THE articles in this hand-book treat of subjects selected as a special course of study by various Bible School Unions of Churches of Christ in Australasia. It was considered advisable that greater attention should be given to themes of fundamental importance, subjects dealing with distinctive principles, than could possibly be given in following the series of lessons chosen by the International Lesson Committee.

      Primarily, this hand-book has been written for teachers and senior scholars using the lessons and preparing for examination on them. But the articles are intended also to help all others who may be so much interested in the great themes as to read them. While the writer alone is responsible for the treatment, it is believed that the views of the great majority of members of Churches of Christ are presented. Above all, it is hoped that there is no misrepresentation of Bible teaching; if there is, it is so unwittingly. Exigencies of space prevent detailed treatment, but it is trusted that the studies will not be found scrappy.

      It is appropriate that in Bible lessons many references be made to the Scriptures. It is recommended that the passages quoted or referred to be carefully read, preferably in the Revised Version. It is not intended that all these references be forced on scholars, or that junior classes should be expected to get up all the matter dealt with in these articles. Bible Classes could profitably use this booklet as a text-book, each member of the class possessing a copy. The questions appended to the lessons are suitable some for intermediate and some for senior classes. No answer of "Yes" or "No" merely should be accepted by the teacher of these classes. Reasons should always be given, and older scholars should be encouraged to support their answers with citations from Scripture. The teacher is reminded of Colet's famous advice: "Teach lovingly what thou hast learned diligently."

1. The Bible: God's Book.
2. Sin and Its Cure.
3. Jesus Christ: His Person and Office.
4. The Holy Spirit, I: Work of Inspiration; Baptism in the Spirit; Spiritual Gifts.
5. The Holy Spirit, II: In Conversion and Sanctification.
6. Faith.
7. Repentance and Confession.
8. Baptism.
9. The Church, I: Its Establishment and Membership.
10. The Church, II: Its Worship and Ministry.

      OUR word Bible comes from a Greek word biblia, so called from the byblos or papyrus reed which formed the material for ancient books. The name biblia means books, and denotes the fact that our Bible contains not one book, but many. We have a library and not a single volume. The Greek Christians centuries ago called their sacred Scriptures "The Books." In the thirteenth century, when it was thought wrongly that biblia was a singular noun, Christians began to speak of "The Book." They expressed, as we do when we speak of "The Bible," belief both in the unity which exists amidst the diversity of the sacred library and in the unique position occupied by it. For us, as for Sir Walter Scott in his dying hour, "There is but one book." Whether we view it as literature, or from the higher aspect as a guide of life, a guide to life eternal, a guide to God, it is unparalleled, unapproached and unapproachable. The divine library is made up of sixty six books; written by many different authors of different race, social position and temperament, published at intervals during a period of fifteen hundred years. These books comprise varied kinds of literature--law, prophecy, history, epistles, poetry.

      This book or library which we call "The Bible " it is evident, makes its appeal to us not simply as rivalling or excelling all other books in merit. Its writers do not seek to vie with other literature.

The Bible Claims to Be God's Book.

      The fact that this claim is made by the book itself is important, for we can only judge it aright in the light of its own demand.

      The Old Testament may first be cited. We have over and over again in the opening books the phrase, "The Lord said unto Moses," or a kindred expression (Ex. 6:1, 10, etc., etc.). We read "The Lord spoke unto Joshua" (Josh. 1:1). As we look toward the end of the Old Testament, we have the prophets proclaiming, "Hear ye the word of the Lord" (Isa. 1:10); "Thus saith the Lord, the Lord of Hosts" (Isa. 1:24); "The word of the Lord came to me, saying" (Jer. 1:4); "Thus saith the Lord God" (Ezek. 5:5); "The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi" (Mal. 1:1). A glance at the prophetical books particularly is instructive. Our chosen reading deals specially with the view taken by the Psalmist. Psalm 119 is one of the mnemonic or alphabetical psalms, specially prepared for committal to memory. Each verse in it praises God's word. See the titles given to it in our lesson. We have God's law, commandments, testimonies, precepts, judgments, words, word, Statutes. See the word "thy" throughout. All are God's. A similar claim to possession of a divine word and law is found in Psa. 19:7-11, where also the effect of acceptance of the word of God is mentioned.

      When we turn to the New Testament, we find appeals made to the Old Testament Scriptures as books of God. We have Paul writing to Timothy of "the Holy Scriptures" or "the sacred writings," which were precisely the books we include in our Old Testament (2 Tim. 3:15, 16). The same apostle speaks of "the word of God" (Eph. 6:17). The apostle Peter, referring particularly to the Old Testament prophets, says, "Men spoke from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21). We have our Lord Jesus Christ himself making use of the claim. He referred to the Old Testament books as "the Scriptures" (John 5:39) and each of his hearers knew exactly the books so described. He referred to the message of old as "the word of God" (John 10:35). He looked upon the Old Testament books as written to lead to himself. "Beginning from Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:27; cf. vv. 44, 45).

      Side by side with this claim, we naturally find a specific claim to authority. (a) We may note again the highest of teachers, the Lord Jesus. With him it was a sufficient answer to Satan that "It is written" (Matt. 4:4) · Men erred, he said, because they knew not the Scriptures (Matt. 22:29), He did certain things that the Scriptures might be fulfilled (Matt. 21:4, etc.). He declared that not one jot or little should pass away from the law till all were fulfilled (Matt. 5:18). He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). (b) The

witness of the apostles, to whom Jesus promised the Holy Spirit that he might guide them into all truth, may be cited. For Paul's testimony, see 2 Tim. 3:16, 17, already referred to: the Scriptures contain enough to furnish completely the man of God. John regards the teaching of Christ as so authoritative and sufficient that he says: 'whosoever goeth onward [or "taketh the lead," R. V., margin] and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God" (1 John 2:9). The Bible practically closes with the pronunciation of a terrible doom against anyone who will dare to add to or take from the words of the book (see Rev. 22:18, 19 which Christians accept as applicable to all the sacred writings).

      It is for these and similar reasons that we who are members of the church for which Christ gave himself, we who are Christians only, who believe the Bible to be indeed God's book, have accepted that book as our sole and all-sufficient rule of faith and practice. We use and try to live up to the motto, "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent." If the passages referred to in the previous paragraph present the truth of God we can hardly be wrong in unswerving loyalty to the Bible, or in declining to accept any substitute for the Bible, or even any subordinate standard of appeal. We but say with the Lord Jesus that human tradition when exalted into a rule of faith or conduct makes "void the word of God" (Matt. 15:6), we have learnt of him that to teach for doctrines the commandments of men makes vain our attempted worship (Mark 7:7).

Why Do We Accept the Bible's Claim?

      It would need a volume to give a moderate outline of the many sound reasons which Christians give for their belief in the Bible as the Word of God. We have only room for a few headings.

      1. The marvellous unity and harmony of the Bible, written by between thirty and forty men at intervals during a period of over fifteen centuries, witness to its divine origin. There is unity of purpose, to teach men God's will and to help them to do it. There is unity in its treatment of sin and its cure. From the beginning to end we have the Saviour. The seed of the woman of Gen. 3 appears in Revelation as the Lamb who redeemed.

      2. The effect of the Bible on the lives of men proves its claim. Where the Bible is believed and taken as guide, there always men are elevated. As we see its results, we "cannot believe that such traits are wrought into human character by the belief of a book whose writers are impostors, and whose

distinctive claim for itself is a falsehood"; 'the belief of a falsehood is injurious to men, while the belief of truth alone is truly and permanently beneficial." If so, the Bible justifies itself.

      3. The superior morality of the Bible is only explicable on our acceptance of its claims. We have not got beyond the morality of the Bible. The best laws of civilised lands are framed according to its precepts. The Sermon on the Mount is unapproached and unapproachable in outside literature. Worldlings have as their chief objection, not that the Bible is not the best of books, but that Christians do not live up to the teaching of the Bible.

      4. The Bible revelation of God is such that when we compare it with the theology of other books and systems, we are convinced of its transcendent excellence. There is no reason to believe that the actual men who wrote the Bible were geniuses, ahead of the best of the Greeks and Romans. Their purer theology is due to the fact that the Spirit of God directed them.

      5. The character of Christ revealed in the New Testament could not possibly be the invention of men. The purity of that life is such, the delineation of the model character is so perfect, that we are compelled to believe that the writers drew from a holy original. Thus we pass to a belief in Jesus, and thence to a belief in his divine claims and the Scriptures he endorsed.

      6. The Bible is adapted to man's needs. It meets his wants; it satisfies his longings. Coleridge said he knew the Bible was inspired because it found him at greater depths of his being than did any other book. The Bible is its own witness. As we read it, we feel the truthfulness of its narrative, the honesty of its writers. The Bible, we have to acknowledge, knows the heart of man.

      7. We can test the Bible by its fulfilled prophecies. Some of these we have in process of fulfilment. Read what the Bible says of the Jews and their separation, then lift up your eyes and look. The Jew is a living miracle. Read Isa. 53 (certainly written centuries before Jesus came); we cannot believe that the prophecy and its fulfilment were in any way arranged by man. The prophecy and the claims of Jesus are both attested.

      8. In various ways the Bible has been tested. It has withstood the assaults of the centuries. It has endured the keenest scrutiny, the test of history, geography, philosophy, science. Archaeology to-day proves the accuracy of its statements.

      Had the Bible been a human book, it must have been discarded. Instead, no book approaches it in living interest. It is circulated in more lands to-day than ever before; it is believed in by more people than ever before; more copies of it are being printed than ever. Why? There is one answer which is adequate: it is the word of God which liveth and abideth for ever (1 Peter 1:25).

THE DIVISIONS OF THE BIBLE.

      Our Bible is divided into two great parts, the Old Testament and the New Testament, the former consisting of thirty-nine books, and relating especially to the Old Covenant or Jewish dispensation, and the latter of twenty-seven, relating more particularly to the New Covenant in Christ, or Christian dispensation. These both came from God. The relation of the two is well described in the oft-quoted passage: "The Old Testament Scriptures are essentially one with the New; both are so compacted that the latter may be said to rest upon the former, since the former are pregnant with types and shadows which find their realisation in the latter. The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed."

      The Jews divided their Scriptures into three classes--the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (cf. Luke 24:44). The law consisted of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. The prophets were subdivided into (a) Former: Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings; (b) Latter: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah, Malachi. The Writings (sometimes called the Psalms, from the first and most important division) included Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon Ruth, Lamentations of Jeremiah, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 and 2 Chronicles.

      The New Testament Scriptures may be sub-divided into:

      1. Testimonies to Christ or The Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. These tell the story of Jesus, and were written to induce faith in him (see John 20:31).

      2. History of conversions: Acts of Apostles. This is a book of conversions. It tens of the preaching of the gospel, the establishment of the church, the growth of the cause of Christ. He who wants to answer the question, "What shall I do to be saved?" must go to this book. We have there seekers Of salvation instructed by inspired men as to the way of life. If we follow these models, we cannot go wrong.

      3. Instructions to Christians in twenty-one letters, from Romans to Jude. These tell us how

the man who has believed in the Christ of whom the Gospels bear witness, and has accepted him as Saviour and Lord in the manner revealed in the book of Acts of Apostles, should live a godly life in Christ. They are full of teaching, profitable for the individual Christian and for the church.

      4. Prophecy. Revelation, or the Apocalypse (a Greek word meaning "uncovering"), consists largely of "prophecy couched in the language of symbolism." It "gives in prophetic symbols a vision of the fortunes and destinies of the church and her enemies." It has much to say of the second coming of Christ, and of the great struggles and events which are to precede it.

      The foregoing paragraphs suggest the importance of using the Bible aright. In reading a book we should always seek to know to which division is belongs, the persons addressed, the occasion upon which and the purpose for which it was written for instance, if a man wishes to know the testimony concerning Jesus, he should not be referred to Chronicles or to Habakkuk, but to the Gospels designed by God to bring to belief in Christ. If a man wants to know the way of salvation, we should refer him to Acts, not to Psalms, or Isaiah, which were written long before the Lord Jesus sent out men to preach the gospel. The young Christian should feed on the Epistles of the New Testament. We do not mean that any book should be ignored; but it is true that the purposes of the various books should be regarded.

      Particularly, the distinction between the two great covenants should be noted. A vast amount of mischief has been done on the one hand by those who seek in the Old Testament for details concerning the New, and on the other of those who would bring over into the New Covenant rites and priestly notions which were only given by God in the Old. The letter to the Hebrews is the best book to read on these covenants. Heb. 8:7-13 refers to the Old and the New. The abrogation of the Old Covenant is also declared in Eph. 2:14-17; Col. 2:14. Jeremiah had foretold the New Covenant (31:31-34) and had said that it would not be according to the first covenant. John 1:17 states the great distinction between the two: "The law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." That verse does not mean that there was no truth in the Old, or no favor of God; but its prevailing character was one of law, only the man who perfectly obeyed could stand uncondemned, while he who did not continue in all things written was cursed (Gal. 3:10).

      As opposed to that Jesus revealed the grace of God, the fullest truth; there were mercy and pardon provided for the sinner; God in Christ did what the law could not do (Rom. 8:3).

      Of course there is not license because there is freedom from "the law"; Christians are under the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21), the law of love (Rom. 13:10; Jas. 2:8). We repeatedly read in the New Testament of "the law" and "the faith" (see e. g., Gal. 3:23).

      In addition to the passages cited above, the following Scriptures clearly reveal the contrast between the two covenants: Gal. 4:21-31; 2 Cor. 3:6-14; Heb. 12:18-25. M. P. Hayden thus sums up the characteristics of the two covenants as given in the passages referred to:--

"The First or Old Covenant.
"1. Established at Mt. Sinai in Arabia
"2. Established with Abraham's seed according to the flesh.
"3. Established by Moses as mediator.
"4. Written and engraver on stones.
"5. Secured the land of Canaan and earthly blessings.
"6. Enjoined temporal rewards and punishments.
"7. Was made with the Jewish nation only.
"8. Exhibited the gospel in shadow, or type.
"9. Is styled by Paul 'the letter,' 'the ministration of death,' and 'ministration of condemnation.'
"10. Was 'done away,' 'nailed to the cross,' at the crucifixion of Christ (Col. 2:14).

"The Second or New Covenant.
"1. Established at Mt Zion, or Jerusalem.
"2. Established with Abraham's seed through faith. [I. e., All--who are of the faith, for 'they which be of faith, the same are sons of Abraham.' See Gal. 3:7-9.]
"3. Established by Christ as Mediator.
"4. Written in the heart.
"5. Secures the heavenly Canaan and Spiritual blessings.
"6. Enjoins eternal rewards and punishments.
"7. Is made with persons of 'all the nations.'
"8. Exhibits the gospel in reality, or anti-type.
"9. Is styled by Paul, 'the Spirit,' 'the ministration of righteousness.'
"10. Remains and continues for ever (Isa. 55:3).

"Hence, of these two covenants, one was carnal, based on flesh; the other was spiritual, based on faith. Israelites were included in the Old Covenant, Christians in the New Covenant Moses was the mediator of the one, Christ of the other, one was typical, the other anti-typical; one national, the other personal

and ecumenical. The first covenant was established to educate and prepare the world for the second; and when the first had served its purpose and Christ had come and fulfilled the types of the Old Covenant, it was 'finished,' 'nailed to the cross, or done away.' "

      Let us not close this study without a recognition of the fact that the Scriptures are given for our guidance in life. We need not knowledge alone, hut doing. We must receive with meekness the implanted word which is able to save our soul (Jas. 1:21, 23). We must lay the word up in our hearts, so that we may not sin against God (Psa. 119:11). As we study or teach this lesson our appropriate prayer will be, "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law" (Psa. 119:18). Or we may express our heart's longing in the words of the noble collect: "Blessed Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning: Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn and inwardly digest them, that by patience, and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace, land ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life which thou has given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen."

      1. What is meant by "The Bible."

      2. How does our Old Testament reading witness to the Bible's claim to be God's book?

      3. Quote the Saviour's testimony to the Old Testament as the Word of God.

      4. (a) What is meant by the authority of the Bible? (b) To what passages would you refer in proof of the Bible's claim to authority?

      5. Give three of the strongest reasons for accepting the Bible's claim to be God's book.

      6. (a) What are the two greatest divisions of the Bible? (b) Why are they so called?

      7. In what relation do these two great divisions stand to each other?

      8. (a) Give a three-fold classification of the Old Testament Scriptures, and (b) assign the books to their proper classes.

      9. (a) Classify the New Testament books and (b) state the function of each division.

      10. Show the importance of a right division of the Word of God.

      11. Give some practical rules for Bible study.

      12. What are the chief differences between the two great covenants?

      OUR Scripture reading gives God's account of the origin of evil in the world, and also foreshadows the remedy for sin. That wickedness abounds is clear, whether we accept the Bible or not. Its terrible consequences in this life are manifest, irrespective of what its effect may be on our eternal destiny. But only from the Holy Scriptures can we arrive at the real nature of sin, and only there can we learn of the means of relief from its deadly bane.

Origin and Nature.

      The Bible teaches that man was originally in a state of innocence, walked with God, and enjoyed communion with him. God gave him beautiful surroundings, healthy occupation, dominion over the lower creation, abundant provision for his needs. But one restriction was put on his liberty of action. Of the tree in the midst of the garden, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam was forbidden to eat, under penalty of death. Seduced by the serpent--or Satan in the form of a serpent (cf. John 8:44-46; Rev. 12:9)--Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, and induced Adam also to partake of it. As soon as Eve's belief of Satan's lit and disbelief of God's truth led her to disobey the commandment of God, sin was in the world.

