THE MUTUAL RELATION OF BAPTISM AND THE

COMMUNION.

THE question, "What is the mutual relation of the ordinances?" presupposes an answer to the question, "What are the ordinances?" The relation plainly depends upon the nature, unless it be wholly arbitrary and fixed solely by authority. It will be assumed that the views current among Baptists as to the nature of each ordinance separately are correct, and no proof will be adduced in support of those views, except incidentally, as such proof may help to bring into greater clearness the relation. And yet a word of explanation as to the nature of each ordinance seems to be required at the start. In each there is a prescribed external act. There is a definite something which is visible and outward. That is the only thing witnessed by a spectator. But that alone is no more the ordinance than the visible body is alone the man. There is also the prescribed design of the act-a design which belongs to the rite as appointed, and which is also to be in the mind of the subject, at least germinally. Beyond this there are prescribed conditions to be realized. Finally, all is to be done by the subject in a spirit of obedience. Now, it is plain that the external factor of either rite might be present and some one or all of the others be wanting, or the external might be wanting and some one or all of the others be present. As an unregenerate man, for a base purpose, may perform the out

(167)

ward act, so a regenerate man, with the true baptismal spirit of obedience, under the true baptismal conditions, and with the true baptismal design, may, through error, perform another than the prescribed external act. In the sphere of the outward this man is all wrong; in the sphere of the spiritual alone he is all right. Baptism as a visible ordinance he has not. To the eye of man, for which the outward rite was prescribed, he is unbaptized. As he stands before the eye of God, in the realm of spirit, he has obeyed the command to be baptized. The same principles hold in respect to the Communion. We thus see that each ordinance is, in this discussion, to be considered in its integrity, since it is the mutual relation of Baptism and the Communion that is sought-of ordinance to ordinance, not of fragment to fragment. Thus, too, it will be seen that the assumption that only the immersed have been baptized implies neither that all the immersed have been truly baptized, nor that all not immersed are still acting in a spirit of disobedience to the Lord. We pass no such judgment upon them, either in thought or by the implication of our words, and no man should charge us with so doing.

But it is time to leave preliminaries for the work in hand. The topic divides itself into two main branches. We have to answer these two questions:

I. WHAT IS THE RELATION OF THE ORDINANCES TO EACH OTHER? II. WHAT IS THE TRUE DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE MAINTENANCE OF THIS RELATION?

The first inquiry leads us more into the field of theory, the second into that of practice; but no correct answer can be given to the second unless the first has been correctly answered.

I. WHAT IS THE MUTUAL RELATION OF THE TWO ORDINANCES? 1. They stand to each other as co-ordinates—in the relation of coordination. They are of the same order, rank, value, dignity. The one is not the subordinate, subject, or inferior of the other, so that the one may rule, modify, or displace the other, or in any way claim or receive a pre-eminence over the other. This position is so obvious as to make its formal treatment seem superfluous, yet so important as to justify any attempt to emphasize it.

Looking to the origin of the two ordinances, we find them invested with the same authority. We need raise no question here as to Judaic Baptism or as to Judaic love-feasts. Whatever may be the historical connections of either ordinance, whatever the occasion giving rise to either, the express appointment and command of Christ made of each alike a Christian ordinance, and gave to each its sole whole authority. "Go ye into all the world, baptizing." "This do

in remembrance of me." The same lips uttered the two commands, the same Lord gave the commands equal authority.

Looking to the perpetuity of the rites, we find them co-ordinate. That they are to continue to the end of time, invested with all their original authority, is the almost universal conviction of Christendom. We find given their law, with no limitation as to time indicated, with no authority to repeal delegated. But we are not left to inference, obvious and sufficient as it would seem to be. To the command and commission to preach the gospel and baptize is annexed the specific designation of the extent of time-" Alway, even unto the end of the world," while of the Communion it is said, "As oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do show the Lord's death till he come." The coming of Christ is at the end of the world, and the end of the world at the coming of Christ Thus, with a statutory precision of statement, the great Lawgiver fixed at the same point the limit of continuance for the two.

Again, looking to their design, we see co-ordination. To avoid repetition, this point will not be expanded. It is enough to say that they both relate to the same inward life, and to that life in the same way or ways-that if the one presupposes the life, so does the other; if one expresses the life, so does the other; if the one symbolizes the life, so does the other; if the one is a means for the development of the life, so also is the other. They stand related to the same Source of life, and in the same way. With equal distinctness and emphasis they set forth Jesus Christ as Saviour, body forth to view the Atonement as the central doctrine of the gospel, the central truth of moral government, the central fact of human history. So, also, in the constitution of the church, the function of the one is as essential as that of the other, and in general is of the same kind. To state these points is to prove them, at least to Christian men. They need no proof. It is not that each rite has not its own distinctive characteristics and serves not its own specific ends. This, too, is no less evident; but in the respect of design, all that goes to determine rank, value, dignity, may be affirmed of both alike.

