Chapter II: The Ordinances Of The Church (3)

Other pedobaptist bodies than the Greek Church save part of the
truth, at the expense of consistency, by denying participation in
the Lord’s Supper to those baptized in infancy until they have
reached years of understanding and have made a public profession
of faith. Dr. Charles E. Jefferson, at the International
Congregational Council of Boston, September, 1899, urged that the
children of believers are already church members, and that as such
they are entitled, not only to baptism, but also to the Lord’s
Supper—“an assertion that started much thought”! Baptists may well
commend Congregationalists to the teaching of their own Increase
Mather, The Order of the Gospel (1700), 11—“The Congregational
Church discipline is not suited for a worldly interest or for a
formal generation of professors. It will stand or fall as
godliness in the power of it does prevail, or otherwise.... If the
begun Apostacy should proceed as fast the next thirty years as it
has done these last, surely it will come that in New England
(except the gospel itself depart with the order of it) that the
most conscientious people therein will think themselves concerned
_to gather churches out of churches_.”

How much of Judaistic externalism may linger among nominal
Christians is shown by the fact that in the Armenian Church animal
sacrifices survived, or were permitted to converted heathen
priests, in order they might not lose their livelihood. These
sacrifices continued in other regions of Christendom, particularly
in the Greek church, and Pope Gregory the Great permitted them;
see Conybeare, in Am. Jour. Theology, Jan. 1893:62‐90. In The Key
of Truth, a manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia, whose date
in its present form is between the seventh and the ninth
centuries, we have the Adoptianist view of Christ’s person, and of
the subjects and the mode of baptism: “Thus also the Lord, having
learned from the Father, proceeded to teach us to perform baptism
and all other commandments at the age of full growth and at no
other time.... For some have broken and destroyed the holy and
precious canons which by the Father Almighty were delivered to our
Lord Jesus Christ, and have trodden them underfoot with their
devilish teaching, ... baptizing those who are irrational, and
communicating the unbelieving.”

Minority is legally divided into three septennates: 1. From the
first to the seventh year, the age of complete irresponsibility,
in which the child cannot commit a crime; 2. from the seventh to
the fourteenth year, the age of partial responsibility, in which
intelligent consciousness of the consequences of actions is not
assumed to exist, but may be proved in individual instances; 3.
from the fourteenth to the twenty‐first year, the age of
discretion, in which the person is responsible for criminal
action, may choose a guardian, make a will, marry with consent of
parents, make business contracts not wholly void, but is not yet
permitted fully to assume the free man’s position in the State.
The church however is not bound by these hard and fast rules.
Wherever it has evidence of conversion and of Christian character,
it may admit to baptism and church membership, even at a very
tender age.

(c) The rise of infant baptism in the history of the church.

The rise of infant baptism in the history of the church is due to sacramental conceptions of Christianity, so that all arguments in its favor from the writings of the first three centuries are equally arguments for baptismal regeneration.

Neander’s view may be found in Kitto, Cyclopædia, 1:287—“Infant
baptism was established neither by Christ nor by his apostles.
Even in later times Tertullian opposed it, the North African
church holding to the old practice.” The newly discovered Teaching
of the Apostles, which Bryennios puts at 140‐160 A.D., and
Lightfoot at 80‐110 A. D., seems to know nothing of infant
baptism.

Professor A. H. Newman, in Bap. Rev., Jan. 1884—“Infant baptism
has always gone hand in hand with State churches. It is difficult
to conceive how an ecclesiastical establishment could be
maintained without infant baptism or its equivalent. We should
think, if the facts did not show us so plainly the contrary, that
the doctrine of justification by faith alone would displace infant
baptism. But no. The _establishment_ must be maintained. The
rejection of infant baptism implies insistence upon a baptism of
believers. Only the baptized are properly members of the church.
Even adults would not all receive baptism on professed faith,
unless they were actually compelled to do so. Infant baptism must
therefore be retained as the necessary concomitant of a State
church.