      The "Shorter Catechism" has a good definition: "Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God." The Apostle John tells us that "sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4), deviation from or contrariety to law. "Sin is disobedience to the law of God in will or deed." The Lord Jesus has taught us to look beyond the outward act to the inward feeling and motive. Other Scriptural descriptions of sin are: "All

unrighteousness is sin" (1 John 5:17). "To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin" (Jas. 4:17). "The thought of foolishness is sin" (Prov. 24:9). "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23). Jesus summed up the requirements of God's law in two great commands: Love God; love your neighbor (Matt. 22:37-40). We may therefore say that "any departure in thought word, or deed, from the rule of conduct which requires us to love the Lord our God with all the heart, and soul, and mind, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves, is sin."

      It has to be remembered that sin is an offence against God. Even our offences against one another are sins against God. David, when he had previously harmed another, yet said, "against thee, thee only, have I sinned" (Psa. 51:4). Remembrance of this is important, for it at once follows that there can be no pardon, no remedy, hut from God.

      The consequences of sin may be seen in our reading from Genesis. We note:

      (1) Guilt. Having disobeyed God, man at once passed from his state of innocence to that of guilt. Adam was conscious of this, for he tried to hide from God.

      (2) Banishment. God drove him out of the garden (Gen. 3:23, 24). All sin tends to alienate from God.

      Sin results in loss of communion and favor. "Your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you" (Isa. 59:2).

      (3) Death. God had distinctly told our first parents that they would die if they disobeyed him (Gen. 2:17). The writer believes that the Scriptures teach that a penalty for sin was death, both spiritual and physical (Gen. 2:17; 3:22; Rom. 5:12; 6:23; Eph. 2:1; 1 Tim. 5:6).

      Adam's sin was of consequence also to his descendants: "they inherited a fallen nature, and became the subjects of sin, and its penalty death." Paul distinctly states: "Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned" (Rom. 5:12). Again he said: "In Adam all die" (1 Cor. 15:22). We may have different theories as to sin and its results; but we must not explain these texts away. The least they can mean (and they may mean much more than this) is that "all sinned in Adam as being in him. Adam, in committing his first sin, and as to its penalty, death, stood for and represented the whole of his posterity." As to the universality of sin and guilt, we have again the word of God: "There is none righteous, no, not one" (Rom. 3:10). "There is no distinction; for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:22, 23). The universal necessity of conversion, as taught in the Bible, is another proof (John 3:3, 5),

Man's Helpless Condition.

      It was utterly beyond man's power to regain his primal state of innocence and communion with God. No one who has once sinned can in any way atone for that sin. He cannot make up by being specially good in other directions. We are told that "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all" (Jas. 2:10). If a man perfectly kept God's law then and only then would he be beyond the need of pardon. "He that doeth them shall live in them" (Gal. 3:12); "Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them" (Gal. 3:10). Now, no mere man: ever thus perfectly kept God's law. 'All have sinned" (Rom. 3:22), and so, "by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight" (Rom. 3:20). Man's own efforts being thus excluded as of no avail, we are limited to one way of justification. God must pardon if man is to be saved. Interposition must come from the divine side. The sinner can not say how and on what terms he shall be saved. The rebel cannot compel his insulted King to receive him, or dictate the terms of peace. No one can atone for his own or his brother's sin: "None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him" (Psa. 49:7). Salvation, says Paul, is "not of yourselves" and "not of works" (Eph. 2:8, 9). "Salvation is of the Lord." Death is the wages of sin; the eternal life, if it is ever ours, must be the free gift of God (Rom. 6:23). We have, then,

God's Remedy for Sin.

      As soon as man sinned, God foretold the coming victory over sin and the author of it. To the serpent, the Lord God said: I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Gen. 3:15). The application of this can hardly be limited to the natural antipathy existing between men and serpents! We have thus early in human history set forth the great conflict between the Christ (the true seed of the woman) and Satan. The Saviour would come to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8). He would crush the head of Satan, i. e., indict fatal injury, break his power over man. Yet he himself would be bruised and hurt, but not fatally "Satan bruised Christ's heel in Gethsemane and on the cross but Jesus Christ gained the victory over Satan, and will utterly defeat him."

      Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died for the sins of men on the cross of Calvary. What could not be attained by works comes to us: by grace (Rom. 4:4; 11:6). The salvation which

we cannot have as wages comes as a gift (Eph.2:8). It is not essential or here desirable to enter upon theories of the atonement. It is necessary to notice some of the things which the Scriptures say as to our redemption. The Bible statements are all we know of the matter. How the death of Jesus availed to save may be beyond our comprehension, the fact is the clearest and most blessed in the Bible.

      The Son of God, leaving the glory which he had with the Father before the world was (John 17:5), came to earth, assumed the form of a servant, perfectly obeyed the law which man failed to keep, and became obedient unto death. Holy, harmless, undefiled, he made sacrifice of himself (Heb.7:26, 27). Men are redeemed "with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ" (1 Peter 1:18, 19). Christ "died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3). He "his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree" (1 Peter 2:24). "The Son of man came . . . to give his life a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28). "There is one God, one Mediator also between God and men himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for ail" (1 Tim. 2:5, 6). "He tasted death for every man" (Heb. 2:9). "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world" (1 John 2:2). He was made sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21). He became a curse for us, and hence redeemed us from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13, 14). His blood cleanseth from all sin (1 John 1:7). We are "justified by his blood" (Rom. 5:9). We are "reconciled to God through the death of his Son" (Rom. 5:10).

      These facts, and not any human theory as to these facts are what we steadfastly believe and teach.

      There seems to be some need for a special emphasis of three points:

      (1) The death of Jesus for the world's sin was not an after thought. We have seen the promise given as soon as sin was committed (Gen. 3:15). Christ's sufferings were ordained in eternal purpose. If men by wicked hands did crucify and slay the Son of God, he was also "delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23). He was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8) .

      (2) We must beware of speaking and thinking of God's work in our redemption in such a way as to imply that the Father was an angry God who needed to be reconciled and appeased in order that he might love mankind. The Bible on the contrary, so far from teaching that the Son's death won over the Father to love the world, declares that "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son" (John 3:16).

"God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8). "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself" (2 Cor. 5:19). We do not need to beseech the Father to be reconciled to men: "We beseech you, on behalf of Christ, he ye reconciled to God" (2 Cor. 5:20). Let us hold no view of the atonement which is incompatible with these great texts.

      (3) As little, however should we disregard the plain fact that the justice, of God, and the majesty of his law land Person, had to be considered in the provision of a remedy for sin. That sin was no light thing is seen in this, that only the blood of the Son of God was in value precious enough to redeem. The claims of justice were satisfied, and God's law magnified, in the atoning death of Christ. We rightly speak of the cross of Christ as the "trysting-place where heaven's love and heaven's justice meet." Consider one passage, Rom. 3:24-26, specially the clause "that he might himself be just and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus." Justice alone would condemn all sinners; mercy alone might pass over sin. But justice and mercy are troth exalted in the justifying of the man who believes in the Son of God as Saviour. While the death of Jesus is to us the highest exhibition of divine love, and results in winning our love and turning us from a life of sin to a life of righteousness, yet none of the "moral influence" theories of the atonement are adequate. One important question is suggested by Romans 3. If God could only he shown to be just in forgiving such a man and on such a condition, what becomes of the man who rejects the Saviour? He has shut himself off from hope. He has spurned God's love, and rejected the plan which justice as well as love devised for his salvation. No man will stand justified before the throne of God at last, save on the ground that the Father has accepted him through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus our Saviour.

      1. When and how did Sin come into the world?

      2. Who was the tempter of our first parents?

      3. What is sin?

      4. Do we sin against man or God? (Give texts in proof).

      5. What were the results of Adam's sin to himself?

      6. (a) Are we in any ways affected by Adam's sin? (b) If so, how?

      7. What is God's remedy for sin?

      8. Are there any men who do not need a Saviour? (Give texts).

      9. For whom did Christ die?

      10. Would one sin condemn a man? or could he make up for it by later holy conduct?

      11. Explain Gen. 3:15.

      12. Do you think it is a fair representation of the atonement to say that Christ appeased in his death the wrath of a just and angry God? Refer in your answer to the Scripture teaching.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST.

      WHEN we deal with a subject sacred, and in some respects mysterious as this, it is well that we do not seem or seek to be wise above that which is written. We must particularly remember that our inquiry has to do with what is revealed in the Bible about the Person of Jesus our Lord. It is most desirable that in teaching the lesson close adherence be made to Scriptural statements. It is all-important that we believe what the Bible says concerning the Christ; it is not so necessary that we decide as to the speculations of men. Again, it has constantly to be borne in mind that while the facts, as facts, are plainly stated and easily accepted, the modes of these facts are beyond our comprehension. The burden of our study of the person of Jesus is simply that he was truly man and as truly God. We believe that this can easily be shown from the Scriptures. It will be no cogent reply or valid objection to say that we do not know how he could possess in one person a human and a divine nature. The youngest child in your class can accept the fact; the wisest Christian philosopher cannot explain the union of natures, or tell us more of the She's relationship to the Father than the Scriptures state

1. The Manhood of Christ.

      Since practically none to-day deny the true humanity of Jesus, it will be unnecessary to dwell long here. We know that in the early centuries of our era some heretical sects (as the Gnostics, Apollinarians, and some others) did deny

this. The Apostle John condemned Gnostic theories as to our Lord not being a man, but only a phantom or temporary manifestation of the Godhead (see 1 John 4:1-3; 2 John 7). None hold such views now. Yet one will often hear statements made as to the sufferings; and especially the temptations of the Saviour, which practically amount to an ignoring of his humanity. We may note, then, a few things concerning the "man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).

      Miraculously conceived, Jesus was yet born as other babies are. As other children he increased in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52). He hungered (Matt. 4:2), thirsted (John 4:7), was wearied (John 4:6), slept (Matt. 8:24) had flesh and bones (Luke 24:39); wept (John 11:35); shrank instinctively from suffering (Luke 12:50; 22:42); died (John 19:30). He had the feelings of men: he loved (John 11:5), was angry (John 2:15), wondered (Luke 7:9), suffered agony (Luke 22:44); he needed help through prayer (Luke 22:41), and received heavenly strength (Luke 22:43).

      He endured the temptations of men. These trials are especially worthy of notice. We are told that he is "one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are" (Heb. 4:15). This proves his true humanity, but it does more. It helps to make him a perfect and sympathetic Saviour: "In that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted" (Heb. 2:18). The one point of difference here is that of sinlessness. He was tempted as we, "yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15; John 8:46).

2. The Godhead of Christ.

      "The divinity of Christ is the corner-stone of our faith. We do not, we cannot, put our trust in man--our faith is in God." Jesus had a truly human nature, yet was as truly divine. We have the two natures in one person. Some striking sets of passages, showing the blending, can be given. Jesus, we read, "advanced in wisdom" (Luke 2 52); but the same chapter previously represented him as "filled with wisdom" (v. 40), and John said he was full of truth (John 1:14). He claimed only God as his Father (Luke 2:49), yet went to Nazareth and was subject to Joseph and Mary (Luke 2:51). John says, "He needed not that anyone should bear witness concerning man; for he himself knew what was in mans' (John 2:25), yet "he marvelled" at the centurion's faith (Matt. 8:10), and also at the people's unbelief (Mark 6:6).

      1. Jesus is repeatedly called the Son of God (Matt. 3:17, etc.). Now, because men are in the Bible called sons of God (Gal. 4:6) or children of God (1 John 3:1), some have suggested

that there is no true divinity implied in the Sonship of Jesus. But Jesus is "the Son" (Matt. 16:16), the "only begotten Son" (John 3:16). See Heb. 1:8, "Of the Son" he saith, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." Could this be said of one who was only a man? The Jews took Jesus' claim to be the Son of God as blasphemy (John 19:7). They would have been right, if he had only been man; they were wrong, because his God-head made the claim true. It is most significant that Jesus never in any sense qualified the words "Son of God" so as to remove the implication of divinity. Again, it has to be noted how Jesus carefully guarded against the suggestion that he was a Son as the disciples were, see John 20:17, "I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God."

      2. We have other divine titles used of the Christ. He was foretold as "The Mighty God" (Isa. 9:6). He is Immanuel, "God with us" (Matt. 1:23). "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:1, 14). Thomas greeted him as "My Lord and my God"; and Jesus, so far from rejecting the title, said: "Because thou host seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" (John 20:28, 29). He is called "God" in Heb. 1:8, and "true God" in 1 John 5:20. Of his great name, "Jehovah," the Lord said, "I am Jehovah, that is my name, and my glory will I not give to another" (Isa. 42:8); again: "Thou alone whose name is Jehovah art the Most High over all the earth" (Psa. 83:18). Now this great name is applied to our Lord Jesus. In Isaiah 40:3 we read, "The voice of one that crieth, Prepare ye in the wilderness the way of Jehovah", in Matt. 3:1-3 that prophecy is quoted of John the Baptist's preparing the way of Jesus. In Isa. 6 we read of the wonderful vision of God - Adonai (v. 1) and "Jehovah of Hosts" (v. 5)--which the prophet had. Now the Apostle John definitely states that Isaiah saw "his glory and spake of him," and "his" and "him" refer-to Jesus (John 12:36-41).

      3. We have the prerogatives of God ascribed to Jesus Christ. (a) He is presented as Creator (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16) (b) God only is the proper object of worship, as Jesus himself declared, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve" (Matt. 4:10). Yet we find Jesus worshipped by men and angels (John 9:38; Acts 7:54-60; Phil. 2:9-11; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 5:9-13). (c) God alone can forgive sin. Jesus Christ forgave sin at will (Luke 5:18-25) and gave to others authority to promise pardon on his conditions (John 20:22, 23; Mark 16:15, 16).

He will raise the dead and judge the world (Matt. 25; 31-33; John 5:22-29; Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10).

      4. The passages which plainly assert the pre-existence of Christ should be noted. "The Word" who "became flesh" was "in the beginning" with God and was himself God (John 1:1-14). The Lord Jesus said, "Before Abraham was I am" (John 8:58). He had a glory with the Father before the world was (John 17:5). The Father loved him "before the foundation of the world" (John 17:24)

      5. We have statements as to his equality and oneness with God the Father. "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). The Saviour was so conscious of this oneness that he declared "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). Men are to honor the Son as they honor the Father (John 5:23).

      The foregoing series of texts are only explicable on a belief in the true deity of the Lord Jesus. No mere man could truly speak or be spoken of as above. We may accept the words of him who was God manifest in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16), in whom dwelt "all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9).

      It may be noticed that there are texts which imply a subordination of the Son to the Father. The Father "sent" the Son (John 3:16), and gave him power (Matt. 28:18). Once Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). The last verse has sometimes been misused so as, to neutralise the claim to equality with God in John 10:30, and to show that Jesus was but a man. But only think of the superfluity and absurdity involved in the supposition that a mere man deemed it necessary to tell folk that God in his heaven was greater than he! We reverently accept all that is revealed, though we cannot presume to understand the mystery of the Godhead.

THE OFFICE OF CHRIST.

      There are in the Bible many different titles expressive of the work of Jesus our Lord He is our Advocate (1 John 2:1), the Author And Perfecter of our faith (Heb. 12:2), the Author of eternal salvation (Heb. 5:9), the Christ (Matt. 16:16), Counsellor (Isa. 9:6), the Deliverer (Ram. 11:26), King of Israel (John 1:49), Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5), Priest (Heb. 5:6), High Priest (Heb. 5:10), Prophet (Deut. 18:15; Luke 24:19) Redeemer (Isa. 59:20; Gal. 3:13); Saviour (Acts 5:31); Shepherd (Heb. 13:20; 1 Peter 5:4). Most of these titles sufficiently explain themselves. We need only notice in further detail few of them.

      1. Mediator.--A mediator is one who interposes between two parties between whom there is variance, with a view to effecting a reconciliation between them. "A mediator is not a mediator of one" (Gal. 3:20). In the New Testament the word is used once of Moses who was the mediator of the law (Gal. 3:19; cf. Deut. 5:5); elsewhere it is applied to Jesus the Mediator of the new and better covenant (Heb. 8:6; 9:15; 12:24). The problem is, How is man when once he has sinned to approach the Infinite, Holy and Righteous God? He personally has not the right of direct approach. He needs a mediator. "In all ages, and in all parts of the world, there has constantly prevailed such a sense of the holiness of the Supreme Divinity, as to make recourse to some sort of mediator universal. There is not a form of religion known, even among the savages and heathen nations, which does not recognise, with more or less distinctness, the necessity of a mediator between the Divinity and man." The mediation of Christ is connected with his sacrificial death: "For this cause he is the mediator of the new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance" (Heb. 9:15). The mediatorial office of Christ is also connected with his work as High Priest. In the Old Covenant, the High Priest alone had the right of entry into the Holy of Holies on the great annual day of Atonement (Heb. 9:7; this high priest was a type of Jesus (Heb. 9:11,12). Again, we have in Jesus the One with perfect qualifications for the work of mediation. "The natures of the offended and the offending parties meet in Him--God's fellow and man's brother. God's glory is dear to Him as God, man's interests are dear to him as Man." One of the great truths of the New Testament is that there is one mediator between God and men (1 Tim. 2:5). We must guard against putting any other in the place which rightfully belongs to Jesus. He is the only One who can effectively reconcile man to God.

