formation principles to our congregations. We are very much of the opinion that they would hurry away to hide themselves again in the grave from very shame of their successors, to whom they had taught Reformation principles and committed them to their custody for exhibition and consistent and faithful application.

It was matter of surprise to many members of Synod who were not so familiar as some others are with the drift of the times, that there should have been such open and proclaimed opposition, and even hostility, to the faith and practice of the church on this question. What happened in Synod was bad enough, but it has been very much aggravated by the partial and one-sided view of the Christian Statesman in its report, or rather pretended report of Synod's proceedings in the matter. The impression created by it is simply a caricature of the real facts of the case. The writer is in receipt of letters from distant points, expressing astonishment that there should have been so many bold assailants of the faith and order of the church, and so few to appear in their defence. Naturally enough they gathered from the Statesman's account that it was very much a one-sided affair, and that, too, the latitudinarian side, while the truth of the case is that the assaults were met and effectively repelled by such ministers as Drs. Sproull, Milligan and George, Mr. McKee, Mr. Wilkin and others, and by such elders as Dr. Sterrett, of the Pittsburgh congregation. As for the attempt to create the impression that the report of the committee was a concession, more or less, to the opposite sentiment and feeling, we would say, without professing to know what the mind of the committee may have been in the preparation of the report, that Synod in adopting it meant nothing of the kind. We may call it a "mild" statement, but it states the truth without abatement, viz., that the practice referred to is not lawful under our rules, and that there is no reason why the rules should be changed. "We see NO GOOD REASON for departing from existing usage," may be "mild," but it is certainly definite and covers the whole ground. Many reasons for doing so were given, but Synod failed to see one good one among them all, even among those so elaborately drawn out and advertised in the Statesman. We venture the remark here, that the Christian Statesman had a good deal better adhere to its proper work of National Reform, instead of employing its columns as a vehicle for circulating arguments which are designed to produce disaffection with and bring into disrepute the admitted faith and practice of the church upon whose patronage it is very largely dependent for its support. It will win neither sympathy nor friends among our people by such a course, for we have no idea that Covenanters are ready yet, by a long way, to discard their fifth term of communion, and disown the faithful contendings of the witnesses of Jesus as an example for themselves and posterity in contending against unscriptural constitutions in the church equally as in the state. In all the loose reasonings in favor of this very long stride in the direction of Catholic or open communion there appears a total forgetfulness of the Reformation doctrine that a chief "end of church fellowship is to exhibit a system of sound principles, and to maintain the ordinances of gospel worship in their purity."

The direct Scripture argument on the question could hardly be better put than is done by Dr. Sterrett, who, in a few sentences, exposes the utter weakness of the statement that there are no instructions on the subject in the Bible. But before the essential merits of the case come into the account, there is another phase of it which is entitled to consideration. There is not a pretence of denying that the faith of the Covenanting Church, as interpreted by her practice, is now and has been from the beginning inflexibly adverse to the new measure. This, as we understand it, is distinctly conceded. And have not all our ministers accepted as their own the declaration which the church has made of her faith? Have they not signed the Terms of Communion, and thereby assented to the documents named in them as a true expression of what the Scriptures teach on all the subjects to which they refer? What then becomes of the allegation that there is nothing in the Bible on the subject, when our subscription to the symbols of the church's faith is a declaration that there is, and that it is just what those symbols declare it to be. And this being the case, are not all bound in truth and honor to keep the peace by submission to the conditions of our voluntary covenant of church fellowship while they continue to be what they are? To pursue an opposite course is simply of the nature of a riotous proceeding, which seeks to gain its object in defiance of the recognized and established law and order of society. It is worse than disorderly; it is pursuing divisive courses, against which we are all engaged by our vows of ordination. The attempt to justify this lawless course on the ground that fellowship in the hearing of the word as preached by other ministers is not judicially dealt with by our ecclesiastical courts, is discreditably feeble. What if the one practice is the logical result of the other? Does that in any way justify and excuse it? Is it a sound principle in morals that because one thing is the logical result of another that therefore it is right? One wilful transgression of law always leads logically to another, and is the sequent therefore to be condoned and encouraged? A man steals a pin and is not arrested and punished for it, and may he therefore steal a horse and claim impunity from the charge and penalty of lawlessness? Christians desecrate the Lord's day by frivolous and secular conversation, and because they are not disciplined for doing so may they therefore become the patrons of the "Sunday" newspaper? The logical connection is just the same in all the cases; it is the logic by which evil doers are led to wax worse and worse. Herod beheaded James and because nobody made opposition to him, but all seemed rather pleased with what he had done, he proceeded in the line of true logical result to take Peter also, in order that he might deal with him in the same way. The principle involved in fellowship in hearing the word may be, as is said, the same as in surrendering our pulpits and with them our people to ministers of another faith than our own, but the formalities and circumstances and tendencies and results in the two cases are most essentially different. The latter is a step so far in advance of the former in the way of sacrificing the economical and vital usages of the church, that the moment in which it is taken it becomes imperative