“But what becomes of the justification by faith? Baptism, if it
symbolizes anything, symbolizes regeneration. It would be
ridiculous to make the symbol to forerun the fact by a series of
years. Luther saw the difficulty; but he was sufficient for the
emergency. ‘Yes,’ said he, ‘justification is by faith alone. No
outward rite, apart from faith, has any efficacy.’ Why, it was
against _opera operata_ that he was laying out all his strength.
Yet baptism is the symbol of regeneration, and baptism must be
administered to infants, or the State church falls. With an
audacity truly sublime, the great reformer declares that infants
are regenerated in connection with baptism, and that they are
_simultaneously justified by personal faith_. An infant eight days
old believe? ‘Prove the contrary if you can!’ triumphantly
ejaculates Luther, and his point is gained. If this kind of
personal faith is said to justify infants, is it wonderful that
those of maturer years learned to take a somewhat superficial view
of the faith that justifies?”

Yet Luther had written: “Whatever is without the word of God is by
that very fact against God”; see his Briefe, ed. DeWette, II:292;
J. G. Walch, De Fide in Utero. There was great discordance between
Luther as reformer, and Luther as conservative churchman. His
Catholicism, only half overcome, broke into all his views of
faith. In his early years, he stood for reason and Scripture; in
his later years he fought reason and Scripture in the supposed
interest of the church.

_Mat. 18:10_—“_See that ye despise not one of these little
ones_”—which refers not to little children but to childlike
believers, Luther adduces as a proof of infant baptism, holding
that the child is said to believe—“_little ones that believe on
me_” (_verse 6_)—because it has been circumcised and received into
the number of the elect. “And so, through baptism, children become
believers. How else could the children of Turks and Jews be
distinguished from those of Christians?” Does this involve the
notion that infants dying unbaptized are lost? To find the very
apostle of justification by faith saying that a little child
becomes a _believer_ by being baptized, is humiliating and
disheartening (so Broadus. Com. on Matthew, page 384, note).

Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 2:342‐345, quotes from Lang as
follows: “By mistaking and casting down the Protestant spirit
which put forth its demands on the time in Carlstadt, Zwingle, and
others, Luther made Protestantism lose its salt; he inflicted
wounds upon it from which it has not yet recovered to‐day; and the
ecclesiastical struggle of the present is just a struggle of
spiritual freedom against Lutherism.” E. G. Robinson: “Infant
baptism is a rag of Romanism. Since regeneration is always through
the truth, baptismal regeneration is an absurdity.” See Christian
Review, Jan. 1851; Neander, Church History, 1:311, 313; Coleman,
Christian Antiquities, 258‐260; Arnold, in Bap. Quarterly,
1869:32; Hovey, in Bap. Quarterly, 1871:75.

(d) The reasoning by which it is supported is unscriptural, unsound, and dangerous in its tendency.

First,—in assuming the power of the church to modify or abrogate a command of Christ. This has been sufficiently answered above. Secondly,—in maintaining that infant baptism takes the place of circumcision under the Abrahamic covenant. To this we reply that the view contradicts the New Testament idea of the church, by making it a hereditary body, in which fleshly birth, and not the new birth, qualifies for membership. “As the national Israel typified the spiritual Israel, so the circumcision which immediately followed, not preceded, natural birth, bids us baptize children, not before, but after spiritual birth.” Thirdly,—in declaring that baptism belongs to the infant because of an organic connection of the child with the parent, which permits the latter to stand for the former and to make profession of faith for it,—faith already existing germinally in the child by virtue of this organic union, and certain for the same reason to be developed as the child grows to maturity. “A law of organic connection as regards character subsisting between the parent and the child,—such a connection as induces the conviction that the character of the one is actually included in the character of the other, as the seed is formed in the capsule.” We object to this view that it unwarrantably confounds the personality of the child with that of the parent; practically ignores the necessity of the Holy Spirit’s regenerating influences in the case of children of Christian parents; and presumes in such children a gracious state which facts conclusively show not to exist.