      2. Christ.--Jesus is "the Christ" or "the Messiah" (Matt. 16:16; John 1:41). The former phrase comes from the Greek the latter from the Hebrew; each means "the anointed." Jesus received the anointing from the Father. He, in the synagogue of Nazareth, quoted as fulfilled in His case the prophecy of Isaiah, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me," etc. (Luke 4:18). We cannot help connecting these words with the coming of the Spirit upon Him at His baptism (Luke 3:21, 22). So Geikie, in his "Life and Words of Christ," speaks of the baptism as "the formal consecration which marked His entrance on His great office"; saying that

      He entered the waters "as Jesus, the Son of man; He rose from them, The Christ of God." Of old, it was the custom to anoint men with oil, as a part of the ceremony of consecration to office; as kings (1 Sam. 10:1; 2 Sam. 5:3), prophets (1 Kings 19:16), priests (Lev.8:1-12). Jesus was not only anointed, He was "the anointed" of God, set apart for a holy office. He fulfils in His own Person the three-fold office of King, Prophet, and Priest, which we may profitably notice.

      3. King.--That the Messiah would be King not only was the universal belief of the Jews, but was clearly foretold in the Scriptures. E. g., Psalm 2, which is in the New Testament used as prophesying the Messiah (Heb. 1:5), says, "I have set my King upon my holy hill of Zion." The Jews of Jesus' day knew of such prophecies, but misunderstood the method of their fulfilment. They would have made Jesus forcibly King of an earthly kingdom (John 6:15). Jesus before Pilate said that His kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36, 37). That Jesus is now a King is clear from the New Testament. Both he and John the Baptist proclaimed that the "Kingdom of God" or "Kingdom of heaven" was "at hand" (Matt. 3:2; 4:17). Jesus gave us a terminal date when He said explicitly, "There be some of them that stand here which shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matt. 16:28). Unless one of the apostles has not yet died, I have no option but to believe that the Son of man has a kingdom. Later in the New Testament, we read of Jesus as highly exalted (Phil. 2:9), "far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that i, named, not only in this world but also in that which is to come," with "all things in subjection under his feet" (Eph. 1:20-22. We read of Him as "crowned" (Heb. 2:9), and we are explicitly told that Christians have been translated into the kingdom of the Son of His Love (Col. 1:13). A kingdom implies a king, and Christ has a kingdom.

      4. Prophet.--A prophet speaks forth the things of God. Christ is the great revealer of God, His attributes and His will (Matt. 11:27). God who spoke in times past unto the fathers by the prophets hath at the end of the days spoken unto us in His Son (Heb. 1:1, 2). Jesus is definitely called a prophet; the words of Moses, "Jehovah thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken" (Deut. 18:15), are in the New Testament quoted and applied to the Lord Jesus (Acts 3:22; 7:37) .

      5. Priest.--The letter to the Hebrews tells us much of the priesthood of Jesus. The high priests of the Old Covenant

were types of our great High Priest. Our Priest, as Aaron, was divinely appointed (5:4, 5), and qualified by temptation, suffering and human sympathy to be High Priest (4:15; 2:17, 18). Jesus is repeatedly contrasted with the Aaronic priesthood. "The priests of the Jewish faith were sinful men (5:3), while Jesus was absolutely sinless (4:15). They were mortal creatures, 'many in number, because that by death they are hindered from continuing' (7:23) while Jesus 'abideth for ever,, and so 'hash his priesthood unchangeable' (7:24). The sacrifices of the Jewish law were imperfect (10:1 ff); but Christ 'by one offering hath perfected for ever them that are being sanctified' (10:14). The sanctuary of the old religion was a worldly structure (9:1), and so liable to destruction or decay, but Christ enters 'into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us' (9:24)." Every high priest must have somewhat to offer (8:3); Jesus offered up himself (9:14)--a sacrifice which, as against the doctrines of some to-day who would exalt a priestly class above their fellows, we are told will never be repeated; it was "once for all" (7:27; 9:28; 10:10). It should be most particularly noted that, save in the sense in which all Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:5, 9), we have no priest but Jesus Christ. We need no other man to stand between us and God; Christ is the "one mediator" (1 Tim. 2:5), through whom we have access to the Father (Eph. 2:18). With the priestly offering of Himself, and "in virtue of it, Jesus entered into the presence of God (Heb. 9:24), as the 'mediator of a new covenant' (9:15), and the ever-living Intercessor (7:25), and so secured for us our access with boldness unto the throne of grace (4:16; 10:13-22)." This intercessory office of the Lord Jesus, though we cannot comprehend it, is yet plainly revealed, and is gratefully accepted by the believer as one of the most blessed works of Jesus on our behalf. When we sin we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous (1 John 2:1). It is a glorious thought that our feeble petitions for grace, blessing and pardon, do not come alone to God. The Spirit helps our infirmity and makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God (Rom. 8:26, 27), and we learn, too, the present work of Jesus on our behalf: "He ever liveth to make intercession for them" who draw near unto God through Him (Heb.7:25).

      1. What proofs would you give of our Lord's true humanity?

      2. Was Jesus altogether lake other men? If not, indicate the difference.

      3. Name some titles of Jesus which imply His divinity.

      4. How would you reply to one who said that the Bible meant us to believe in Jesus as a son of God in the sense in which we are sons?

      5. Do the Scriptures declare the pre-existence of Christ Jesus ere he walked this earth?

      6. What divine prerogatives are ascribed to the Lord Jesus?

      7. Name six titles used to denote the office of Christ.

      8. Write a note on the word "Christ." How was Jesus the Christ?

      9. Why is Jesus called a Mediator?

      10. What do you know of Jesus as King?

      11. What has Jesus as Priest done for us?

      12. What is Jesus doing for us now?

Introductory.

      BEFORE we enquire into the work of the Holy Spirit, a brief preliminary study should be made of Him whose work we wish to notice. In our English Bibles we have the names "Spirit" and "Ghost" used indiscriminately as the translation of the same word. Since the word "Ghost" has now other and inharmonious meaning and associations, we prefer to use invariably the word "Spirit." (See margin of R. V., Matt. 1:18.)

      We have various titles of the Spirit in the Bible. He is "the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 3:11, etc.), because he is pure and purifying, "the Spirit," simply (Matt. 4:1); the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9), the Spirit of the Son of God (Gal. 4:6), being sent forth by Christ; the Spirit of God (Rom. 8:9); the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20), the Spirit of the Lord (Luke 4:18); the good Spirit (Neh. 9:20); the Spirit of grace (Heb. 10:29), He alone having revealed the grace of God in Christ Jesus, the Spirit of truth (John 14:17), the Spirit of life (Rom. 8:2); the Comforter (or better "the Paraclete," Advocate, i. e., the invoked Helper of the soul, John 16:7).

      It must be noted at the outset that we have to deal with the work of a Person and a Divine Person, not merely with a holy influence or disposition of God and Christ. That personality may be predicated of the Holy Spirit is clear from many passages of Scripture. Some have been somewhat misled through a misuse of the truth that the word for Spirit

(pneuma) is neuter, and means "breath," and so cannot of itself indicate personality. But a careful reading of Christ's great address in John, chapters 14 to 16, shows that Jesus speaks of the Spirit as a Person. There, e. g., we find masculine pronouns used, though pneuma is neuter (see John 15:26; 16:7, 8). Again, consciousness and personal action are attributed to the Spirit. He can teach (1 Cor. 2:13), speak (Acts 10:19, 20), help (Rom. 8:26); comfort (Acts 9:31); intercede (Rom. 8:26), knows the things of God (1 Cor. 2:11). We can, grieve the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30). It would not make sense to apply the words of Matt. 12:31, 32 to an influence. The Spirit is Divine. He is omniscient (1 Cor. 2:10), omnipresent (Psa. 139:7) Creator (Psa. 104:30), Eternal (Heb. 9:14). Peter said Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, and continued, "Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God (Acts 5:4) In 2 Cor. 3:16, 17 we read, "The Lord is the Spirit." In Isaiah 6:9, 10 we have a verse which is quoted by Paul in Acts 28:25-27, with the introduction, "Well spoke the Holy Spirit through Isaiah the prophet " In Isaiah 6:8, 9, we learn that it was "the voice of the Lord" which the prophet heard. Since the Holy Spirit is sent by the Son (John 16:7) we must in some way reverently believe in a subordination of the work of the Spirit to that of the Son, just as in the case of the Son's work with reference to the Father. The Son was divine, yet he could say, "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). We believe in one God, but in harmony with Scripture we must declare that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Divine Persons. Matt.28:19 settles the question of the divinity of the Holy Spirit--"baptising them into the name ["not names"] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

      In connection with the extraordinary manifestations of the Spirit's power, we have first to notice

The Work of Inspiration.

      "Inspiration" comes from a verb meaning, "to breathe into." We speak of the men who were used by God to write the books of the Bible as inspired rather than of their works as inspired, though in an accommodated sense we can speak of the writings as themselves inspired.

      We have already in the first lesson, in stating the Bible's claim to be God's Word, said some things which could appear under the heading of "inspiration." Here we shall notice some Scriptural statements as to the Spirit's work in this direction.

      Many men are said to have been speaking the words of

the Spirit, from whom we have no books. For instance, Zacharias was filled with the Spirit and prophesied (Luke 1:67-79). So Stephen (Acts 7:55), Agabus (Acts 21:11). See also Num. 24:2; Jud. 3:10; 2 Chron. 15:1, etc.

      The apostles of Jesus Christ were promised this inspiration. Jesus told them: "When they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you" (Matt. 10:19, 20; cf. Mark 13:11; Luke 21:12-15). Later, this promise of the Spirit's guidance was extended beyond help in answering the charges of adversaries: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he the Spirit of truth is come, he shall guide you into all the truth" (see John 16:12-15; 14:15-18). Now, we have ten books of the New Testament written by the apostles to whom these promises were spoken; so we have Scriptural authority for the inspiration of the writers of these. In the case of the Apostle Paul, converted after the other apostles had been commissioned, to whom we owe thirteen or fourteen of the books of the New Testament, we have the witness of the Apostle Peter that Paul wrote "according to the wisdom given to him" (2 Peter 3:15). In addition we have some most instructive words from Paul himself, which require special notice and throw clear light on what inspiration means. Read carefully 1 Cor. 2:4-16; 14:37; Eph. 3:1-7; 1 Thess. 2:13. We can quote but these "Unto us God revealed them through the Spirit"; "Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth."

      In the New Testament, too, we have a number of most significant statements regarding the inspiration of the Old Testament books. Peter, for example, says, in reference to the prophets of old, "No prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21; cf. 1 Peter 1:8-10). This is in harmony with what Paul said of the Old Testament Scriptures as a whole: "Thou hast known the sacred writings, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Every Scripture inspired of God is profitable for teaching," etc. (2 Tim. 3:15, 16).

      Theories as to inspiration abound but we are not warranted in asking men to accept our theories. We are much more concerned with getting people to believe the claims which the writers of the Bible themselves make than to agree to our views of how the Spirit of God inspired these men. These writers received special revelations of things before unknown to them; they

were guided in their ideas and choice of words; and they wrote in all things according to the will of God. Nothing less than this can possibly satisfy the requirements of the case. Personally I should say that inspiration - implies "the personal presence in the inspired of the Holy Spirit; the communication to his mind of ideas, selecting the words in which these ideas, shall be spoken and written." Nothing less than this last can be claimed in the case of Matt. 10:19, 20 and 1 Cor. 2:13.

      This inspiration of the Bible writers did not do away with the distinctive style of each writer. The Holy Spirit did and could use and work through men of different temperament and style.

      The fact that we have the sayings of Satan and wicked men recorded in the Bible is sometimes urged as an objection. "Are these inspired?" we are asked. Clearly not; but it is no objection. We simply say that the writers of the books which contain the narrative were inspired. The record is a true one. The Holy Spirit inspired holy men to give a faithful account of even the evil deeds of men and the beguiling words of Satan, for our instruction and warning. Inspiration is not affirmed of men who copied or translated our Scriptures. We only claim that the authors were inspired in their work.

      Have we inspiration to-day as the apostles had? We have no evidence of such a thing. We believe that when the last apostle to whom Jesus gave the promise of the Spirit's help in utterance and recollection died, this work of inspiration ceased. Many to-day claim to speak the Spirit's words, but, alas, they often contradict the word which the Spirit spoke nineteen centuries ago. We prefer to believe that they err in their claim rather than allow for a moment that God's Holy Spirit can contradict Himself. We would also naturally ask that the alleged inspired man of to-day should be able to work miracles in proof of his claim as were the inspired apostles. We know of none possessing this power. We are sure, too, that in the Scriptures we have enough given for the man of God to be "complete, furnished completely unto every good work."

Spiritual Gifts.

      We read in the New Testament of a large number of special gifts being bestowed upon different Christians. These endowments are called by Paul "spiritual gifts" (1 Cor. 12:1). A reading of Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:7-11, 28-30; 14:1-18, is recommended. Many non-miraculous endowments which we possess--traits of character, mental and spiritual qualities--may fittingly be called gifts of God and of His Spirit. But it is evident from the above passages that certain miraculous gifts

were bestowed in the early church on other than apostles. We have the gift of speaking with tongues, the gift of interpreting these tongues (by another than the one speaking with the tongue), gifts of healing, gifts of prophecy, working of miracles, or "powers," as exorcism (Acts 16:18; 19:11, 12). We have the intimation that such gifts were transmitted on the laying on of apostolic hands (2 Tim. 1:6). Acts 8:14-19 bears this out. It seems that Philip, not an apostle, had no power to pass on the gifts, hence Peter and John laid hands on the Samaritans. Simon Magus prayed, not for the gifts, but that the apostles would grant to him their power of transmitting the gifts (v. 19).

      Such gifts must he distinguished from "the gift of the Holy Spirit" promised to the obedient believer (Acts 2:38). This we shall deal with in next lesson. The Samaritans in Acts 8 had already complied with the conditions of receiving the Holy Spirit, and the Corinthians had the Spirit dwelling in them (1 Cor. 3:16). But both Samaritans and Corinthians received in addition special manifestations of the Spirit. These miraculous powers were peculiarly fitted to corroborate the message of the gospel in its first great conflict with the hosts of evil. Evidence is [asking that such gifts are at our disposal to-day.

Baptism in the Holy Spirit;

      In the Gospels and Acts we read of the "baptism in the Holy Spirit." John the Baptist foretold that Christ would so baptise (Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33). The Cord Jesus on the day of his ascension said to his apostles, "Ye shall be baptised in the Holy Spirit not many days hence" (Acts 1:5). We have the expression used again in Acts 11:16, when Peter associated the coming of the Spirit upon Cornelius and his household with the Baptist's prophecy. These six passages are the only ones in which the phrase "baptised in the Holy Spirit" occurs in the Bible.

      The phrase "baptised in the Holy Spirit" is clearly a metaphorical one; used to denote the fact that, just as in immersion a man is overwhelmed, so the Spirit took full possession of covered, overwhelmed the man who is said to be "baptised."

      We have only two recorded instances of such baptism in the New Testament. Men have imagined others, but it is indisputable that only two cases are definitely indicated as baptisms in the Holy Spirit. These examples are: the apostles on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-14) in fulfilment of the Saviour's explicit word (Acts 1:5); and Cornelius and his household (Acts 10:44-46), of which Peter said, "The Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on

us at the beginning," and which he declared reminded him of John's promise (Acts 11:15, 16).

      We do not think those men are right to-day who proclaim the necessity of this Holy Spirit baptism and who sometimes indeed make it the one essential thing. We simply point to the clear facts:--(1) No one was ever commanded to be baptised in the Holy Spirit. (2) Only two certain cases of its occurrence are recorded, each of which shows special features and reasons which we do not find in alleged modern cases: (a) Miraculous signs followed (Acts 2:4; 10:46). These are not exhibited in the case of present-day claimants' (b) The baptism and its miraculous effects were used as the apostles' credentials to convince the unbelieving Jews, and, in Cornelius's case, to convince dull-minded Christians that God was willing to receive Gentiles into the church on the same terms with Jews (see Acts 10:45; 11:17, 18). This special need does not now exist. (c) Paul has told us, "There is . . . one baptism" (Eph. 4:5). This was unquestionably the baptism commanded by Jesus (Matt. 28:19). That the Holy Spirit baptism neither came in the place of nor rendered unnecessary baptism in water in the name of Christ is conclusively proved by the simple fact (which the Holy Spirit has apparently recorded to keep men from being misled) that after Cornelius and his house were baptised in the Holy Spirit, the Apostle Peter said: "Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptised, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?" and then "he commanded them to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 10:47, 48) .

      It is clear that many persons to-day, when they speak of the "baptism in the Holy Spirit," mean the filling of the Spirit which is referred to by Paul in Eph. 5:18. We shall see in next lesson that an Christians have the Spirit dwelling in them and are exhorted to be "filled with the Spirit." We can but plead that men will call Bible things by Bible names; it clearly cannot be proved that Eph. 5:18 has to do with the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

      The words of W. C. Morro in his little book on "God's Spirit and the Spirit's Work" are so pertinent here that I close with them: "I candidly believe that the religious world has made the scope of baptism in the Holy Spirit far too extensive. Nowhere ill God's Word is a man taught to pray for it. Nowhere are we told that it will bring a man into Christ. Sins are not forgiven on being baptised into it. No conditions are laid down by which a man may receive it. It is never held out as a promise to the church. We are never told that men who receive it will have a closer walk with God. In short, every consideration convinces us that it was designed to serve a temporary purpose.

      Having accomplished that, it ceased, and we should not lament its loss."

