore, the body and blood of Christ are literally received by all communicants. Since Christ's presence is only in the use of the elements, the remnants are only so much bread and wine. It is in the use also, that the blessing is given to those who partake in faith. Luther's doctrine of consubstantiation is closely bound up with his Christological teaching concerning the ubiquity of the glorified body of Christ. It is this that makes possible his belief in the real presence, and lates it in some sense to the doctrine of the logos.

3. The doctrine of the Lord's Supper as a Commemorative rite was advanced by Zwingli, the Swiss reformer and contemporary of Luther. He objected to the literal interpretation of the words of institution as taught by Luther, and maintained instead, that when Jesus said, "This is my body, this is my blood," He employed a common figure of speech, in Which the sign is put for the thing signified. Instead of the elements representing the real presence, they are rather, the signs of the absent body and blood of Christ. The Lord's Supper, therefore, is to be regarded as merely a religious commemoration of the death of Christ with this addition, that it is naturally adapted to produce helpful emotions and reflections, and to strengthen the purposes of the will. This is the view generally held by the Socinians; and while it escapes the errors of the two former theories, it nevertheless falls short of the full truth.

4. The last theory to be mentioned, is that of the Reformers as taught by Calvin. This is a mediating position between Luther and Zwingli, and is now the generally accepted creed of the Reformed churches. Calvin renounced both transubstantiation and consubstantiation. He taught that the body and blood of Christ were not locally, but only spiritually present in the elements. "It is not the blessing pronounced which makes any change in the cup; but to all who join with becoming affection in the thanksgiving then uttered, in the name of the congregation, Christ is spiritually present, so that they may truly and emphatically be said to be partakers of His body and blood; because His body and blood being spiritually present, convey the same nourishment to their souls, the same quickening to their spiritual life, as bread and wine do to the natural life. According to this system the full benefit of the Lord's .Supper is peculiar to those who partake worthily. For .while all who eat the bread and drink the wine may be said to show forth the Lord's death, and may also receive some devout impressions, they only to whom Jesus is spiritually present share in the spiritual nourishment which arises from partaking of His body and blood" (HILL'S Lectures, quoted in WAKEFIELD, Christian Theology, p.594). The Reformed doctrine is expressed in Article XXIII of the First Helvetic Confession (1536), as follows: "The bread and wine (of the Supper) are holy, true symbols, through which the Lord offers and presents the true communion of the body, and blood of Christ for the feeding and nourishing of the spiritual and eternal life."

 

[THE REFORMED DOCTRINE

Dr. Shedd gives the chief points in the Reformed teaching as follows: "(1) the believer in worthily partaking of the Lord's Supper, consciously and confidently relies upon Christ's atoning sacrifice for the remission of his sins. This is meant by the phrase, 'Feed upon Christ crucified.' The Lord's Supper can have no meaning, II His vicarious sacrifice is denied. (2) The 'presence' of Christ is not in the bread or the wine, but in the soul of the participant. Christ, says the Westminster Confession, is 'present to the faith of believers,' and faith is mental and spiritual. The statement of Hooker upon this point is explicit and excellent. 'The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the .worthy receiver of the sacrament.' And again he remarks, 'No side denieth but that the soul of man is the receptacle of Christ's presence. Whereby the question is driven to a narrower issue, nor doth anything .rest doubtful but this, whether, when the sacrament is administered, .Christ be whole (wholly) within man only, or else His body and His blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated elements themselves. Which opinion, they that defend are driven either to consubstantiate and incorporate Christ with elements sacramental, or to transubstantiate and change their substance into His; and so the one holds Him really, but invisibly, molded up with the substance of those elements, the other to hide Him under the only visible show of bread and wine, the substance whereof, as they imagine is abolished, and His succeeded in the same room." Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, II, pp. 665, 666.]