In their constitution, also, we find co-ordination. The constituent which meets the eye is an external physical act, as destitute of moral character and value, taken by itself, as is riding or walking. It is, in both cases, a voluntary act of the individual, yet not of the individual as unrelated. Association with another party appears in each. The unseen spiritual constituent is related to the same life and in the same radical essential manner. It is the same life expressing itself according to the same law of both authority and divine adaptation

in the one case as a beginning, in the other as a continuance. The conjunction of the inner with the outer is of the same nature in the one as in the other.

Thus are we led to the same conclusion, whether we look to the origin, the perpetuity, the design, or the constitution of the ordinances. We find no subordination, no superiority. They stand on a common level and have equal rank. Whatever respect is due to the one is due to the other; whatever despite is done to the one is in principle done to the other. They stand before us clothed in a like beauty and sublimity, claiming equal admiration and honor. View them as we will, in their relation to Christ and to God, or to the believers, or to the church, or to the world, we cannot discriminate. He who makes of one folly pronounces both foolish. He who sees in one wisdom calls both wise. They stand or fall together, for, because of their co-ordination, no reason could be devised for maintaining one which would not demand the maintenance of both. And this is the testimony of all history within and without the church, whether we look to the judgments expressed or to the practices

maintained.

2. They are related to each other as antecedent and consequent -Baptism the antecedent, and the Communion the consequent. Perhaps it may seem that, as here stated, this position also is to every Christian self-evident, and hence needs neither proof nor development. There may seem to be wanting another word to make the proposition worthy of discussion. If it were to run thus-invariably related as antecedent and consequent-this might bring the position within debatable territory, and justify an effort at defence. But such a proposition is senseless. The question of variableness or invariableness has and can have no place here. If it be a question at all, it is a question as to the maintenance of the relation-whether we should invariably maintain the natural and ordained relation of the two; whether this maintenance is indispensable; or, in current language, whether baptism is an indispensable prerequisite to communion. That question shall have attention in its own time and place. Here the question is on the relation of the two ordinances as antecedent and consequent. And since the ordinances, as ordinances, are just what the Lord ordained them to be-one thing, and not anything different--if they are once in nature antecedent and consequent, they are and must be, as respects nature, ever and everywhere antecedent and consequent. If they were such when and where Christ instituted them, they are and must be such universally and infallibly. They can never cease to be such, for they

can never cease to be just what they were. Some other things bearing the same names may bear an opposite relation to each other, but we have here to do with nothing else than the ordinances themselves. The first evidence for our position lies in the known nature of the two ordinances. And in the word nature is here included the design, and, indeed, all that goes to constitute them what they are. This is a legitimate, and, in some respects, the most satisfactory, kind of evidence. Sovereignty is not arbitrariness. God's will of command and his will of control ever accord with the divine reason. A bare command satisfies faith, but reason perceived satisfies reason. The ordinances in large measure interpret themselves, and this interpretation is confirmed, clarified, and enlarged by Scripture. We can, therefore, approach this part of the subject with confidence and nope.

uses.

They have each three independent yet distinct characters and Each is at once an act of faith, an exhibition of truth, and a component of church organization. In the first particular it is a deed, in the second a word, in the third a thing. The first element is purely personal, the second general, the third ecclesiasticalthe first transactional, the second declarative, the third constitutive. In the first something is done, in the second something is shown, in the third something is formed. Let us take up these three characters successively, and see whether in every part, from first to last, they stand as antecedent and consequent.

As a personal transaction, Baptism is in Scripture comprehensively denominated "putting on Christ." Gal. iii. 27. "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ put on Christ." This is first done as a purely spiritual act in the first spiritual reception of Christ by faith; it is done in word by the spoken confession of this faith; it is done sacramentally, or in the way of ordinance, in Baptism, and only in Baptism. The purely spiritual act embodies itself in the appointed outward act, and therein completes itself. The Communion, on the other hand, is comprehensively denominated the communion of the body and of the blood of Christ. But communion with the Lord, in the sphere of the purely spiritual, is the act of a soul that has put on the Lord-it is the continuous act by which the divine life, already originated in the new birth, is sustained, nourished, and perfected. The Communion is, in the sphere of ordinances, this invisible fellowship-its embodiment and completion. Such, in general, being the nature of the two acts separately, their relation is manifest. They stand as the inner acts which they embody. Origin precedes development. Creation cannot follow preser