      1. Give some of the titles of the Holy Spirit and mention their significance.

      2. State reasons for believing in the personality of the Spirit.

      3. What is meant by inspiration?

      4. Did the New Testament writers claim to be inspired? Give some proofs.

      5. What are the advantages of having inspired Scriptures?

      6. Name some "spiritual gifts."

      7. For what purpose were they given?

      8. Do you think these were temporary or permanent? Give reasons.

      9. When was the baptism in the Holy Spirit first bestowed, and who received it?

      10. Who else received the baptism in the Holy Spirit?

      11. Why was it called a "baptism"?

      12. What miraculous effect followed in these cases?

      IN this second study on the Holy Spirit, we have to consider the abiding and continuous work of the Spirit of God in the conversion of sinners and the sanctification of Christians. There could scarcely be a more important theme.

The Spirit's Work in Conversion.

      Conversion is essential to discipleship, pardon, entrance into the kingdom, life eternal. Men must turn from sin to serve the living God. Jesus told his disciples, "Except ye turn and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 18:3). The greatness of the change is such that Jesus referred to it as a birth from above (John 3:3, 5), and Paul to it as a "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17, R. V. Margin). Men, before "dead" through trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), are "quickened" or made alive (Eph. 2:1, 5).

      This turning to God may be looked at from two points of view. (a) The man must turn, it is his act. The common version in Matt. 18:3 and Acts 3:19, in using the passive voice, "be converted," obscures man's activity. The Revised Version rightly has "turn," showing the human action. We can gather from the very responsibility of man that he is capable of obeying God's voice. God would not condemn a sinner for not turning if it were not in man's power to turn. (b) We may also look at the work of conversion from another

view. We may consider what God, or the Spirit of God, does in bringing a sinner to himself. The common consent of Christendom is that the Spirit's agency is imperatively necessary. Those dead through trespasses are made alive by God (Eph. 2:1-5). "No man," said Jesus, "can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him" (John 6:44). Peter said, "Unto you first God, having raised up his Servant, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities" (Acts 3:26). Jesus said of the Holy Spirit, "He, when he is come, will convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin because they believe not on me; of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and ye behold me no more, of judgment, because the prince of this world hath been judged" (John 16:8-11). We may use the words of Alexander Campbell, and say that we "could not esteem as of any value the religion of any man, as respects the grand affair of eternal life, whose religion is not begun, carried on, and completed by the personal agency of the Holy Spirit." This is quite in harmony with the Word of Chad. Man owes his salvation to God.

      The fact that the Holy Spirit has a most important and essential work to do in the conversion of the sinner is clearly seen from the foregoing passages. We shall have to give some attention to the question, How is this work done?

      At the outset two passages must be noted, which will serve to clear out of the way some theories widely held. Our Lord Jesus, who said he would send the Spirit to his apostles, used these words: "The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive" (John 14:17). The Apostle Paul, in harmony therewith, said: "Because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying Abba Father" (Gal.4:6). No statement which is out of harmony with these texts can be accepted as a satisfactory account of the Spirit's operation in conversion. All the views of conversion which presuppose the need of the Spirit's entrance into the heart of the sinner before his conversion are negatived.

      The best commentary on Jesus' words concerning the Spirit's convincing power (John 16:8-11) will be found in the accounts of conversion recorded in the New Testament. Since the Spirit inspired the narrator, we have His own account of His work. The very first gospel sermon (Acts 2) will serve for illustration. The Holy Spirit here furnished the preacher with his message. The apostles spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance (Acts 2:4). Peter in the course of his address refers to the Spirit's help (vs. 17, 18, 33). The result of the sermon was the conviction of many of sin; three

thousand obeyed the gospel. Who convicted these men? Unquestionably of God, for He gave Peter utterance. In Acts 8 we have the story of the eunuch's conversion. The Spirit comes and works for that man's salvation. But He does not enter the seeker's heart. He goes to the preacher (8:29). The work of the Spirit here is to bring preacher and seeker together, so that the word may be preached. The Spirit does not directly tell the man he is saved, or even what to do to be saved. Jesus had committed the word of reconciliation to His disciples, and the Holy Spirit does not take that work out of the disciples' hands. In similar fashion the Lord Jesus, when, he personally appeared to Saul, did not tell him what to do to be saved, but left that work to a qualified disciple (Acts 9:10-17).

      We may learn from these Scriptures that the Holy Spirit did not so work as to dispense with the word of the gospel. These examples are quite in accord with Jesus' word to His apostles that they should be His witnesses (Acts 1:8), that the Holy Spirit should bear witness, (John 15:26), and speak of what things He had heard (John 16:13). They are also in accord with the parallelisms which might be cited, in which what is said to be done by the Spirit is said also to be done by the instrumentality of the Word. Jesus e. g., said a man must be born of the Spirit (John 3:5). Peter says we are "begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible through the word of God" (1 Peter 1:23). Paul says, "I begat you through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:15). Jesus, after saying that none can come to Him unless the Father draw him, shows the means of drawing used by the Father: "It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned cometh unto me" (John 6:45). The apostolic preachers spoke the word of the Spirit (see 1 Peter 1:12; 1 Thess. 1:5; 1 Cor. 2:4, etc.); What work was done by that spoken word was therefore the work of the Spirit. Men were led to faith through hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17). We read of no conversions, either in apostolic days or in modern times, where the spoken or written word has not gone. True, the taking of the gospel to the heathen was opposed by tome who said that if God wanted to save the heathen, He would do it without our agency. But we have learned that it is the entrance of God's word which giveth light (Ps,alm 119:130). Even those who now plead for the direct and immediate operation of the Spirit on the hearts of men send for able preachers in order to a big revival. We may learn that "to convert men by the accompanying influence of the Holy Spirit, we must do what Paul commanded Timothy, 'Preach

the word, be instant in season and out of season.'" We remember that "the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4:12).

      The foregoing treatment is far from implying that the Word alone converts the sinner. We do not seek to separate speculatively Spirit and Word in their action. We rather believe that "it is the Spirit that quickens, and that the Word of God--the living Word--is that incorruptible seed which, when planted in the heart, vegetates, and germinates, and grows, and fructifies into life eternal"; and that it is unscriptural "to discriminate between spiritual agency and instrumentality--between the Word, per se, and the Spirit, per se, severally does, IS though they were two independent and wholly distinct powers or influences Let it also be distinctly understood that we have not said or implied that the Holy Spirit cannot act otherwise than as indicated. That would be a foolish thing to say. We have only sought to note from the Word of God what the Spirit has revealed as to His work. We have no desire and no warrant for discussing what He may or can do, save in so far as He has revealed it. Nor does the present article say anything against special providences or leadings of God. We have not been discussing these, but trying to see from the Bible what the Spirit says that He does in ma-e's conversion.

The Spirit's Work in Sanctification.

      Things or persons which are set apart for God's service are said to be sanctified. Aaron and his garments were sanctified (Rev. 8:30). The altar and laver the tabernacle and its furniture, were sanctified (Ex. 40:9, 10). Christ sanctified himself (John 17:10). Christians, as set apart for God's service, as his peculiar possession, are sanctified. See 1 Cor. 1:2; 6:11, etc. The words, "Ye were sanctified," imply that the sanctification was an accomplished thing. Christians as Christians are set apart, consecrated to God. But the New Testament looks also upon sanctification as a process still going on in the Christian. From the appropriately good and pure life which should be manifested by a man set apart, or sanctified, "sanctification" or "holiness" is used of this godly character. Sanctification is consequently urged upon Christians. Jesus asked that the disciples might be sanctified through the truth (John 17:17). Paul prayed, "The God of peace himself sanctify you wholly" (1 Thess. 5:23), Our sanctification is the will of God (1 Thess. 4:3).

      This sanctification is attributed to various things. The Father sanctifies (John 10:36; Jude 1); so does Jesus (Heb. 13:12). We have "sanctification of the Spirit" (1 Peter 1:2) and "by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 15:16). As instruments we have--"the truth" (John 17:19), "faith" (Acts 26:18); "the Word of God" (1 Tim. 4:5); the will of God (Heb. 10:10), the blood of Jesus (Heb. 13:12). Finally, there is a command to be holy (1 Peter 1:18,19, the adjective "holy" being a kindred word to the verb "sanctify"), so Christians have a part to do themselves. These passages do not contradict. We may not know so much as we would like to know concerning the process, but perhaps "the work is ascribed to God because he is the first cause of our salvation, to Christ, because he is the Saviour, to his blood because it was the procuring cause of our separation unto God and the remission of sins' to the Word of God because it teaches us the will of God, to the Holy Spirit because he revealed the truth, to ourselves because we must apply the Spirit's teaching."

      It would be quite inadequate to stop here. The Holy Spirit comes into a direct relationship with the Christian and influences him. We have a large number of passages which in the plainest fashion declare that the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian. "Ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.- But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Rom. 8:9). The Christian's body is "a temple of the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 6:19; cf. 3:16). See also Rom. 8:11, 15; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Gal. 3:2; 4:6; 1 Thess. 4:8; 2 Tim. 1:14; Jas. 4:5; 1 John 4:13.

      What does the Holy Spirit do in and for us? The answer is found in part in the name "Comforter" or "Helper" applied to Him (John 14:16; cf. Acts 9:31); He comforts or strengthens us. Paul says the Spirit helps our infirmities, making intercession for us according to the win of God (Rom. 8:26). What we owe to this help and intercession, we cannot fully know in this life. He strengthens us with power in the inward man (Eph. 3:16). He sheds the love of God abroad in our hearts (Rom. 5:5). With Him we have fellowship (2 Cor. 13:14). In him we have joy (Rom, 14:17). His presence produces as fruits the Christian graces--"love, joy, peace long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness temperance" (Gal. 5:22, 23).

      How may we know that we have the Holy Spirit dwelling in us? There are two ways. Firstly, we notice the divine promise and the terms on which that promise is made. The world cannot receive the Spirit (John 14:17); sons of God

have Him in their heart (Gal. 4:6). The "gift of the Holy Spirit is promised by Peter to the obedient penitent believer (Acts 2:38). The "gift, of the Holy Spirit" here is not simply some gift from the Spirit, but the Spirit as a gift, as Paul has it in 1 Thess. 4:8, God "giveth His Holy Spirit unto you." Those who have complied with the conditions of Acts 2:38--conditions stated by the Spirit Himself--may be sure of the promise. In the second place the presence of the Spirit is attested by the fruits mentioned in Gal. 5:22, 23. If these fruits are absent, the Spirit is not present.

      Have all Christians an equal share of the Spirit? Evidently not. Some are specially mentioned as being full of the Spirit (Acts 6:3). Christians are exhorted, "Be not drunken with wine, wherein is riot, but be filled with the Spirit" (Eph. 5:18) .

      It becomes a pressing question in the light of the foregoing. How may we be more and more possessed of the Spirit? We reply that since the Holy Spirit was originally giver, to us upon obedience to God's truth, continued obedience to the Divine will is necessary. Again, we must give up sin, and strive to live a pure life. We must, as it were, give Him a larger habitation in our heart. He is not given to the world, and so those who cling to the things of the world cannot expect .& large measure of the Holy Spirit. Lastly, we are encouraged to pray for the Holy Spirit: "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" (Luke 11:13). Perhaps in this, as in other cases, we have not because we ask not.

      At the close of our studies on the Holy Spirit, His miraculous and His ordinary manifestations, the practical question comes, What is the highest manifestation of the Spirit? Most of us have been tempted at times to long for radiant visions, audible expressions of Divine favor, faith, and power to work miracles, for some of the "spiritual gifts" possessed by the early Christians. Do not let us forget that we have something better than these. The godly life led by the help of the Spirit in His noblest product. We can get nothing better than "the fruits of the Spirit." Balaam prophesied by the Spirit of God, but he did not live a holy life, and "a little holiness is worth much illumination." Paul distinctly put love above the spiritual gifts; it is one of the Spirit's fruits, and is "a more excellent way" (1 Cor. 12:2-14:1). God has given us the best, not the second best.

      1. What is meant by conversion?

      2. What did Jesus say Holy Spirit would do when He came?

      3. Who cannot receive the Holy Spirit?

      4. Give New Testament example of the way in which the Holy Spirit works for the salvation of men.

      5. Explain John 6:44. How does the Father draw men?

      6. Do you think the Scriptures reveal the fact that the Spirit must come directly into the sinner's heart in order to his conversion?

      7. What is meant by sanctification?

      8. Name different things which are said in the Scriptures to be sanctified.

      9. Who and what sanctify us?

      10. What is the Spirit said to do for the Christian?

      11. Prove by Scriptural references that the Spirit in the Christian.

      12. What outward evidences should the Christian give of the indwelling of the Spirit?

      WE have to deal with the foundation principle of the gospel of Christ, that without which all else is unavailing. Faith is the characteristic principle animating the Christian; so much so, that the beautiful description "believers" or "they that had believed" became a standing name for the followed of Christ (see Acts 2:44; Rom. 10:4; 1 Cor. 14:22; Acts 5:14; 1 Tim. 4:12).

      The word "faith" is used in the Bible in at least three distinct senses: (a) We read of "the faith," when the religion of Jesus, the system of truth revealed by him, is meant. In Gal. 3:23, Paul says, "Before faith came, we were kept under the law" (common Version). But we know there was "faith" in pre-Christian times. The R. V. gives a better translation: "Before the faith came." See also Acts 6:7; 13:8; Gal: 1:23; Jude 3. (b) The word is use of the faithfulness or fidelity appropriate to believers, and required by the gospel. See Rom. 1:8; Gal. 5:22; Titus 2:10. (c) Generally a certain state of the mind is indicated by the word "faith.". It is with this third that we specially deal in his article. [It seems clear that the Greek substantive and the corresponding verb are at least as flexible as the English word "faith," extending from simple belief to a confident trust in or reliance on a person. The shades of meaning, too, almost certainly vary according as the words are used in conjunction with one preposition or another. It is possible here to give only an elementary study, in which passages between which fine shades of distinction may be made are grouped together.]

What Is Faith?

      We have a suggestive description, if not definition, in Heb. 11:1, "Faith is assurance of [or, giving substance to

things hoped for, a conviction [or, test] of things not seen." Of things which are the objects of hope, as God's promises faith is or confidence. Of the wider class of things unseen, whether objects of hope or not, faith is conviction that they are or are not so-and-so. Rotherham translates the verse: "faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of facts a conviction when they are not seen." Abraham's belief in God's promises (Heb. 11:3) may be cited as an illustration of the first clause; our belief as to the making of the world (v. 3) of the second.

      In the same chapter is an instance of faith and belief as the same thing. See verse 6. This is obscured by the fact that in English we have not a verb corresponding exactly to the noun "faith." If we could talk of "faithing" a thing, our language would be more nearly in the position of the Greek Sometimes we hear of men who pray for "faith to believe"; which really is equivalent to asking for faith to have faith, or for belief to believe.

      It is at the present day often imagined that there is a difference in kind between faith or belief as it affects the grand concern of our salvation and faith in a truth of everyday life or in a friend. Now, it must be held that it is precisely the same mental process or state for me to believe in God as to have faith in any human friend, to believe the truths regarding Jesus Christ and his salvation as to believe a man when he tells me of some alleged fact. The truth is that the difference is not one as to the kind of faith, but it is a difference in object. Why it is immeasurably better to trust in Christ than to have faith in man is because of the person of Christ and the glorious work he can do. My faith is the same, but it is directed towards a Redeemer and Saviour who is worthy of confidence, and who is a rewarder of trust far beyond any human being in whom I may believe. A friend makes a statement to me and advises a certain course. I believe his word and do a he suggests.

      Everybody is familiar with that simple belief. Now, a similar belief in Jesus' word and acquiescence in his will will save.

      It may well be said that the common use of the phrase "saving faith," is one of the misfortunes of Christendom, for it suggests to me that the efficacy is due to a difference in my faith subjectively considered, when the saving power of my faith depends wholly on the fact that its object is the Saviour and that it leads me to accept and obey him as my Saviour. Learn and teach this glorious truth: "The saving power of faith resides not in itself, but in the Almighty Saviour on whom it rests."

      The faith which saves may be seen from two passages of Scripture. (a) James, speaking of a certain man's faith, says it is "dead." What for James is a dead faith? Simply a faith that is not allowed to have its legitimate outlet in works (James 2:17). We have indicated in this verse the weakness in the faith of many to-day. There is little fault to be found with their faith as such; the trouble is that that faith is by itself and is therefore profitless. Most men in our land believe the words of Jesus, if they would only let that belief lead them to obey Christ and have its fitting result in works of service, theirs would be a "saving faith." Man is not saved by faith alone. True, man has no meritorious works, his salvation is an act of free grace, yet he must let faith issue in action, else it is dead, barren, profitless, according to God's Word. (b) The Apostle Paul wrote: with the heart man believeth unto righteousness" (Rom. 10:10). This verse has given rise to the popular distinction between a "heart belief" and a "head belief." There should be no incompatibility between a head and a heart belief. Apparently what Paul means is that our belief should be one in which not only our intellect, but also our affections and will, are involved. Mere intellectual assent to gospel truths is not enough. The case of the rulers who believed on Jesus, but did not confess him, since they loved men's praise (John 12:42) may be cited as a good illustration of belief which is neither "with the heart" nor "unto righteousness."

How is Faith Produced?