The doctrine which we hold, is well summed up by Dr. Ralston in the following statement. He says, "We conclude that, in this ordinance: (1) No change is effected in the elements ; the bread and the wine are not literally the body and blood of Christ. (2) The body and blood of Christ are not literally present with the elements, and received by the communicants. (3) But the elements are signs, or symbols, of the body and blood of Christ, serving as a memorial of His sufferings on the cross and a help to the faith of the communicant. (4) The elements also possess a sacramental character, being a divinely appointed seal of the covenant of redemption. As the blood of the paschal lamb served as a seal of this covenant under the old dispensation, pointing the faith of the Israelite to the coming Redeemer, superseded by the new, the seal of the covenant should be correspondingly changed; hence at the conclusion of the last authorized Passover, the Holy Supper is instituted, as a perpetual memorial and abiding seal of the covenanted mercy and grace of God) till the Saviour 'shall appear the second time without sin unto salvation.'" (RALSTON, Elements of Divinity, p. 997). As will be easily seen, the above is in perfect agreement with Article XIV of our own creedal statement, as well as those of Protestantism in general.

[The true Protestant doctrine may be stated thus: The body and blood of Christ are not corporally present in the ordinance, nor are they received in any corporeal sense; nor are the bread and wine in any sense expiatory, nor do they feed the soul. The body and blood of Christ are received only in a spiritual manner, the benefits of His atonement communicated to the soul by the Holy Spirit, being the only manner in which we can be said to receive the body and blood of Christ in the Supper. Also faith is the medium through which the benefits of the atonement are received; nor are the bread and wine a channel through which this grace is received, only so far as they are received by faith as Christ's appointed symbols of His body and blood, and so far as they, being received in this light, are a help to our faith. This exposition of the light in which the Supper is to be regarded, falls below what appears to be implied in much of the language employed on the subject, in the old standards and formulas, but if they mean anything more than has been expressed above, they lean too far toward Romish doctrine. If Christ, when He said, "This is my body," meant anything more than "this represents my body," he must have meant that it was His real body, for there can be no medium sense. If He meant no more than "this represents my body," then the exposition which has been given above, is all that is implied in the language, and in all the rational ends to be secured by the institution itself. - Lee, Elements of Theology pp. 575, 576.]

 

The Administration of the Lord's Supper. A few things need to be noted in connection with the proper .administration of the Lord's Supper.

1. The elements are bread and wine. While many of the older denominations used fermented wine, and some used leavened bread, our special rules state that "Only unfermented wine and unleavened bread should .be used in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper."

2. The sacramental actions are symbolical also. These are: (1) The Prayer of Consecration which includes (a) the giving of thanks to God for the gift of His Son; (b) the preparation of the hearts of the communicants for the solemn service on which they are at tending; and (c) the consecration of the elements. (2) The breaking of the bread is significant also as representing the broken body of our Lord Jesus Christ. It .is not essential, however, that it be broken as served.

It is the common custom to pass it already broken to those who participate in the service. The cup is to he passed also, as an emblem of His shed blood. (3) The manner of distribution of the elements is also significant, Christ gives; while the disciples, each for himself, receives and partakes of the offered gifts.

3. The Lord's Supper is for all of His people. Hence .the invitation is, "Let all those who have with true repentance forsaken their sins, and have behaved in Christ unto salvation, draw near and take these emblems, and, by faith, partake of the life of Jesus Christ, to your soul's comfort and joy. Let us remember that it is the memorial of the death and passion of our Lord; also a token of His coming again. Let us not forget that we are one, at one table with the Lord."

4. The Perpetuity of the Lord's Supper. Since this sacrament was ordained for perpetual observance to commemorate the Saviour and especially His death and His coming again, it is the privilege and duty of all who believe in Christ to participate in it. "The habitual neglect of this ordinance," says Dr. Wakefield, "by persons who profess a true faith in Christ is highly censurable. In this case a plain command of Christ is violated, though not perhaps with direct intention; and the benefit of this singularly affecting means of grace is lost, in which our Saviour renews to us the pledge of His love, repeats the promises of His covenant, and calls for invigorated exercises of our faith, only to feed us more richly with the bread that comes down from heaven. If a peculiar condemnation falls upon them who partake 'unworthily,' then a peculiar blessing must follow from partaking worthily; and it therefore becomes the duty of every minister to explain the obligation, and to show the advantages of this sacrament, and earnestly to enforce its regular observance upon all those who give satisfactory evidence of 'repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.'" (Wakefield, Christian Theology, p. 596).