What takes the place of circumcision is not baptism but
regeneration. Paul defeated the attempt to fasten circumcision on
the church, when he refused to have that rite performed on Titus.
But later Judaizers succeeded in perpetuating circumcision under
the form of infant baptism, and afterward of infant sprinkling
(McGarvey, Com. on Acts). E. G. Robinson: “Circumcision is not a
type of baptism: 1. It is purely a gratuitous assumption that it
is so. There is not a word in Scripture to authorize it; 2.
Circumcision was a national, a theocratic, and not a personal,
religious rite; 3. If circumcision be a type, why did Paul
circumcise Timothy? Why did he not explain, on an occasion so
naturally calling for it, that circumcision was replaced by
baptism?”

On the theory that baptism takes the place of circumcision, see
Pepper, Baptist Quarterly, April, 1857; Palmer, in Baptist
Quarterly, 1871:314. The Christian Church is either a natural,
_hereditary_ body, or it was merely _typified_ by the Jewish
people. In the former case, baptism belongs to all children of
Christian parents, and the church is indistinguishable from the
world. In the latter case, it belongs only to spiritual
descendants, and therefore only to true believers. “That Jewish
Christians, who of course had been circumcised, were also
baptized, and that a large number of them insisted that Gentiles
who had been baptized should also be circumcised, shows
conclusively that baptism did not take the place of
circumcision.... The notion that the family is the unit of society
is a relic of barbarism. This appears in the Roman law, which was
good for property but not for persons. It left none but a servile
station to wife or son, thus degrading society at the fountain of
family life. To gain freedom, the Roman wife had to accept a form
of marriage which opened the way for unlimited liberty of
divorce.”

Hereditary church‐membership is of the same piece with hereditary
priesthood, and both are relics of Judaism. J. J. Murphy, Nat.
Selection and Spir. Freedom, 81—“The institution of hereditary
priesthood, which was so deeply rooted in the religions of
antiquity and was adopted into Judaism, has found no place in
Christianity; there is not, I believe, any church whatever calling
itself by the name of Christ, in which the ministry is
hereditary.” Yet there is a growing disposition to find in infant
baptism the guarantee of hereditary church membership. Washington
Gladden, What is Left? 252‐254—“Solidarity of the generations
finds expression in infant baptism. Families ought to be Christian
and not individuals only. In the Society of Friends every one born
of parents belonging to the Society is a birthright member.
Children of Christian parents are heirs of the kingdom. The State
recognizes that our children are organically connected with it.
When parents are members of the State, children are not aliens.
They are not called to perform duties of citizenship until a
certain age, but the rights and privileges of citizenship are
theirs from the moment of their birth. The State is the mother of
her children; shall the church be less motherly than the State?...
Baptism does not make the child God’s child; it simply recognizes
and declares the fact.”

Another illustration of what we regard as a radically false view
is found in the sermon of Bishop Grafton of Fond du Lac, at the
consecration of Bishop Nicholson in Philadelphia: “Baptism is not
like a function in the natural order, like the coronation of a
king, an acknowledgment of what the child already is. The child,
truly God’s loved offspring by way of creation, is in baptism
translated into the new creation and incorporated into the
Incarnate One, and made his child.” Yet, as the great majority of
the inmates of our prisons and the denizens of the slums have
received this “baptism,” it appears that this “loved offspring”
very early lost its “new creation” and got “translated” in the
wrong direction. We regard infant baptism as only an ancient
example of the effort to bring in the kingdom of God by externals,
the protest against which brought Jesus to the cross. Our modern
methods of salvation by sociology and education and legislation
are under the same indictment, as crucifying the Son of God afresh
and putting him to open shame.

Prof. Moses Stuart urged that the form of baptism was immaterial,
but that the temper of heart was the thing of moment. Francis
Wayland, then a student of his, asked: “If such is the case, with
what propriety can baptism be administered to those who cannot be
supposed to exercise any temper of heart at all, and with whom the
form must be everything?”—The third theory of organic connection
of the child with its parents is elaborated by Bushnell, in his
Christian Nurture, 90‐223. _Per contra_, see Bunsen, Hippolytus
and his Times, 179, 211; Curtis, Progress of Baptist Principles,
262. Hezekiah’s son Manasseh was not godly; and it would be rash
to say that all the drunkard’s children are presumptively
drunkards.