      We believe in the occurrences of every-day events which have not happened in our own presence on the testimony of others Belief in Christ and the gospel facts comes in precisely the same way. Some have denied this; but they do so only on the mistaken notion that the denial of the sinner's power to exercise saving faith on the simple proclamation of the gospel honors God, and because they strain to breaking point certain statements as to man's helpless condition. We need not enter into argument. It is sufficient to quote the Bible's own statement as to the production of faith. (a) John said he wrote his gospel to produce faith. "These are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name" (John 20:31). If the gospel story is given to produce faith, surely it is idle to expect faith apart from such testimony as the gospel gives. (b) Paul asked, "How shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" and in most explicit fashion continued, Isaiah saith, Who hath believed our report? So belief cometh of hearing, and

hearing by the word of Christ" (Rom. 10:14-17). A volume of argument could make the matter no clearer. (c) Jesus said: "Preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved" (Mark 16:15, 16). As in the former cases, the preaching has as its consequent belief. It is worse than sad, it is sinful, to say aught to men which will keep them from the appointed method of getting faith in Christ. Men who lack it should be referred to the divine testimony. When this is once fairly put before them it is in their power either to believe or disbelieve.

      There is one passage which is often quoted in favor of the view that faith is in the direct gift of God to the human soul. Paul says: "By grace have ye been saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). This text does not prove the theory. It is almost certain that the word "that" refers to the idea of salvation running through the passage. Yet we do know that faith has its origin in God (Eph. 6:23; Phil. 1:29). Just as repentance is a man's own act, yet is said to be given by God (Acts 5:31), since he furnishes the motives, so faith is at once man's act and the gift of God who provides the testimony. What we have said already of the Spirit's work in conversion applies here. Man is commanded to believe (Mark 1:15; Acts 16:31). A gift is not commanded. If man is told to believe, it implies he can do it. God would not command belief but for this ability He would not condemn men for the disbelief which did not lie within their power. We must not teach that faith is God's gift in such a sense as to make him responsible for the unbelief of men. Much mischief has been done to human souls by the doctrine that "saving faith" is some mysterious and direct gift; the sinner is often encouraged to wait and agonise, when as a matter of fact the testimony of the Word of God through which faith comes (Rom. 10:17) is within his reach; or when, as often happens, it is not faith which is lacking but letting faith find its legitimate outcome in obedience to and service of God.

The Importance of Faith.

      Faith is all-important. The first work of the Christian preacher should be to bring men to a heart-felt belief in God and in Christ, for without this other instruction cannot profit. This is easily seen from some Bible statements.

      1. Faith in God is declared to be so essential that men cannot please God without it (Heb. 11:6). That is fairly sweeping. There is sin in unbelief, just as fatal in its effects as sin is in action. Faith not issuing in holy life profits

nothing. A moral life without faith in God is not enough. That God should furnish motives to faith, and that his creatures should yet not believe on him, not trust him, how could that he aught but deadly sin?

      2. Faith in Jesus Christ, belief in the gospel, has been made an indispensable condition of salvation. Of him to whom the message fairly comes it is said: "He that disbelieveth shall be condemned" (Mark 16:16). "He that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18). These verses are called harsh by some. These should remember that faith is just as essential in our ordinary life--family, social, business, political. Why should it not be vital in the spiritual sphere as well? "The law of nature is as imperious and universal as the law of the gospel." Each of us passes through a stage in which the law of our natural existence says, "If he believed not his mother or his nurse, he must die." Again, it has to be borne in mind that there is a moral cause of unbelief; it is not all intellectual. After John 3:18 we must read verses 19 to 21. Also, we may see the bright side even of "he that disbelieveth shall be condemned." If a loving Saviour who died for men said that, then all may believe if they will. Accountability presupposes ability.

      3. The effects of faith proclaim its importance. The gospel is God's power unto salvation. Grace is free to all. Provision for this life and life eternal is abundant. But faith is the channel through which these blessings flow. We are saved through faith (Eph. 2:8), justified by faith (Rom. 3:28; 5:1), live by faith (Rom. 1:17; Cal. 2:20), are sanctified by faith (Acts 26:18). Faith overcomes the world (1 John 5:4), and purifies our hearts (Acts 15:9). Christ saves us, but obedient faith brings us into Christ. We are "sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:26). We are said to believe "into" or "unto" Christ. We believe Jesus, believe in Jesus, believe on Jesus, but perhaps the best thing the New Testament tells us about faith is that we believe into or unto him, or his name (see Matt. 18:6; John 17:20; Acts 10:43; Phil. 1:29; 1 John 5:13). In the lesson on Baptism we shall find that we are "baptised into Christ" (Gal. 3:27); here we l earn that we believe into him. There is no discrepancy. It is obedient faith which counts. There is an "obedience of faith" (Rom. 1:5; 16:26), and wherever the blessing of God is attributed to faith, that faith is meant which issues in obedience, and not faith which stands alone or refrains from obedience. Thus Abraham was justified by faith (Rom. 4:2, 3, 9); but it is equally true that he was justified by

works, and not by faith alone (Jas. 2:20-23), i. e., by works not as meritorious but the fruits of faith.

What Must We Believe to be Saved

      It may seem strange to leave so important a question to the last. But in our lesson on Confession it will be shown that there is a divine confession of faith, in which we must express our belief. We have already seen that we must believe in God (Heb. 11:6); in or on Christ (Acts 16:31), in the gospel (Mark 16:15, 16), which includes the great facts of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4). God is not the justifier of all, but of "him that hath faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3:27). It was to bring men to faith in him that John wrote (John 20:31). The fundamental proposition is, as we shall see later, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matt. 16:16-18).

      As we close this study, it should be with the desire and determination to be "full of faith" (Acts 6:5), to "fight the god fight of faith" (1 Tim. 6:12). To this end, it may be our appropriate prayer, "Lord, increase our faith" (Luke 17:5).

      1. What is faith?

      2. How are men to obtain faith?

      3. What possibility is there of salvation apart from faith?

      4. Have men ability to believe?

      5. In what sense may faith be called the gift of God?

      6. Wherein lies the efficacy of our faith?

      7. How would you show that faith alone will not save?

      8. What do you mean by a "dead" faith?

      9. How was Abraham justified?

      10. Name three promises conditioned by faith.

      11. Is faith always used in the same sense in the Bible'

      12. What is the great central truth of the Christian system presented to us as an object of faith?

REPENTANCE.

      WE here, again, deal with a vital theme. It is truly a "first principle." There is no salvation without repentance. "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:5). It will be an easy matter for the interested reader to use a Concordance and refer to every New Testament passage dealing with repentance. He will then have all the data before him.

What is Repentance?

      It is a little unfortunate that two different Greek words, metamelomai and metanoeo, are both translated by "repent." We have the former in Matt. 21:29, 32; 27:3 (re Judas); and Heb. 7:21 (the Lord "will not repent"). The Common Version renders it "repent" also in 2 Cor. 7:8-10, while the R. V. in this passage with much more clearness translates it "regret," leaving metaoneo to be represented by "repent," thus: "For though I made you sorry with my epistle, I do not regret it, though I did regret; for I see that that epistle made you sorry, though but for a season. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye were made sorry unto repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly sort, that ye might suffer loss by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation, a repentance which bringeth no regret: but the sorrow of the world worketh death." The word "repentance" is always the translation of metanoia. One exception is found in Rom. 11:29, where we have an adjective ametameleta used of God's gifts which are unrepented of or unregretted; it is the same word which is translated in 2 Cor. 7:10 by "which bringeth no regret." We have, then, only one

word, metanoeo, used in connection with faith and the gospel facts, indicating change of mind issuing in, change of life, used in the imperative mood to sinners who would be saved. Judas's case fairly clearly indicates the meaning of the other word: he had regret or remorse, but his mind and will were unchanged, and did not lead him to turn again to serve Christ.

      The foregoing passages teach the important lesson that repentance is not merely sorrow. Judas sorrowed, but did not repent. Paul discriminated even between godly sorrow for sin and the repentance which was its result (2 Cor. 7). Nor is repentance actually the turning to God, if Peter is to he freed from the charge of tautology; for he said, "Repent and turn" (Acts 3:19). Repentance is not to be confused with reformation of life. Godly living, changed habits and actions, are the fruits worthy of repentance (Matt. 3:8), and not really the repentance itself. This latter distinction may perhaps be illustrated by a reference to Luke 17:3, 4, one does not reform seven times a day. The meaning of the Greek verb is "to change one's mind or purpose." Professor McGarvey, with due regard to this meaning and New Testament usage, says: "Repentance, then, fully defined, is a change of will caused by sorrow for sin, and leading to a reformation of life."

      Since this is primarily a Bible study, the foregoing remarks have been deemed necessary. The writer, however, candidly expresses the opinion, that it is very easy to so dwell on the fixing of the exact moment when a person may truly be said to repent as to miss the more important matters. Few people are perplexed on the practical side of repentance. They may not repent, but they know what it means. We could criticise such a definition as the following, "Repentance is true sorrow for sin, with sincere effort to forsake it," or the more homely phrase, "being sorry enough to quit," but surely these have the essential idea. He who has turned to God and who manifests the fruits of the Spirit, has repented, whether he can give a precise definition or not. The Lord wants the actual thing itself; he did not say, "Except ye can write out a definition of repentance exact to the dot of an 'i' or the stroke of a 't,' ye shall all likewise perish." We of course in no wise belittle the advisability of precision in the use of Scriptural language. Only, teachers are urged not to lose sight of the purpose of Bible School work. Get scholars to practise repentance as well as to define it.

      Our reading from Luke 15 beautifully illustrates repentance. Read the story of the prodigal. Just after he "came to himself" (v. 17), and when he determined to arise and go

to the father (v. 18), he repented. Let us strive to bring men to this point.

What Produces Repentance

      (a) The prime prerequisite to repentance is a sense of sin. If one repents of sin he must first have realised that he is a sinner. Many need to begin here. So long as sin is lightly treated, so long as it is thought of as the result of weakness merely, repentance cannot be expected. (b) Now, since sin is committed against God (see our second lesson on "Sin and Its Cure"), belief in God is obviously a condition of repentance. It is "repentance towards God" (Acts 20:21) which is required. (c) "The goodness of God," says Paul, "leadeth thee to repentance" (Rom. 2:4). This implies belief in God and a recognition of our indebtedness to him for the blessings of life. Our homes, daily comforts, health, preservation from harm and evil, church fellowship, school privileges, the Bible revelation, gospel overtures--all these are evidence of God's goodness to us. (d) "Godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation" (2 Cor. 7:10). "Godly sorrow" is "sorrow according to God" (margin)--i. e., according to the will of God, of the fashion required by God--and is contrasted with "the sorrow of the world," which does not issue in turning from sin to serve God. Some believe this verse has explicit reference to the difference between "repentance and remorse, between sorrow for sin and sorrow for its consequences." Judas and Peter furnish examples of the two kinds of sorrow. (e) The thought of judgment to come leads often to repentance. So with the men of Nineveh (Luke 11:32; cf. Jonah 3:4). See also Acts 17:30, 31.

      The foregoing Scriptures will serve to explain two others, in which it is stated that God gives or grants repentance (see Acts 5:31 and 11:18). God gives it by furnishing all the motives to repentance. His supreme agency in this is the gospel of Jesus Christ, in which God's love is revealed. The heart of the conscious sinner is melted by the story of redeeming love, and he is led to determine on a better life. Repentance is none the less man's own act. The command to repent implies this. Men are consistently spoken of and to as if they were able to repent, and were responsible to God and justly condemnable if they did not. God "commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent" (Acts 17:30). Jesus upbraided "the cites wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not" (Matt. 11:20). This could not have been so, if these cities were passive, and only waiting till God directly gave repentance. See also Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38, etc.

The Results of Repentance.

      These are mostly implied in the foregoing Sections. (a) We first note what may be called the Godward side. It is "unto life" (Acts 11:18); "toward God" (Acts 20:al); "unto salvation" (2 Cor. 7:10); "unto the remission of our sins" (Acts 2:38); "that your sins may be blotted out, that SO there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, even Jesus" (Acts 3:19, 20). (b) On man's part repentance is followed by his turning to God (Acts 3:19), and the doing of works meet for repentance (Acts 26:20; Matt. 3:8). The sinner "out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, cloth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience." This article is written in the belief that repentance implies the making of restitution where this is possible. This seems in harmony with the very meaning of the word, and with the Saviour's approval of the conduct of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:8, 9). Dare we say that Adam Clark's words are too strong: "No man should expect mercy at the hand of God, who, having wronged his neighbor, refuses, when he has it in his power, to make restitution. Were he to weep tears of blood, both the justice and mercy of God would shut out his prayers if he make not his neighbor amends for the injury he has done him"? At any rate, such words emphasise that repentance is not a maudlin sentiment.

CONFESSION.

      This part of the lesson has to do not with confession of sins to God or man, but with the confession of faith which the Lord has asked for on the part of every one who would put on Christ in baptism and receive the privileges of church fellowship and membership. All religious bodies agree that some confession of faith should be made, unfortunately, many do not seem to realise that the Lord Jesus who established his church made full provision for its creed and confession.

What is It?

      That there was some definite confession asked in apostolic days is proved by Paul's words to Timothy. Twice in one short passage the apostle refers to what had at that date assumed the definite name of "the good confession." The reference is made in such a way as to imply that the phrase had a well-known connotation. Paul says: "Lay hold of the life eternal, whereunto thou west called, and didst confess the good confession in the sight of many witnesses. I charge thee.

in the sight of God, who giveth life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession," etc. (1 Tim. 6:12, 13). Notice the definite article, and the precise reference implied in its use; the Common Version has seemingly done its best to obscure this point by rendering weakly and variously, "a good profession" and "a good confession." This passage shows that the apostle has not in mind merely the acknowledgment of Christ in a faithful Christian life, nor the daily witness in word appropriate thereto (for it was "the good confession" made unto eternal life). More, Paul says Jesus witnessed "the good confession" before Pilate. We are told in the Gospels of two confessions which Jesus made at his trial--one before the high priest who asked him, "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" when he replied, "I am" (Mark 14:61, 62), and one before Pilate who enquired, "Art thou the King of the Jews?" to which Jesus answered, "Thou sagest" (Mark 15:2). In each of these confessions we have Jesus' witness to his Messiahship. We have to remember that the whole trial of Jesus, the accusation of him before Pilate, was due to the claim that he made to be the Christ, the Son of God. The question had often come up (see e.nbsp;., John 7:26 ff; 9:22; 12:42).

      In Matt. 16:16-18 we read that Jesus had carefully elicited from Peter the confession, "Thou art the Christ, the Son, of the living God," Jesus declared Peter blessed for making it, and further said that the truth so confessed was the rock-foundation on which the church would be built.

      Paul in Rom. 10:9 says, "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved"; and in verse 10 he adds, "with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." These texts show what has to be confessed ("Jesus as Lord," cf. 1 Cor. 12:3), and that it is not merely the confession of a holy character, but a definite confession in words ("with the mouth" is twice stated).

      We have then a required confession of faith not in a system of theology, not in humanly devised creeds or articles, not in a compendium of Scripture truth even, but in a Divine Person. Jesus asked folk to confess him (Luke 12:8). In complete accord with these Scriptures, we have the early preachers' proclamations of the Christ. Peter preached the first gospel sermon for the purpose of leading to a belief in Jesus: "Let all the house of Israel, therefore, know assuredly that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified" (Acts 2:36). Philip preached Jesus (Acts 8:35). Acts 8:37 is probably an interpolation (see R. V. and

margin); so we do not use it here. It is quite in harmony with other passages, though, and it is known to have been in existence as early as the time of in the second century Those who believe in its being an interpolation yet allow its accord with New Testament practice and, as Plumptre says with "the received type of the prevailing order for baptism." Paul preached Christ and him crucified (see 1 Cor. 1:23; 2:3).

      We learn, then, regarding this good confession that God the Father made it (see Matt. 3:17; 17:5), Christ made it, Peter made it, Timothy made it, and Jesus would have all to make it. It is the only confession which we are authorised to demand. It is all-sufficient, wide enough to include all who wish simply to believe in and obey the Lord Christ, narrow enough to exclude unbelievers. It is enough, for he who believes in Jesus with the heart will believe all the words of Jesus, and the words of his accredited apostles, and will do what the Lord asks of him. Loyalty to Jesus is the supreme test of the Christian. Our "good confession" exalts him and puts him at the very centre of our religion. We have no right whatever to put our views regarding anything in the heavens above, in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth, in the place of the simple confession of faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God.

What Promises Are Attached to It?

      "The good confession" is unto life eternal, Paul says (1 Tim. 6:12). It is "unto salvation" (Rom. 10:9, 10). The Apostle John says, "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God" (1 John 4:15). We have the word of our Saviour, "Every one who shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God" (Luke 12:8; cf. Matt. 10:32). The importance and blessedness of this confession stand revealed. Pages of comment could not add to the clearness of these words.

Reasons for the Good Confession.

      1. God asks it. That is reason enough for our making it. But we may venture to see how natural such a confession is.

      2. It is due to Christ. If we believe Jesus is what he claimed, we should be glad to confess him and show our trust and love.

      3. It is due to the church. It helps the church to hear others confess him who is the church's Head. Christians love to hear the good confession, and are encouraged by it in their own Christian life.

      4. It is due to the world. If Christ has done anything for

you, he can do it also for others. Confession proclaims this. The confessor says in effect:--

      "Now will I tell to all around What a dear Saviour I have found; I'll point to his redeeming blood, And say, 'Behold, the way to God.'"

      5. It helps the man himself. There can be no permanent and secret discipleship. He who tries this must fail. Be openly decided, be committed publicly to Christ in confession of his name before witnesses, and this very fact will prove a strength in time of temptation. Professor James was perhaps the worlds greatest psychologist, as such he wrote: "In the acquisition of a new habit, or the leaving off of an old one, we must take care to launch ourselves with as strong and decided an initiative as possible. Accumulate all the possible circumstances which shall reinforce the right motives; put yourself assiduously in conditions that encourage the new way; make engagements incompatible with the old; take a public pledge, if the case allows, in short, envelope your resolution with every aid you know." Is not all this beautifully applicable to "the good confession" as leading to baptism and church membership?