upon her, as she values her integrity and distinctive life, to call a halt. And we do not hesitate to say that an argument of this kind looks to us very much out of place when it comes from those who are known to encourage the very violation of law and order which they urge in justification of another of a still grosser and more aggravated character. It would certainly have a better appearance and tend more to the peace and edification and effective usefulness of the church, if, instead of using one infraction of law to encourage and justify another we should endeavor to honor the law by personal obedience to it, and by our preaching, counsel and example to persuade and influence others in the same direction. And this all the rather since it is only four years ago that we joined by acquiescence in the judgment of Synod that ministers and elders hold in their hand, to a very large extent, the corrective for the same evil, which ministers are now urging in apology for another, which, it is said, springs logically from it.

Almost every question, however serious, has a comical side to it, and the comical side in this case is the statement to the effect that our recent act of covenanting calls upon us to throw open our pulpits to the official ministrations of other communions. If this be the case, then the worst that has been said of the covenant by the few people who have been disaffected with it is more than justified. But let us see if this be so. The appeal, as we understand, is to the fourth article of the covenant. We engage therein to pray and labor for the visible oneness of the church on a basis of scriptural order and by disseminating and applying the principles of truth professed in the covenant and set forth in the Confession and Catechisms and Testimony and Form and Directory, and all this, it is said, means that we are to open our pulpits to the ministrations of other ecclesiastical bodies-bodies which have departed from "the basis of scriptural order," and distinctly disavow the "application of the principles of truth professed in the covenant," if not the principles themselves, and by doing so pass into the sphere of schism and sinful separation. The absurdity of it would be amusing if it was not for the serious thought awakened by the apprehension that we have among us those who have affixed their signatures to a solemn religious deed without having given to it a careful and intelligent reading. And in about the same line of logical inconsequence is the idle talk which places an address to a Sabbath school on the same plane with officially preaching to a congregation, and argues that because Christian ministers from without address our Sabbath schools, therefore ministers from without, who neither believe nor practice in accordance with the system of doctrine and order which our own ministers are sacredly bound by vows of ordination to preach to our people, may assume to act as the official and ministerial guides of our congregations, and if they choose to give full expression to their convictions and beliefs pervert and destroy the faith to conserve which is one chief object for which we exist as a separate church. Addressing a Sabbath school is not a ministerial act and work at all, and may be done by any one, by an elder or member equally with a minister. It must be a weak cause indeed which requires such arguments as these for its

support, and weak advocates who employ them, and the reasons which justify it must be sparse when it is found necessary to levy upon such reasons as these.

We add as an expression of profound conviction that if the Reformed Presbyterian Church exists at all she must exist as she has hitherto done-a public witness against corrupt constitutions in both church and state, and refusing the fellowship of approval to the one the same as to the other. She has no right to exist unless she does so, for the reason that she is without a mission as a separate organization. Something has been said by those who are seeking to justify the new departure about all holding on to and being of one mind in regard to the great principles of the church, as if it was not as much a great principle of the Covenanting Church to maintain a position of dissent from an unscripturally organized church as from an unscripturally organized state. The principle which covers both cases is the same, and cease to apply it in the first instance and it will only be a question of time, and of short time, too, when the practice will assimilate on both points, or else history is a falsehood, and observation and experience in connection with both past and present are wholly unreliable guides.

S. O. WYLIE.

THE MODE OF BAPTISM.