(e) The lack of agreement among pedobaptists.

The lack of agreement among pedobaptists as to the warrant for infant baptism and as to the relation of baptized infants to the church, together with the manifest decline of the practice itself, are arguments against it.

The propriety of infant baptism is variously argued, says Dr. Bushnell, upon the ground of “natural innocence, inherited depravity, and federal holiness; because of the infant’s own character, the parent’s piety, and the church’s faith; for the reason that the child is an heir of salvation already, and in order to make it such.... No settled opinion on infant baptism and on Christian nurture has ever been attained to.”

Quot homines, tot sententiæ. The belated traveler in a
thunderstorm prayed for a little more light and less noise.
Bushnell, Christian Nurture, 9‐89, denies original sin, denies
that hereditary connection can make a child guilty. But he seems
to teach transmitted righteousness, or that hereditary connection
can make a child holy. He disparages “sensible experiences” and
calls them “explosive conversions.” But because we do not know the
time of conversion, shall we say that there never was a time when
the child experienced God’s grace? See Bib. Sac., 1872:665.
Bushnell said: “I don’t know what right we have to say that a
child can’t be born again before he is born the first time.” Did
not John the Baptist preach Christ before he was born? (_Luke
1:15, 41, 44_). The answer to Bushnell is simply this, that
regeneration is through the truth, and an unborn child cannot know
the truth. To disjoin regeneration from the truth, is to make it a
matter of external manipulation in which the soul is merely
passive and the whole process irrational. There is a secret work
of God in the soul, but it is always accompanied by an awakening
of the soul to perceive the truth and to accept Christ.

Are baptized infants members of the Presbyterian Church? We answer
by citing the following standards: 1. The Confession of Faith,
25:2—“The visible church ... consists of all those throughout the
world, that profess the true religion, together with their
children.” 2. The Larger Catechism, 62—“The visible church is a
society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world
do profess the true religion, and of their children.” 166—“Baptism
is not to be administered to any that are not of the visible
church ... till they profess their faith in Christ and obedience
to him: but infants descending from parents either both or but one
of them professing faith in Christ and obedience to him are in
that respect within the covenant and are to be baptized.” 3. The
Shorter Catechism, 96—“Baptism is not to be administered to any
that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith
in Christ and obedience to him: but the infants of such as are
members of the visible church are to be baptized.” 4. Form of
Government, 3—“A particular church consists of a number of
professing Christians, with their offspring.” 5. Directory for
Worship, 1—“Children born within the pale of the visible church
and dedicated to God in baptism are under the inspection and
government of the church.... When they come to years of
discretion, if they be free from scandal, appear sober and steady,
and to have sufficient knowledge to discern the Lord’s body, they
ought to be informed it is their duty and their privilege to come
to the Lord’s Supper.”

The Maplewood Congregational Church of Malden, Mass., enrolls as
members all children baptized by the church. The relation
continues until they indicate a desire either to continue it or to
dissolve it. The list of such members is kept distinct from that
of the adults, but they are considered as members under the care
of the church. Dr. W. G. T. Shedd: “The infant of a believer is
born into the church as the infant of a citizen is born into the
State. A baptized child in adult years may renounce his baptism,
become an infidel, and join the synagogue of Satan, but until he
does this, he must be regarded as a member of the church of
Christ.”

On the Decline of Infant Baptism, see Vedder, in Baptist Review,
April, 1882:173‐189, who shows that in fifty years past the
proportion of infant baptisms to communicants in general has
decreased from one in seven to one in eleven; among the Reformed,
from one in twelve to one in twenty; among the Presbyterians, from
one in fifteen to one in thirty‐three; among the Methodists, from
one in twenty‐two to one in twenty‐nine; among the
Congregationalists, from one in fifty to one in seventy‐seven.

(f) The evil effects of infant baptism.

First,—in forestalling the voluntary act of the child baptized, and thus practically preventing his personal obedience to Christ’s commands.