      It seems as if we must make the confession some day; if not now, then in the great day when we all stand before the judgment seat of Christ (see Rom. 14:11, 12; Phil. 2:9-11). It would be wise to do it now; then there is no blessed promise attached to it. Then Jesus will be ashamed of him who was ashamed to confess him here (Mark 8:38). May we hasten to own his sway, confess his name, and then "let us hold fast our confession " (Heb. 4:14; 10:23).

      1. Give in your own words a definition of repentance and show that it is in harmony with Scripture.

      2. Show the importance of repentance.

      3. What is meant by "sorrow according to God"?

      4. What is the difference between the sorrow which works repentance and sorrow unto death?

      5. God gives repentance: how?

      6. What are fruits meet for repentance?

      7. Who made "the good confession"?

      8. What must we confess?

      9. Is it enough to confess Christ in a life of holiness?

      10. What promises are attached to confession of Christ?

      11. What great use can you see in public confession?

      12. Do you think the eunuch confessed Christ? (See Acts 8:34-38, A. V. and R. V.).

      AMONGST the very last directions of the risen Saviour was the injunction to his disciples to make disciples of an the nations, baptising them into the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19, 20). This ordinance, intended by Jesus to be the universal accompaniment of discipleship, is in itself wondrously beautiful, fun of significance, honored by the Masters own example, and introductory to the blessings he was graciously pleased to promise to the qualified recipient of it. While it is lamentably true that that which should have been a bond of union and a sign of common Christianity has often been made an occasion of strife we shall on examination of the Scriptures find that the Lord has so plainly revealed his will that we need not be troubled by the divergent beliefs of men. He who is interested enough in the subject of baptism to read what the New Testament has to say about it, with the determination in his heart to do whatever Christ would have him do, is not likely to go far astray.

The Action of Baptism.

      We have first to find out what act was performed. Some tell us that a man may be baptised either by sprinkling, pouring or immersion. Does it appear so from the New Testaments

      We may notice that were we to come across--as indeed we often do--the Greek word transliterated "baptise" in, the classical writings of Greece, we should never translate it by "sprinkle" or "pour." The word means "dip" or "submerge," or "immerse." That immersion is baptism has never been denied by any one; no debate ever was held in which this was denied. Ministers of churches which practise sprinkling will on occasion immerse. The Anglican Church has more than sanctioned immersion, for its Prayer Book explicitly states that the priest shall take the child (if it may well endure It) and "dip it in the water, discreetly and warily."

      But it is held by many that sprinkling or pouring will, equally with immersion, fulfil the requirements of the New Testament. We shall see. (a) We have the record of the baptism of Jesus our great Exemplar. We are told that John, who was honored as the baptiser of our Lord, baptised the people "in the river Jordan" (Mark 1:5). Jesus, we are also told, "was baptised of John in the Jordan" (Mark 1:9). The preposition in v. 9 is not the same as in v. 5. Verse 9 says really that the baptism was "into the Jordan" (see margin, R. V.). It would make nonsense to use this preposition in the circumstances if sprinkling or pouring was the act, as may be seen by substituting either of these words for "baptise" or re-immerse" in this verse. We are also informed that Jesus came "up out of the water" (v. 10); so he had been down into it. (b) This agrees with the baptism of the eunuch, as recorded in Acts 8:38, 39, where there was a going "down into the water" and a coming "up out of the water." Some have in this latter case especially asserted that "into" may only denote close proximity to, but Luke said before they came "unto" the water, and now says that as a subsequent act they went "down into" it. When some try to break the force of this by saying that even if they were in the water, still sprinkling could be the act performed, we reply, first, that the very reason which now generally keeps those who practise sprinkling or pouring from going down into the water (since in their case there is no need to take such a cumbrous method) would have kept John and Philip from doing so had they practised pouring or sprinkling; while the very reason which makes a candidate for immersion go "down into" the water would sufficiently explain the statements in Mark 1:10 and Acts 8:38. (c) John baptised in Aenon, near to Salim, "because there was much water there" (John 3:23). That "because" does not suit sprinkling. (d) When we seek to settle what was performed "in the river Jordan" by John the Baptist, or by Philip when he and the eunuch "went down into the water," there are illuminative passages in Rom. 6:3, 4, and Col. 2:12. There we are told that Christians were "buried" with Christ in or through baptism. On sprinkling or pouring there is no enveloping, no covering up, no hiding from view, such as is implied in the word "buried"; in immersion there is. We would be quite content that any honest seeker for the will of God should learn that in baptism he should go down into the water, be there "buried in baptism" then rise or come "up out of the water" and should then do what in his heart he believes the Saviour and the early disciples did. That we are not peculiar in thus using Rom. 6:3 and 4, we may show. John Wesley in his "Notes on the New Testament," says: "We are

buried with him--alluding to the ancient manner of baptising by immersion." Coneybeare and Howson in, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul say emphatically, "This passage cannot be understood unless it be born in mind that the primitive baptism was by immersion." Hastings' Bible Dictionary says "Immersion is implied in Rom. 6:4 and Col. 2:12."

      In addition to New Testament examples of baptism, we have two metaphorical uses of the word "baptise" which are important in this connection. (a) We read of Christ's baptism of suffering (Mark 10:38; Luke 12:50). Now, everybody agrees that Jesus' suffering was great, intense, that he was overwhelmed by it, and that therefore it is called a baptism. To liken that suffering to a sprinkling would be abhorrent to every believer. So the Oxford "Helps to the Study of the Bible" says: "The original mode of baptism was immersion. Hence the metaphorical use of the word of an overwhelming sorrow." (b) The baptism in the Holy Spirit is only explicable on the view that the Spirit so took possession of those who were recipients of it that they might fitly be said to be enveloped in or overwhelmed by it.

      We need not discuss in detail why a change was ever made from Immersion to sprinkling or pouring. Various reasons are given, none of which can weigh with the man who has the supreme desire of finding out what the Lord appointed and of doing exactly what he said. Slice to say that effusion was practised in cases of dangerous illness. There was a fear as to the fate of the unbaptised person, coupled with an overrating of baptism per se. It is significant that the Greek Church has never practised sprinkling. Dean Stanley says

      "For the first thirteen centuries the almost universal practice of baptism was that of which we read in the New Testament, and that which is the very meaning of the word 'baptise'--that those who were baptised were plunged, submerged immersed into the water."

      We may, ere passing on, mention that we have not ventured to discuss the mode of baptism. Immersion is not a mode of baptism; it is baptism. We do not know how the Immersion was carried out in New Testament days, but we know that immersion was practised, nor do we speak of baptism by immersion (though one or two of our quotations from others contain that objectionable idea). "Baptism by immersion" means baptism by baptism or immersion by immersion.

Subjects of Baptism.

      The question is, Who may scripturally be baptised? Nobody in the world, be he wisest theologian or profoundest Christian

philosopher, knows one particle more about this question than what the Scriptures reveal. None have private revelations on the subject, and no one can presume to pit an opinion of his own as to the proper subjects against the teaching of the Bible. The professing Christian world is generally agreed that those who believe in Jesus Christ and who are truly penitent, are fit subjects of baptism. Many claim that in addition thereto infants may also scripturally be baptised. Our practice of baptising penitent believers is admitted by all to be right. The practice of what is called "infant baptism" has been variously justified. Indeed, considerable difference has existed among paedo-baptists as to what infants may be baptised; some said children of members of the church; others declared children of whom one parent was a communicant; others would have admitted children of believers who were not communicants; some declared, "Charity bids us hope well of all."

      There are three ways in which we can learn the will of God on this question: (1) We may have commands regarding baptism; (2) We may find examples of baptism; (3) We may have necessary inferences from Scripture records. Let us apply these methods in our study.

      1. Have we a command to baptise? Yes, nearly all professed Christians believe baptism to be a command of permanent obligation. But whom does the command concern? Those to whose ears it comes, so that they can intelligently obey it. (a) Have we a command for the baptism of penitent believers? Yes. The apostles were charged to baptise those whom they discipled (Matt. 28:19, 20). The gospel was to be preached, and "he that believeth and is baptised" was promised pardon (Mark 16:15, 16). People who were pricked to the heart, believing they had crucified their Messiah, were commanded to "repent and be baptised" (Acts 2:38). Gentiles on whom the Spirit had come, people speaking with tongues and magnifying God (and therefore not unconscious infants) were commanded to be baptised (Acts 10:44-48). Saul, a penitent bet/ever of three days' standing, was commanded, by a special messenger from God, "Arise, and be baptised" (Acts 22:16). (b) Have we a command that infants should be baptised? We can quote no texts. There is no such command anywhere in God's Word.

      2. Have we examples of baptism in God's Word? Yes, many of them. (a) We have the following instances of the baptism of believers: Three thousand who "gladly received the word" spoken by God's apostle were baptised (Acts 2:41); the Samaritans, "when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" "were baptised, both men and women" (Acts 8:12); the eunuch, instructed in the things of the Lord, was baptised

(Acts 8:35-38); "Many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptised" (Acts 18:8). (b) We have no recorded instance in Scripture of the baptism of an infant. Infants are mentioned in some passages; baptism is mentioned in other passages: the infants and the baptism are not found together.

      3. In the absence of command or example, advocates of in ant baptism have recourse to inference True, some (as Plummer in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible) confess, "Not only is there no mention of the baptism of infants, but there is no text from which such baptism can be securely inferred." (a) Some say that because children were admitted to the old covenant, therefore they should be admitted into the new. The inference is not valid, for this, if for no other reason. The Old Covenant has passed away (Heb. 8:7-13); with a change priesthood, there is a change of law (Heb. 7:12), (b) What is a special form of this argument is the statement that baptism came in the place of circumcision, and therefore infants should be baptised. There is not a shadow of proof anywhere that baptism came in the place of circumcision. The latter was practised for long concurrently with the former. Circumcision was a fleshly ordinance, not requiring faith or any moral qualification in the recipient. Circumcision was based on conditions of flesh and property (see Gen. 18:12, 13); Paedobaptists uniformly decline to claim parallelism here. It was not an initiatory rite, as baptism is. The descendants of Abraham entered the covenant by birth of flesh and blood; baptism is initiatory to the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). We cannot go back to Genesis and search the law of circumcision for information as to another rite which was not instituted till nineteen centuries later, and then in words which never hinted that there was any connection between the two ordinances. (c) Acts 2:39, "To you is the promise, and to your children" is oft quoted. "You" here represents the Jews present; "your children" were their posterity; both are distinguished from "all that are afar off," i. e., Gentiles. That the "children" here were not unconscious in ants is proved by two considerations: (i.) The promise was for "even as many as the Lord our God shall call." We wish all would wait for the children to hear and respond to God's call. (ii.) "The promise" which was to their "children" was the promise of the Holy Spirit's being given on condition of repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38) orally, the promise is for everybody who can fulfil its conditions. (d) Household baptisms are often appealed to. These we may be sure were not out of harmony with the terms of the commission (Matt. 28:19, 20; Mark 16:15, 16) But we know the jailor and his house believed (Acts 16:32-34), Crispus and his house believed (Acts 18:8), the household of Stephanas

addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints (1 Cor. 16:15). In these cases we know no infants were baptised. Regarding Gaius and Lydia, we have the alternative of interpreting their cases in accord with the uniform teaching and example of the New Testament; or of assuming that these folk were married, had children, and children too young to believe, who must then as in the household be held to be baptised. Assumption is not a strong enough foundation for a church ordinance.

      Infant baptism really came in through a strained view that "original sin" somehow imperilled the infant's soul, and through an exaggerated and quite unscriptural belief in the efficacy of baptism to save. Of course it is not the case that all Paedobaptists now take this view, though Roman Catholics and some others still do so.

The Significance of Baptism.

      The Lord appointed the ordinance of baptism; therefore it is wise and good. He has been pleased to reveal to us something at least of its design; he has attached some promises to it, and has shown us some of its consequences. It must continually be borne in mind that the promises and blessings are not attached to baptism alone; faith and repentance are ever prerequisites. Nor is there any magical efficacy in the waters of baptism, or any merit in the believer's action in being baptised. The Lord has been gracious enough to promise certain blessings to the obedient believer. It is our privilege to thankfully accept these, and to pass along the promises to others by faithful proclamation of the Saviour's word. It is not ours either to promise blessings where he has not promised them, or to judge men who, ignorant of the New Testament teaching, yet live up to the light they have. We are now engaged in finding out what God has said.

      "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). The baptism in the name of Jesus Christ of a penitent believer is "unto the remission of sin"; the gift of the Holy Spirit is promised to such an obedient one (Acts 2:38). Men are said to be baptised "into Christ," in whom all God's promises are, "in whom we have our redemption." This baptism into Christ is not opposed to our belief into Christ (see lesson on Faith). Paul recognised that the doctrine of baptism into Christ was compatible with and indeed explanatory of our sonship through faith: "Ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptised into Christ did put on Christ" (Gal. 3:26, 27). We are baptised into Christ's death (Rom. 6:3); when we remember that his death procured our redemption, the significance of baptism if we are

"baptised into his death" is obvious. We are baptised into Christ's church or body (1 Cor. 12:13; cf. Col. 1:18). We are baptised "into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19), or "into the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:5). To come into the name means at least to come into a new relationship with him whose name it is The following words of Bishop B. F. Westcott, one of the greatest men engaged on the revision of our English New Testament are noteworthy here: "Am I wrong in saying that he who has mastered the meaning of the two prepositions into the name (for in the name in the baptismal formula, Matt. 28:19) and in Christ has found the central truth of Christianity? Certainly I would have gladly given the ten years of my life spent in the Revision to bring only these two phrases of the New Testament to the heart of Englishmen."

      Notice, in closing this study, one great text which covers action, subject, and design of baptism, and at the same time suggests a possible reason why the Lord chose immersion rather than sprinkling or pouring as the initiatory rite. The Apostle Paul wrote: "We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein? Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death' We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:2-4)

      Paul here in beautiful fashion shows the connection between God s appointed ordinance of baptism and the great facts of the gospel. He had said (1 Cor. 15:1-4) that these great gospel facts were the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Here he shows that God has ordained that the sinner seeking salvation must in baptism proclaim these facts, his experience must be one of death, burial and resurrection. See what the passage teaches: (a) Of the action of baptism. It is a burial; the baptismal waters constitute a grave. There is a covering over. This is in favour of immersion, and against sprinkling or pouring. (b) Of the subjects of baptism. It was the dead Christ who was buried. It is only one who has "died to sin" who can be scripturally buried. First dead, then buried--that is the proper order. It is a terrible thing in the natural world to have one buried who is not really dead. It is a worse thing when one is buried in baptism who has not died to sin. Faith and repentance are both implied here. Note that this is at once out of harmony with infant baptism and with the baptism of an unbelieving or impenitent man. The man of eighty years is not by reason of age more qualified than the babe of eight days. We plead not for adult, hut for believer's baptism. Only he who has died to sin is ready to be buried with Christ.

      (c) As to the significance of baptism. It is "into Christ" and "into his death"; therefore of great importance. But more, after burial comes resurrection. A dead Christ alone--a buried Christ alone--could not have saved. He was raised for our justification (Rom. 4:25) But for his resurrection our faith justification were vain (1 Cor. 15:14) As truly, will burial in baptism be quite fruitless unless it is followed by a rising to walk in newness of life. This rising to a new life is essential to Scriptural baptism, for Paul says: "Buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him" (Col. 2:12; cf. Col. 3:1). We learn the efficacy of baptism: We "died with Christ" (Col. 2:30; Rom. 6:8), ace "buried with him" and are "raised with him." "With Christ" and "into Christ"--these are great phrases to consider in connection with the import of baptism.

      It ought to be clear that the appointment of immersion was not an arbitrary thing. Coneybeare and Howson, the well known Church of England writers already quoted, say: "Baptism was (unless in exceptional cases) administered by immersion the convert being plunged beneath the surface of the water to represent his death to the life of sin, and then raised from this momentary burial to represent his resurrection to the life of righteousness. It must, be a matter of regret that the general discontinuance of this original form of baptism (though perhaps necessary in our northern climates) has rendered obscure to popular apprehension some very important passages in Scripture."

      We altogether disagree with the parenthetical words in the above, but the writers' words are otherwise noteworthy. Would it not be well for all just to do what God would have them do, and even if they could not see, yet trust the Divine wisdom? He wishes all to become "obedient from the heart to that form of teaching" delivered by him (Rom. 14:17).

