time; the polity of "confirmation," or arrival at a certain age; etc. The main point in our problem here is this; How shall we duly recognize the piety of our little children? Problem of" Moralist" Church Membership. Another problem confronts the church of to-day which did not confront the primitive church; it is the problem of unrecognized disciples, or Christian outsiders. In those initial days, when Christendom was still in its incipient stage, when creeds had not been formulated, when everybody was either a Jew or a pagan, the passage from Judaism and paganism to Christianity was a conscious, positive experience; he who had made the passage knew whether he had become a Christian or not; his acquaintances knew it also. But Christianity is now the recognized religion; it is in some sense "the law of the land"; it permeates our moral atmosphere; the better portion of the community cannot help breathing less or more of its health-inspiring oxygen. Moreover, definite theological creeds or dogmas have been added to the primeval faith dogmas often so precise and exacting that they fail to carry the intellectual consent of many real believers. Nevertheless, these very outsiders obey in their daily lives the mandates of our King; they are as conscientious, truthful, honest, generous as the most approved church members, and, were it needful, would die for their Lord. But, notwithstanding their Christian services and character, they have not joined our particular regiment; they do not march under our creedal flag. And so we call these good outsiders mere "moralists," declaring that they are trying to buy heaven with their own good works. The spirit of Elijah is still in the church; in this sense it is true that he has come again :

Know ye not what the Scripture says in Elijah; how he intercedes with God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, have digged down thine altars, and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what says the answer of God to him? I have left to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal. - Romans II:2-4.

Do not let us be guilty of the unfaith of the disciples in failing to recognize incipient Christians, saying with them, "There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest." Let the Lord of the field be our authority here:

Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and behold the fields, that they are already white for harvest.—John 4:35.

F

CHAPTER IV

MODERN PROBLEM OF BAPTISM

ANOTHER problem of the modern church is the problem of Baptism. And it is really a modern problem, less or more dividing Christendom.

Baptism no Problem to the Primitive Church. - Not that baptism was any problem to the primitive church. Το them the word baptize meant only one thing; "baptize" meant "immerse." Observe the question before us is not what baptism has come to mean in our day; the question before us is what did baptism mean nineteen hundred years ago? We have no right to inject a modern meaning into an ancient word, and then declare that the modern meaning is the same as the original meaning. Suppose English had been the language of Palestine in our King's time; what right would Christendom have to change the original "immerse " into the modern "sprinkle"? No, baptism was no problem to the primitive church.

Baptism a Modern Church Problem. — And here emerges a problem for the modern church: Has the modern church the right to change the primitive mode of baptism?

The Non-Baptist Answer. On the one hand, non-Baptists answer, "Yes." Much can be said on that side.

Let

me illustrate by a reference to the primitive custom of feetwashing. The story of our King's washing his disciples'

feet the last night he was on earth as a suffering man is so pathetic that I must transcribe it in full:

Christ's Washing his Disciples' Feet. - Knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he came forth from God, and was going to God, he rises from the supper, and lays aside his garments, and taking a towel he girded himself. Then he pours water into the basin, and began to wash the feet of his disciples, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded.

So he comes to Simon Peter; he says to him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said to him, What I am doing thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter says to him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Simon Peter says to him, Lord, not my feet only, but also the hands and the head. Jesus says to him, He that has bathed has no need except to wash the feet, but is wholly clean. And ye are clean; but not all. For he knew his betrayer; on

this account he said, Ye are not all clean.

So when he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, and reclined again at table, he said to them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me the Teacher, and the Lord; and ye say well, for so I am. If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I gave you an example, that as I did to you, ye also should do. Verily, verily, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his lord, nor one that is sent greater than he who sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them. —John 13:3-17.

Did our King then intend that feet-washing should be a permanent custom for his church? Observe the positiveness of his language:

If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I gave you an example, that as I did to you, ye also should do. — John 13:14, 15.

In like manner the apostle Paul, some thirty years afterward, in laying down the qualifications for a certain order of women in the ancient church, directs:

Let no one be enrolled as a widow under sixty years old, the wife of one husband, well reported of for good works, if she brought up children, if she lodged strangers, if she washed saints' feet, if she relieved afflicted ones, if she diligently followed every good work. 1 Timothy 5:9, 10.

All this looks as though our King meant that feet-washing should be one of the permanent customs of his church. Accordingly, there have been in every age of the church those who felt that Christ's example and words in the passover room should be followed literally; for instance, the Greek convents, the Anabaptists, the Mennonites, the Tunkers, etc.

Yet the great body of the church from the beginning has felt that our King did not mean feet-washing for a universal and abiding ordinance. And in thus feeling she has unconsciously illustrated the great principle of the right of judgment, or, to use a modern and much-abused term, the great principle of "rationalism," that is, reasoning. The church has exercised her right of reason in discriminating between what are called the "ordinances." For so far as the letter of Scripture goes, Feet-washing is as positive an "ordinance" as is Baptism or Supper; language could not be more explicit or decisive than his words in the guestchamber:

So when he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, and reclined again at table, he said to them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me the Teacher, and the Lord; and ye say well, for so I am. If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I gave you an example, that as I did to you, ye also should do. Verily, verily, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his lord, nor one that is sent greater than he who sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them. -John 13:12-17.