"Were all baptized unto Moses, in the cloud and in the sea." 1 Cor. 10: 2. "To Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling." Heb. 12: 24.

AMONG the controversies which have shaken the whole framework of the Christian community, it may seem strange that so many of them have been about physical things, and matters of form and order. True it is, that the foundation doctrines have all in their turn elicited the keenest discussion; and equally true, that the most materialistic controversies have involved moral and spiritual results. Even the first public discussion within the church's pale was about circumcision—a merely physical operation; and one of the broadest which has occurred since, is not the, doctrine of baptism, but the mere quantum of water to be used.

One advantage of discussing a physical subject is this: it admits of no compromise; it forces a crisis. Either we must be circumcised, or there is no must in the case. Either we must go under water, or there is no must about it. So of questions of order: the church requires a government; that government must have a form; there cannot be three forms in the same community.

If the Baptist brethren had been less zealous, they might have fared better; had they admitted other modes to be valid, but not so good as theirs, they might long have worn the laurels. During the early years of my ministry, I would not have ventured to take the platform against an immersionist. Not that I ever doubted the propriety of sprinkling; nor yet that my teachers were negligent, or opportunities deficient for studying. I shall always remember the earnestness of a

ruling elder, who could have led me into all the nooks of the controversy. But I had a natural aversion to study it; my mind was revulsive and repellent to the logic of both sides alike. I did not then know the reason; and as the feeling, and its cause, have both been removed, I wish to leave behind me what I have gathered, for the benefit of all whom it may concern-theological students in particular.

I find sprinkling abundantly sustained by the following considerations:

1. The purifications of the former dispensation consisted largely in sprinkling-not one case of dipping among the " diverse washings" of Old Testament ritual, whether effected by water, or blood, or a mixture of both. In 1 John 5: 6, we have the connection of all these. "This is he that came by water and blood-Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood."

Ex. 24: 6, "Half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar."

8, "Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people."

Lev. 14: 7, "Sprinkle on the leper, and he shall be clean."

51, "Sprinkle the house seven times, * * and cleanse the house." Num. 8: 7, "Sprinkle water of purification upon them."

See also Ex. 29: 16, 20, 21; Lev. 1: 5, 11; 3: 2, 8, 13; 4: 6, 17;5:9; 8: 11, 19, 24; 9: 12, 18; 14: 16, 27; 16: 14, 15, 19; 17: 6. Num. 18: 17; 19: 4, 13, 19, 20, 21. 2 Kings 16: 13, 15. 2 Chr. 29: 22; 30: 16; 35: 11.

These various sprinklings, with the kindred operation of putting blood, and then oil, on the ear, hand, foot, &c., when all reckoned up, furnish between fifty and one hundred illustrations of purification by this mode. Bathing and other modes are also given; but not one case of the person being dipped by priest or Levite, or any one else. To dip, plunge, submerge by a second person, is used for all purposes except purification:

Job 9: 31, "Yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch."

Gen. 37: 31, "They dipped the coat in the blood" [Joseph's coat].

66

Ps. 68: 23, Thy foot may be dipped in the blood of enemies."

The priest dipped his own finger, but not the person. The bunch of hyssop was dipped, but not the man. The leper bathed his own flesh; one defiled by the dead must bathe himself; Naaman dipped himself in Jordan. Those who wish to find the various purposes for which dipping and submerging are used, will find them in the following places: Ex. 12: 22; 15: 4. Ex. 12: 22; 15: 4. Lev. 4: 6, 17; 9: 9; 11: 32; 14: 6, 16; 51: 15: 17: 15, 16. Num. 19: 18. Deut. 33: 24. Ruth 2: 14. Josh. 3: 15. 1 Sam. 14: 27. 2 Kings 5: 4; 8: 15. Ps. 69: 2, 14. Jer. 38:6. Dan. 4: 33; 5: 21. The bunch of hyssop, and other things, were dipped for the very purpose of sprinkling on the person. Where the man was dipped, for purifying, he dipped himself. If any choose to make Lev. 8: 6 an exception, they are welcome to all its advantages. That was no mere dipping, but was intended to remove the defilement of the body.

2. These ideas are carried forward into the New Testament. The type itself carries them forward; the prophecy carries them forward; the fulfilment of both carries them forward.