      1. What does the story of Jesus' baptism teach as to the action of baptism?

      2. Give two passages showing what act was performed in.

      3. Name any commands you can find for (a) immersion, (b) sprinkling.

      4. What does. Christ's baptism of suffering teach as to the action of baptism?

      5. Who may scripturally be baptised?

      6. Mention three texts implying that believers only may be baptised.

      7. Were there any infants among the three thousand baptised after Peter's sermon recorded in Acts 2?

      8. Some quote the household baptisms in the New Testament to prove sprinkling. Examine the validity of this.

      9. What promises are attached to baptism?

      10. Are there promises attached to baptism alone? If not what is presupposed?

      11. How does a man get "into Christ"?

      12. Show the value of the teaching of Rom. 6:3, 4, as to the action, subjects and import of baptism.

      WHEN we begin to speak of "the church," it is desirable that we state clearly what we mean. What church is it whose establishment and membership, whose worship and ministry, we study. No human institution is worthy of such a prolonged notice in our Bible Schools. "The church" is not a human institution. We speak of the church of Jesus Christ (for he spoke of it as "my church," Matt. 16:18); "the church of God" (Acts 20:28; Gal. 1:13; 1 Tim. 3:5, 15); the church which Christ loved and for which he gave himself (Eph. 5:25), the church which is his body, of which he is the head (Col. 1 18; Eph. 5:23). These passages imply, as our very title "the church" does, that there is only one church. So Paul could say, "There is . . . one body" (Eph. 4:4). While we may scripturally speak of the church as a collective whole, including in it all God's redeemed ones on earth, yet it is clear that the New Testament speaks of local congregations of Christians as "churches." "The churches had rest" (Acts 9:31); we read of "the churches of the Gentiles" (Rom. 16:4), "the churches of Judaea which were in Christ" (Gal.1:22), "the church of God which is at Corinth" (1 Cor. 1:2), "the church of the Thessalonians" (1 Thess. 1:1), "the churches" of Galatia (Gal. 1:2), Macedonia (2 Cor. 8:1), Asia (1 Cor. 16:19). This division of churches is a territorial one; all were churches of God, or churches of Christ.

      Our word "church" is a translation of the Greek word ecclesia, which was a word well known to all Greek-speaking people. In Athens the citizens all met in a public assembly, or ecclesia, to discuss and decide matters concerning the State. In the Greek version of the Old Testament Scriptures (a version

current in apostolic days) the word is used of the children of Israel as assembled (Deut. 31:30; Judges 21:8; 1 Chron. 29:1, etc.). It is used in this sense in the New Testament (Acts 7:38; Heb. 2:12). The word is also applied to the excited gathering of Ephesian citizens who were in a rage with the preachers of the gospel of Christ (Acts 19:39, 41). We see then that to belong to an ecclesia is not in itself of much importance. That we should belong to the ecclesia the called-out people, of God or of Christ--that is a matter of transcendent importance, a token of highest privilege.

Establishment of the Church.

      The church was established by Jesus Christ who bought it with his blood, who gave himself for it, whose name it wears. Our Lord said, "On this rock I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18). This passage is an exceedingly significant one. It tells us of the church's author and its foundation, and it helps to fix the date of its establishment. The rock, as we have seen was the great basal truth of his Messiahship and Divine Sonship. The words, "I will build," tell us:--(a) of the Founder of the church. Christ bunt it, using in this the instrumentality of his apostles; (b) that the church was not yet built when Jesus used these words. He could never say, "I will build," if the church were already in existence. Some speak of the church as existing in the time of Abraham. Jesus' church was built after the words of Matt. 16:18 were spoken.

      The church was established at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, about ten days after Christ's ascension into heaven. We have the record in Acts 2. Before this, we have no mention of the church as in existence. After this we have repeated mention The first time the word is employed of the Christian community as an existing thing is in Acts 5:11 (cf. Acts 2:47 A. V. and R. V.). There it is referred to as previously established thereafter we have repeated mention in Acts and the Epistles. Pentecost was afterwards known as "the beginning" time (see Acts 11:15).

      In this establishment, we may notice that we have the divinely appointed place. It had been foretold, seven centuries before: "In the latter days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall he established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills, and peoples shall flow into it. And many nations shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways and we will walk in his paths, for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem" (Micah 4:1, 2; cf. Isa. 2:2-4).

      Jesus had definitely said that the gospel should he first proclaimed in Jerusalem (Luke 24:47). It was fitting that he should first he declared King and risen Christ in the place where he had been condemned for his Messianic claim. It was fitting, too, that the church, the instrument of the propagation of that gospel, should be established there,

      We have the divinely appointed time--the "latter days" spoken of by Isaiah. The Jews held that Pentecost commemorated the giving of the law at Sinai. The new law certainly went forth on this day. It was, above all, the appointed time, in that Jesus had told his disciples to wait till they were endued with power from on high (Luke 24:49).

      The fulfilment of Jesus' promise of power came on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4); so we get divinely appointed and qualified men as the Lord's instruments in the establishment of the church. These were the apostles. Jesus had said of them, "Ye shall he my witnesses" (Acts 1:8); "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me" (Matt. 10:40). The Saviour's promise to his apostles of the Holy Spirit who should teach them all things and bring all things to their remembrance (John 14:26) was fulfilled on Pentecost. The apostles were fined with the Spirit (Acts 2:4). Peter, speaking by inspiration of that Spirit, was privileged to deliver the first gospel sermon, and three thousand were added. We have dwelt on these appointments of the Lord simply to show that we may implicitly accept and follow what was done by these men so splendidly qualified. When we seek the church and its benefits, we wish to he beyond danger of error. We may rely on the teaching and practice of the apostles in the matter of church membership, its conditions and privileges. Men might err, but the guiding Holy Spirit will lead aright, and these men spoke as the Spirit instructed them.

      After seeking to answer the questions, Founded by whom? where? when? we may ask, Why did the Lord Jesus establish a church? That he did so is a proof of the necessity of the church for our spiritual welfare. He knew that his children would he helped by common worship, by meeting together to present their united petitions to God, by exhorting and encouraging one another. There was much to he gained by having a community of such, each bound to help the other. The church was also established for the good of the world. Union always means strength, a church of a hundred members can do more than one hundred separate Christians will do. The unity of purpose and of effort in the church is one of the best ways to impress the world. Its worship proclaims the Lord's death till he come (1 Cor. 11:26). The church, the apostle tens us in a

magnificent passage, stands as an object lesson to the celestial beings: "To the intent that now unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God" (Eph. 3:10) The church, briefly, exists for the glory of God, the good of its members, the benefit of the world. We cannot neglect it, or withhold ourselves from its membership and worship, and at the same time please God or ourselves get the good he intends us to receive.

Membership.

      If, as we believe, all who accept the salvation provided by Jesus Christ, all obedient believers are members of his church we have already answered the question of membership in our lessons on "Faith," "Repentance and Confession" and "Baptism." We need not repeat what we said there, but there lessons may be referred to.

      Since in Acts 2 we have the record of the church's establishment, we would naturally expect the conditions of membership to be given there. Verse 47 gives us, a suggestive word regarding church additions: "The Lord added to them day by day those that were being saved." We learn several things here: The Lord, not man, adds folk to his church. None are in it save the Lord's additions. One may plant, another may water, but God alone gives the increase (1 Cor. 3:6). Since it is the Lord's church of which we wish to be members, and since he has not revealed to us that he has changed the conditions of entrance, it will be profitable to see whom he added of old. He added "those that were being saved." Who were these? A reading of Acts 2:37-41 will tell us something Three thousand who believed, who gladly heard the apostles; word, repented, and were baptised, were "added." These were the Lords additions. These accepted the conditions which we uniformly find in the New Testament.

      We may look at the matter from a different view-point. The church is the body of Christ (Col. 1:18). The Corinthians were members of that body (1 Cor. 12:27) Acts 18:8 tells us that "many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptised." The Epistle to the Corinthians witnesses to the same effect. The Corinthians received and believed the great facts of the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4); they were "baptised into one body" (12:13). There is perfect harmony here with the conditions of membership given in Acts 2. There is a similar agreement in the experience of the members of "the churches of Galatia" (Gal. 1:2): they were "justified by faith"; were "sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus," having been "baptised into Christ" (Gal. 3:24-27). The letters

to the Colossians and the Romans are in accord (Rom. 6:3; 4; Col. 2:12).

      We could arrive at a similar result in another way. If the church is the body of which Christ is the Head, we would expect that men become attached to the body and to the Head in the same way. We find that it is so. Paul speaks of "the churches of Judaea which were in Christ" (Gal. 1:22), just as he repeatedly addresses Christians as "in Christ." We have seen already that the Scriptures speak of men believing into Christ, and being baptised into Christ. The Galatian letter itself is decisive (3:26, 27).

      If we agree that in denotation the kingdom of God, in so far as it is manifested in visible form on earth, corresponds to the church--and we have at least a definite apostolic statement that Christians have been delivered out of the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of the Son of his love (Col. 1:13)--we have another simple line of proof. The Saviour gave us the terms of entrance into the kingdom. "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). In this new birth we have implied the belief (cf. 1 John 5:1), repentance and baptism, which are given as terms of admission to the church. Some to-day deny that "born of water" refers to baptism, I believe the denial has been made through stress of controversy. A. Plummer, in the article on "Baptism" in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, says that "until Calvin's day" it "had universally been interpreted as referring to baptism. Wesley's "Notes" so refer to it. The Church of England "Book of Common Prayer" has this interpretation in its "Order of Baptism. ' The writer's copy of the Westminster "Confession of Faith" has John 3:5 quoted as a proof text in the chapter "Of Baptism." The correspondence of John 3:3, 5 with Titus 3:5; and indeed with Rom. 6:3, 4, will be noted by the careful reader.

      This is sufficient treatment of the question, How do we become members of the church? It is not disputed that the penitent baptised believer is eligible for admission to the church. But another, and most important question lies before us, What of continuance in the church of God? It must constantly be remembered that initiation into the church is not enough. It is good to come into Christ. It is better to continue to abide in Christ. We have Jesus' own exhortation to this (John 15:4, 6, 7). The Apostle John repeated the injunction (1 John 2:27, 28). How shall we do this? The answer is that just as we came into Christ by initial obedience to his commands, so we continue to abide in him by continuing to keep his commandments (John 15:10). Christians are saved persons (Eph. 2:8);

yet from another viewpoint our salvation is nearer to us than when we first believed (Rom. 13:11). We are not yet eternally saved; "He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved" (Matt. 10:22). Christians have been "translated into the kingdom of the Son of his love" (Col. 1:13), but yet "the entrance into the eternal kingdom" lies before us; and to get this entrance we must in faith supply virtue, and in virtue knowledge, and in knowledge self-control, and in self-control patience, and in patience, godliness, and in godliness love of the brethren, and in love of the brethren love (2 Peter 1:5-11). As members of the church, we have been called out (for so the word ecclesia signifies), but we have now to give diligence to make our calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:10).

      The names by which members of the church are known in the New Testament are significant of the Lord's requirements. If they are "Christians" (1 Peter 4:6), they must glorify God in the name, it must from their lives be manifest that they are Christ's ones (cf. Acts 4:13). If they are "disciples" (Acts 9:1), they must continue to be true to their name and be learners of Christ who is meek and lowly in heart (Matt. 11:29), and must grow in knowledge (1 Peter 3:18). If they are "brethren" (Acts 9:30) they must "love the brotherhood" (1 Peter 2:17), they must not set their brethren at nought (Rom. 14:10), or do wrong to and defraud their brethren (1 Cor. 6:8). They who are "obedient to the faith" (Acts 6:7) must continue faithful: "Be thou faithful unto death, and I win five thee the crown of life" (Rev. 2:10). It is not enough that a man be "born anew" (John 3:5), he must "walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:4). It is not enough that one "put on Christ" in baptism (Gal. 3:27); he must as a Christian put on Christ, wearing him daily, as it were, as he would wear a beautiful garment, which others may behold and admire (Rom. 13:14). All Christians are called "saints" (Rom. 1:7); but the name should not merely be a technical one: all should be "holy and without blemish and unreprovable" (Col. 1:22), holy in all manner of living as he which called them is holy (1 Peter 1:15, 16). Let it not be thought that holiness of life is merely advisable, without being necessary. Jesus taught that fruit-bearing was a condition and test of discipleship (Matt. 7:16-20; John 15:8). Men of disorderly life are withdrawn from (2 Thess. 3:6:1 Tim. 6:5). The church of God, both for its own good and in order that the sinner may be brought to repentance must have no company with men of wicked life (1 Cor. 5:;1), or with false teachers, so as to condone their errors (2 John 10, 11). To have Christ, men must abide in the teaching (2 John 9).

      This continuance in good works this abiding in Christ, is obviously as important as the first acceptance of Christ. We can never too constantly affirm the need of holy living (Titus 3:8). We must make it clear that he who becomes a Christian is a babe in Christ (1 Cor. 3:1), the Christian life is begun, not finished. Constant prayer for help and guidance, feeding on the sincere milk of the word (1 Peter 2:2), attendance on the means of grace found in the divinely appointed worship meetings of the church--these are requisite for growth in grace and knowledge. It is not the Lord's will that we should always be children; he would that we all should "attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ (Eph. 4:13).

      There are two texts which surely are peculiarly appropriate at the close of this study. The first is, "These things write I unto thee . . . that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 1:14, 15). The second is the most glorious passage which the Bible contains concerning the church: "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify its having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:25-27). What a price, cleansing, and destiny!

      1. What is the meaning of the word "church"?

      2. Name some of the uses of the word "church" or "churches" in the New Testament. Comment on the significance of these.

      3. When was the church established?

      4. What does Matt. 16:18 tell us of the church's establishment?

      5. By whom was the church established?

      6. Of what use is the church?

      7. Who are members of the church?

      8. State the conditions of entrance into the church as implied or stated in Acts 2.

      9. Show from the Scriptures that something more is required than becoming a member of the church.

      10. Give and comment on the meaning of some of the titles applied in the New Testament to Christians as individuals.

      11. How do we (a) abide in Christ; (b) grow in grace?

      12. Why did Jesus give himself for the church?

WORSHIP.

      "WORSHIP" was formerly used equally of honor shown to men and of adoration and reverence of God. The word is a contraction of worthship (from Anglo-Saxon weorth "worth," with the suffix schipe, English ship, akin to shape). In the earlier translations of the Bible, we have instances of this wider use of the word, e. g., Wyclif had: "Worschipe thi fadir and thi moder: and thou shalt love thi neighbore as thi self" (Matt. 19:19). "Worship" in the Common Version appears as the translation of several Greek words. It is used of the deference or respect which man may fitly give to man; so in Luke 14:10, A. V., "Then shalt thou have worship doxa, (R. V. 'glory') in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee." Two verbs, proskuneo and latreuo, are often found, both being translated "worship." The former may several times be used in the New Testament in the sense of adoration or of prostration before a person, with out any implication of paying divine honor (cf. Matt. 9:18; Acts 10:25, etc.). It has to be noted though that in Acts 10:26; Peter replied to Cornelius, "Rise up, I am also a man"; and we frequently have the word used of honor and adoration of the Divine Being (Matt. 4:10; John 4:23, 24; Rev. 22:9, etc.). "Latreuo" (from latris, a workman for hire or hired servant) has the various meanings of to work for hire or pay, to he subject or devoted to, to serve with religious observances; this word is used in the New Testament in the following places among others: Matt. 4:10; Rom. 1:9; Phil. 3:3; Heb.9:9; 10:2; 13:10. We now generally use "worship"

with reference to God. It is of course in this sense that it is used in this article.

      Worship of God is both a privilege and a duty. God grants to his children a token of highest favor when he encourages them to come before him with praise and adoration. It is a privilege reserved for his children. They should ever be grateful for the opportunity of worship, private or public. So much should they have the sense of privilege that there should be no need to emphasise the thought of duty; but unfortunately we are at times slow to respond to the loftier call of privilege, and so need to be reminded of the fact that God expects and requires us to give him worship. This worship is at once for his glory and for his children's good.

      The Lord Jesus Christ laid down in clear terms the conditions of acceptable worship. He said to the woman of Samaria: "God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth" (John 4:24). The Father seeks alone "true worshippers, and these worship "in spirit and truth" (John 4:23). (a) Worship must be "in spirit," i. e., not merely formal, not with outward observance alone, but inwardly, "with true inward reverence." We can conceive of people being scrupulously exact with regard to times, and places, and acts, and yet having their heart far from right. (b) Worship must, says Jesus, be "in truth." This means more than sincerity, which is rather included in "in spirit." It may mean "in accordance with the nature of God and our true relations with him as at once Spirit and Father." But we should say that it expresses also the idea that worship "must be in harmony with the truth of God. Just as the first phrase, "in spirit," implies that even the doing of the acts required of God is of no profit if the heart be not in the service so this second requirement, "in truth," tells us that it is not enough to be sincere. Men are often sincerely wrong; it were well that they were sincerely right. God never left it to men to decide how they should approach him, what acts of worship they should perform. He gave in the Old Covenant detailed legislation. In the New Testament we can see his will for us. Men should seek the Lord, now as of old, after the due order (1 Chron. 15:13). From Paul we gather that it is our duty to "hold fast the traditions," as the apostles delivered them (1 Cor. 11:2). (c) Another Scripture shows the need of regarding the teaching of God if we would worship him acceptably. The Lord Jesus declared of the Pharisees that Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled in them: "In vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men" (Matt. 15:9). On this verse J. W. McGarvey says:

"So far as a man's worship of God is the result of human authority, it springs from an improper source, and is vain. Every human addition to the commandments of God, so far as it induces any worship at all, induces vain worship; and there is probably not one such addition which does not, to a greater or less degree, make some commandment void." (d) There is a word of the Apostle Paul which is noteworthy here; he speaks of "will-worship" (Col. 2:23). As Jeremy Taylor puts it, "He that says, God is rightly worshipped by any act or ceremony concerning which himself hath no way expressed his pleasure, is superstitious, or a w-worshipper." (e) We are warned against performing our religious exercises, or acts of ostensible worship, with a desire to get glory of men. Jesus tells us the passing glory thus obtained is all the profit, for assuredly we shall get no reward of God (Matt. 6:5, 6). This is implicitly condemned in the requirement of worship " in spirit." (f) Yet we must not think that our attitude in worship is so exclusively directed Godwards that our relation to man does not enter into the matter at all. Jesus has told us that our forgiveness of those who do us wrong is a condition of God's hearing our prayer for pardon (Matt. 6:14, 15), and that if our brother has aught against us, we must seek to be reconciled to him ere we approach God in worship (Matt. 5:23, 24). These passages imply, what is really assumed throughout, that worship is a privilege given to those who are serving God and seeking to live as he would have them.