The person baptized in infancy has never performed any act with
intent to obey Christ’s command to be baptized, never has put
forth a single volition looking toward obedience to that command;
see Wilkinson, The Baptist Principle, 40‐46. Every man has the
right to choose his own wife. So every man has the right to choose
his own Savior.

Secondly,—in inducing superstitious confidence in an outward rite as possessed of regenerating efficacy.

French parents still regard infants before baptism as only animals
(Stanley). The haste with which the minister is summoned to
baptize the dying child shows that superstition still lingers in
many an otherwise evangelical family in our own country. The
English Prayerbook declares that in baptism the infant is “made a
child of God and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.” Even the
Westminster Assembly’s Catechism, 28:6, holds that grace is
actually conferred in baptism, though the efficacy of it is
delayed till riper years. Mercersburg Review: “The objective
medium or instrumental cause of regeneration is baptism. Men are
not regenerated outside the church and then brought into it for
preservation, but they are regenerated by being incorporated with
or engrafted into the church through the sacrament of baptism.”
Catholic Review: “Unbaptized, these little ones go into darkness;
but baptized, they rejoice in the presence of God forever.”

Dr. Beebe of Hamilton went after a minister to baptize his sick
child, but before he returned the child died. Reflection made him
a Baptist, and the Editor of The Examiner. Baptists unhesitatingly
permit converts to die unbaptized, showing plainly that they do
not regard baptism as essential to salvation. Baptism no more
makes one a Christian, than putting a crown on one’s head makes
him a king. Zwingle held to a symbolic interpretation of the
Lord’s Supper, but he clung to the sacramental conception of
Baptism. E. H. Johnson, Uses and Abuses of Ordinances, 33, claims
that, while baptism is not a justifying or regenerating ordinance,
it is a sanctifying ordinance,—sanctifying, in the sense of
setting apart. Yes, we reply, but only as church going and prayer
are sanctifying; the efficacy is not in the outward act but in the
spirit which accompanies it. To make it signify more is to admit
the sacramental principle.

In the Roman Catholic Church the baptism of bells and of rosaries
shows how infant baptism has induced the belief that grace can be
communicated to irrational and even material things. In Mexico
people bring caged birds, cats, rabbits, donkeys, and pigs, for
baptism. The priest kneels before the altar in prayer, reads a few
words in Latin, then sprinkles the creature with holy water. The
sprinkling is supposed to drive out any evil spirit that may have
vexed the bird or beast. In Key West, Florida, a town of 22,000
inhabitants, infant baptism has a stronger hold than anywhere else
at the South. Baptist parents had sometimes gone to the Methodist
preachers to have their children baptized. To prevent this, the
Baptist pastors established the custom of laying their hands upon
the heads of infants in the congregation, and “blessing” them, _i.
e._, asking God’s blessing to rest upon them. But this custom came
to be confounded with christening, and was called such. Now the
Baptist pastors are having a hard struggle to explain and limit
the custom which they themselves have introduced. Perverse human
nature will take advantage of even the slightest additions to N.
T. prescriptions, and will bring out of the germs of false
doctrine a fearful harvest of evil. Obsta principiis—“Resist
beginnings.”

Thirdly,—in obscuring and corrupting Christian truth with regard to the sufficiency of Scripture, the connection of the ordinances, and the inconsistency of an impenitent life with church‐membership.

Infant baptism in England is followed by confirmation, as a matter
of course, whether there has been any conscious abandonment of sin
or not. In Germany, a man is always understood to be a Christian
unless he expressly states to the contrary—in fact, he feels
insulted if his Christianity is questioned. At the funerals even
of infidels and debauchees the pall used may be inscribed with the
words: “Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord.” Confidence in
one’s Christianity and hopes of heaven based only on the fact of
baptism in infancy, are a great obstacle to evangelical preaching
and to the progress of true religion.