      Worship of God may be either public or private. In our ordinary devotions we worship him. With due reverence and adoration we worship him when we offer our daily prayers when we read his Word, and when we offer him our service. The principles stated above will apply to both kinds. In what follows, we deal with public worship.

      The New Testament makes it clear that it was the custom of the early Christians to meet together for worship on the first day of the week. This day was called "the Lord's day." Only in one place in the New Testament do we find it so called (Rev. 1:10). We can easily see why the first day should thus be honored with the title of "Lord's day." On it the Lord Jesus rose triumphant from the grave declared to be the Son of God with power by that resurrection (Rom. 1:4); on it he appeared first to his disciples (John 20:19); on it, after a week's interval, he made his second appearance to the disciples (John 20:6) he sent the Spirit to the Apostles on this day (Acts 2:1-i; cf. Lev. 23:15, 16), the first proclamation of the exaltation and Lordship of the risen Christ was made on the first day; on it the first gospel sermon

was preached, on it the church of Christ was established (Acts 2). We have distinct mention of the Christians meeting for worship on that day (see Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1, 2). We find that it was so, too, in the age immediately after the apostles. The "Didache" (100 to 120 A. D.) refers to the stated breaking of bread on the Lord's day. Justin Martyr in his "Apology" (c. 120 A. D.) records that on the day called Sunday the Christians held a religious service; he tells of the sermon, the reading of the writings of apostles and prophets, the common prayers, and the taking of bread and wine.

      We have a most instructive passage in Acts 2:42. Though we have no authority for saying that this verse purports to tell the order of service at the stated meetings of the church, yet it does deal with things which enter into the worship service and things which with significant emphasis it says the early Christians "continued steadfastly in." The Christian or the church which wishes to follow Bible example will not disregard that to which men following apostolic instructions steadfastly attend. We have here reference to the teaching, the fellowship, the breaking of the bread, and the prayers. There is not room or necessity for much more than an enumeration of the things which indisputably found a place in the early Christian's meeting for worship on the Lord's day.

      Prayer.--The Lord Jesus taught its necessity and helpfulness by precept (Matt. 6:9; Luke 18:1), and by example (Luke 3:21; 6:12; 9:18, 28, 29). He spoke of secret prayer (Matt. 6:6), but attached a special promise to united prayer (Matt. 18:19, 20). We find prayers in the church's worship, see 1 Cor. 14:14,15), which also gives the two-fold character of true prayer--"with the spirit" and "with the understanding." At the close of the prayer, the congregation said "Amen" ("so be it"), indicating that all accepted the petition as theirs and wished it to be answered (1 Cor. 14:16). Prayer was generally offered to God the Father (Eph. 3:14) in the name of the Lord Jesus, in harmony with the Saviour's words (John 16:23, 24); but Sometimes petitions were addresses to the Lord Jesus (Acts 7:59, 60; cf. John 14:13, 14, R. V.).

      Praise.--This may have been both by individual utterance (1 Cor. 14:26) and sung in common. The Lord Jesus and his disciples, the night on which the Supper was instituted, sang a hymn (Matt. 26:30). Hymns, like prayers, were to come from the heart, and were to be intelligently sung (1 Cor. 14:15); so tunes were not of sole importance. Psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs were sung "to God," though they also helped in the comfort and edification of men (Col. 3:16).

      Teaching.--Instruction was doubtless given (a) through

the reading of the Old Testament Scriptures (as was the case n synagogue worship, Acts 13:5). Paul, too, clearly expected his Epistles to be read to the church (1 Thess. 5:27; Col. 4:16). (b) Oral instruction was also given. The apostles taught (Acts 20:20; 2 Thess. 2:15). Some others had the gift of inspired speech or prophecy (1 Cor. 14:3, 4). The gift of prophecy was possessed by women (1 Cor. 11:5), yet women did not teach in the church (1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:12). Some excelled in comforting or exhorting, as Barnabas, the "Son of Exhortation" (Acts 11:23). The supreme rule of public speech was that all must be done to edification (1 Cor. 14:26). There was neither a "one-man ministry" nor a license, miscalled liberty, which made public utterance depend on a sex-qualification alone. All must "edify," and that implies both character and ability.

      Contributions.--It may be that "the fellowship" of Acts 2:42 has reference to fellowship in the matter of giving and receiving. We know that the giving of one's material substance is a way of honoring God and a method of worshipping him (Heb. 13:16; 1 Cor. 16:1, 2). One of the needs of the day is a restoration of the conviction that giving is an act of worship.

      The Lord's Supper.--The night before his suffering the Lord Jesus instituted a memorial feast. He requested or commanded that his disciples should break the bread and drink the cup in remembrance of him (Luke 22:19, 20). It was in loving obedience to this wish that the early church "continued steadfastly in . . . the breaking of the bread" (Acts 2:42). Acts 20:7 furnishes the requisite testimony for the day and frequency of its observance. For long after the apostolic age the Christians met every first day of the week (cf. the references previously made to the "Didache" and to Justin Martyr). Acts 20:7 also shows the central purpose of the gathering; the disciples came together to break the bread. They did other things; for instance, they listened until midnight to Paul; but they are not said to have come to hear Paul, but to "break bread." So constant was the custom of weekly celebration, and so central an act of worship was the breaking of bread in remembrance of the Saviour in sub-apostolic days, that Chrysostom (died 407 A. D.) called the first day of the week dies panes, or "the day of bread." The evangelists' accounts of the institution (Matt. 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:14-23) and the references in 1 Cor 10:14-22 and 11:23-30, should be carefully studied. We have there set forth the purpose of the feast. It is a feast of commemoration. The Saviour's body and blood are symbolised

by the bread and wine. It is a communion. It is a pledge of brotherly love It is a sign of unity (1 Cor. 10:17). It is a means of preaching the gospel (1 Cor. 11:26)

      If we remember that our Lord and our loving Saviour, who knew our frame, our needs, and our weaknesses, instituted the worship of the church for our good, we shall see to it that we never neglect the means of grace, the spiritual food he has provided. We require constant and regular food and help. The injunction to forsake not the assembling of ourselves together (Heb. 10:25) is as pertinent now as it ever was.

MINISTRY.

      In the widest sense the ministers of the church are all who in any way serve the church, for the word "minister" means "servant." All service of God or his church is honorable and blessed. We should find our highest joy in the imitation of Christ, who came to minister (Matt. 20:28). Who was in the midst of his disciples as One that served (Luke 22:27). The Lord Jesus has told us that the way to greatness is the way of service. He who is great, serves; he who is greatest is bondservant of all (Mark 10:43, 44). "Divine service" is a term whose widest use is rare. It is service we celebrate when we come together and worship in the manner specified above; but it is also divine service when in any way we try to serve Christ. "Whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Col. 3:17).

      But we also rightly use the word "ministry" in a more limited sense. It is clear from the New Testament that special duties devolved upon appointed persons. The Lord's work is varied in character, and, as was fitting and orderly, a division of labor was made. There was no special ministerial class or caste. There was not for many years after the apostolic age anything like the modern distinction between clergy and laity. Above all, it must be noted that there was no sacerdotal class, claiming to have exclusive right to exercise priestly functions. This idea was derived from the priesthood of the Old Testament, and was illegitimately transferred to the New. All Christians are priests unto God, and offer up spiritual sacrifices (1 Peter 2:5, 9). Jesus Christ himself is now our sole Priest in a sense other than that belonging to all Christians; he is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5). The pretensions of modern sacerdotalism are false, unscriptural and even blasphemous in that they transgress on the prerogatives of our Lord.

      The ministry of the church is often divided into two

classes: Extraordinary, including apostles and prophets. Ordinary, of which the chief subdivisions are evangelists, elders and deacons. It cannot be said that these classes were necessarily exclusive; e. g., Peter was both an apostle and an elder (1 Peter 1:1; 5:1).

      Apostles.--The word "apostle" means "messenger," "envoy," "one sent." We have the word specially used (a) of Christ himself (Heb. 3:1). Jesus, we know, was "sent" from God (John 3:16): (b) the twelve apostles chosen by Jesus from the company of his disciples--Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot (Matt. 10:2-4). Judas betrayed Jesus and committed suicide (Matt. 27:5). To fill the vacancy, Matthias was appointed, and "was numbered with the eleven apostles" (Acts 1:15-26). Later, Saul of Tarsus had a special call from the risen Christ to be his apostle (Acts 26:14-18); he was as one born out of due time (1 Cor. 15:8). (c) We have others called apostles e. g., Barnabas, who is so named in conjunction with Paul (Acts 14:14; cf. Phil. 2:25; 2 Cor. 8:23). These may have been so called because they were "sent forth" by the churches.

      We have chiefly to notice the apostles of Christ. They were chosen to be the instruments of founding and guiding the affairs of the church. We notice that they were specially qualified for this great work. (a) They had all personal knowledge of Christ, and could give direct witness of what they had seen and heard. (See John 15:27; Acts 1:21, 22; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8). (b) They were chosen by Christ himself (Matt. 10:1-5; Acts 1:24; 9:15; 22:14). (c) They were inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that their words came with all the force of the word of God. Apostolic authority depended on this. To hear the apostles is to hear Christ; to reject their word is to reject him (Luke 10:16; Matt. 16:19; cf. John 20:23). See our fourth lesson dealing with the Holy Spirit's work of inspiration, and with the baptism in the Spirit. John 16:13, 14, and 1 Cor. 2:6-16 may suffice for reference here. In our New Testament Scriptures we have the benefits of this inspiration. (d) The apostles had miraculous powers which helped to corroborate their testimony (Acts 2:43; 5:12; 14:9, 10, etc.). Because of the fact that we do not find men now who have the above qualifications, as well as the blessed truth that the New Testament gives us the teaching and guidance of the apostles, we do not believe in apostolic succession. There is no hint in the Bible of it. The apostles as such--from the very nature of the case, it is evident--had no successors.

      Prophets.--A prophet is a forth-teller, one who speaks on behalf of another or in another's name. In the Bible prophecy is used to denote inspired speech. We have the gift of prophecy as a miraculous endowment of the Spirit (Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 14). Prophets foretold events (Acts 11:27, 28); this was a consequence of their inspiration, and their prophesying was not confined to this. They exhorted and edified the church (Acts 15:32; 1 Cor. 14:1-4). The gift of prophecy was sometimes bestowed on women (Acts 21:9; 1 Cor. 11:5).

      We come now to what we believe to be the permanent ministry of the church.

      Evangelists.--The derivation of this word shows its meaning; an evangelist is a publisher of glad news or good tidings. The Greek word for "evangelist" occurs only three times in the New Testament (Acts 21:8; Eph. 4:11; 2 Tim. 4:5). The Greek word for "evangelise" occurs more than fifty times (see, e. g., Luke 1:19; 2:10; 8:1; Acts 13:32; 1 Thess. 3:6;

Rev.10:7). These passages show that evangelising was not the prerogative of a few members of the church, or a work from which others were excluded. Yet it is clear that some were so devoted to this work as to derive from it the distinctive name of "evangelist." Philip and Timothy were such. The function of the evangelist was to preach the gospel. The converts made through the preaching he would baptise and gather together, encouraging them to observe the things the Saviour commanded (Matt. 28:20) and to attend to the worship appointed for their spiritual good. He would naturally care for this congregation or church until elders and deacons were appointed. The evangelists of primitive times may generally have had some special endowment of the Spirit, some "spiritual gift"; and this has suggested to some that, since the miraculous endowments have ceased, therefore the office of evangelist itself has ceased. The reasoning is hardly cogent. The work of an evangelist is as necessary to-day as it ever was, and must be done: he who is devoted to it, who makes it his life's work to evangelise or proclaim the good news of the gospel, is an evangelist.

      We now notice some men whose office was a local one, whose work lay with the local congregation in a sense in which that of the apostles, prophets, and evangelists did not.

      Bishops or Elders.--The Greek word "bishop" (or "overseer") is found five times in the New Testament (Acts 20:28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:7; 1 Peter 2:25). The word for "elder" is much more frequently used, sometimes of the Jewish elders (Matt. 15:2; 26:57); sometimes of the elders in

      Revelation (4:4, 19:4, etc.), often a special body of men in the New Testament church (Acts 14:23; 20:17; 1 Tim. 5:1,17, 19; Tit. 1:5; Jas. 5:14). These two names "bishop" and "elder" were names of the same class of men, and did not apply to distinct offices; this may be seen from various Scriptures: (a) Phil. 1:1 addresses "bishops and deacons." An intermediate class of elders, had there been one, could hardly have been overlooked. (b) Acts 20:17, 28. The "elders" of verse 17 are the "bishops" of verse 28. (c) 1 Tim. 3:2-7 has for the "bishop" the qualifications laid down for "elders" in Tit. 1:6-9. These men were also called "pastors" or "shepherds" (Eph. 4:11), for they had to feed the flock of God; the verb, corresponding to the noun in Eph. 4:11, is used of the bishops in Acts 20:28 and of the elders in 1 Peter 5:2.

      We note that there were in the New Testament churches a number of elders. There was no such thing in apostolic days as a bishop with authority over a diocese containing many congregations; the one church had, instead, a plurality of bishops (see Acts 14:23; cf. Tit. 1:5). The former of these passages shows that it would be wrong to say that there cannot be a church after the New Testament pattern without an eldership; these, and the other Scriptures referred to, show, I think, that there cannot be a church fully and scripturally organised without an eldership.

      The qualifications of elders or bishops are very fully and explicitly laid down in 1 Tim. 3:2-7 and Tit. 1:6-9. The list of qualifications is an instructive one, if only from the point of view of showing what character a Christian man, a pattern to others, may be expected to have. A bishop or elder must be--blameless, husband of one wife, possessed of faithful children, a good ruler of his own house, vigilant, not self-willed, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, a lover of good men, just, holy, patient, temperate, not given to wine, not greedy of filthy lucre, not covetous, not soon angry, no striker, not a brawler, well reported of by folk who are not Christians, not a novice, holding fast the word, apt to teach. Since no mere man is perfect, it is obvious that these requirements must not be interpreted so absolutely as to make an eldership impossible.

      The duties of bishops are seen in the foregoing. They had charge of the spiritual affairs of the church. They watched over souls for whom they expected to give account to God. They ruled (1 Tim. 5:7), yet did not lord it over God's heritage (1 Peter 5:3). They taught (1 Tim. 3:2). These duties are permanent and the church's welfare depends on their being faithfully attended to.

      Deacons.--The word "deacon" means "servant," "waiter" or "minister." The Greek word diakonos is used in the New Testament of Christ (Rom. 15:8); the apostles (Matt. 20:26; 1 Cor. 3:5; 2 Cor. 3:6); evangelists (1 Tim. 4:6); any faithful servant of the Lord (John 12:26); magistrates (Rom. 13:4); waiters at feasts (Watt. 22:13; John 2:5, 9); an attendant (Luke 4:20); emissaries of Satan (2 Cor. 11:15). But the word was used in a special sense of men holding a particular office in the church (Phil. 1:1). Acts 6:1-7 and 1 Tim. 3:8-12 should be consulted as to the qualifications and work of these men. Apparently they had charge of the secular affairs of the church. They did not rule; that was the elders' work (1 Tim. 5:17), they were servants. Their work was honorable and important; not just any man could do it; the qualifications demand faithful men, spiritually minded, sound in the faith, an example in life to others. To serve the Lord or his church is an honor: "They that have served well as deacons gain to themselves & good standing, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 3:13).

      Deaconesses.--In Rom. 16:1 Phoebe is spoken of as a servant of the church which is at Cenchrae. The word used is diakonos, deaconess or servant. It is impossible to be certain that there was a special office of deaconess in the apostolic church, but Rom. 16:1, read in light of the obvious fact that women could fittingly and well minister to their own sex, makes it highly probable. The "women" of 1 Tim. 3:11 (R. V.) are by many thought to be deaconesses: we cannot definitely say so.

      Widows. Some include the widows of 1 Tim. 5:9-15 among the "deaconesses." The identification is possible, but is really gratuitous. That these "widows" were a special class rendering service and supported by the church, is practically certain. The qualification and age-limit forbid our reading the passage with reference to applicants for church membership or to recipients of pecuniary aid from the church.

      Helps and Governments are referred to in 1 Cor. 12:28 but it is impossible to prove that the apostle has in mind offices rather than functions. It may be, as Hort suggests, that "helps" are "anything that could be done for poor or weak or outcast brethren, either by rich or powerful or influential brethren, or by the devotions of those who stood on no such eminence," while "governments" refers to "men who by wise counsels did for the community what the steersman or pilot does for the ship." The Greek words for "helps" and "governments" are in the New Testament found in this passage only.

      1. What is meant by worship?

      2. What are the conditions of acceptable worship?

      3. Did the early church have any stated time for worship? Give Scriptural references illustrating answer.

      4. What acts of worship are expected of us?

      5. What is taught in the New Testament concerning our hymns of praise?

      6. Why was the Supper instituted? How often should Christians attend to it?

      7. Name the apostles. What do you know of the work and authority of the apostles of Christ?

      8. What are bishops, and what their duties?

      9. State the qualifications of an elder

      10. What are the qualifications and work of deacons?

      11. What did prophets do?

      12. What is meant by "evangelist"? What were the duties of evangelists?