Wordsworth, The Excursion, 596, 602 (book 5)—“At the baptismal
font. And when the pure And consecrating element hath cleansed The
original stain, the child is thus received Into the second ark,
Christ’s church, with trust That he, from wrath redeemed therein
shall float Over the billows of this troublesome world To the fair
land of everlasting life.... The holy rite That lovingly consigns
the babe to the arms Of Jesus and his everlasting care.” Infant
baptism arose in the superstitious belief that there lay in the
water itself a magical efficacy for the washing away of sin, and
that apart from baptism there could be no salvation. This was and
still remains the Roman Catholic position. Father Doyle, in Anno
Domini, 2:182—“Baptism regenerates. By means of it the child is
born again into the newness of the supernatural life.” Theodore
Parker was baptized, but not till he was four years old, when his
“Oh, don’t!”—in which his biographers have found prophetic
intimation of his mature dislike for all conventional forms—was
clearly the small boy’s dislike of water on his face; see
Chadwick, Theodore Parker, 6, 7. “How do you know, my dear, that
you have been christened?” “Please, mum, ’cos I’ve got the marks
on my arm now, mum!”

Fourthly,—in destroying the church as a spiritual body, by merging it in the nation and the world.

Ladd, Principles of Church Polity: “Unitarianism entered the
Congregational churches of New England through the breach in one
of their own avowed and most important tenets, namely, that of a
regenerate church‐membership. Formalism, indifferentism, neglect
of moral reforms, and, as both cause and results of these, an
abundance of unrenewed men and women, were the causes of their
seeming disasters in that sad epoch.” But we would add, that the
serious and alarming decline of religion which culminated in the
Unitarian movement in New England had its origin in infant
baptism. This introduced into the Church a multitude of
unregenerate persons and permitted them to determine its doctrinal
position.

W. B. Matteson: “No one practice of the church has done so much to
lower the tone of its life and to debase its standards. The first
New England churches were established by godly and regenerated
men. They received into their churches, through infant baptism,
children presumptively, but alas not actually, regenerated. The
result is well known—swift, startling, seemingly irresistible
decline. ‘The body of the rising generation,’ writes Increase
Mother, ‘is a poor perishing, inconverted, and, except the Lord
pour out his Spirit, an undone generation.’ The ‘Halfway Covenant’
was at once a token of preceding, and a cause of further, decline.
If God had not indeed poured out his Spirit in the great awakening
under Edwards, New England might well, as some feared, ‘be lost
even to New England and buried in its own ruins.’ It was the new
emphasis on personal religion—an emphasis which the Baptists of
that day largely contributed—that gave to the New England churches
a larger life and a larger usefulness. Infant baptism has never
since held quite the same place in the polity of those churches.
It has very generally declined. But it is still far from extinct,
even among evangelical Protestants. The work of Baptists is not
yet done. Baptists have always stood, but they need still to
stand, for a believing and regenerated church‐membership.”

Fifthly,—in putting into the place of Christ’s command a commandment of men, and so admitting the essential principle of all heresy, schism, and false religion.

There is therefore no logical halting‐place between the Baptist
and the Romanist positions. The Roman Catholic Archbishop Hughes
of New York, said well to a Presbyterian minister: “We have no
controversy with you. Our controversy is with the Baptists.” Lange
of Jena: “Would the Protestant church fulfil and attain to its
final destiny, the baptism of infants must of necessity be
abolished.” The English Judge asked the witness what his religious
belief was. Reply: “I haven’t any.” “Where do you attend church?”
“Nowhere.” “Put him down as belonging to the Church of England.”
The small child was asked where her mother was. Reply: “She has
gone to a Christian and devil meeting.” The child meant a
Christian Endeavor meeting. Some systems of doctrine and ritual,
however, answer her description, for they are a mixture of
paganism and Christianity. The greatest work favoring the doctrine
which we here condemn is Wall’s History of Infant Baptism. For the
Baptist side of the controversy see Arnold, in Madison Avenue
Lectures, 160‐182; Curtis, Progress of Baptist Principles, 274,
275; Dagg, Church Order, 144‐202.

II. The Lord’s Supper.

The Lord’s Supper is that outward rite in which the assembled church eats bread broken and drinks wine poured forth by its appointed representative, in token of its constant dependence on the once crucified, now risen Savior, as source of its spiritual life; or, in other words, in token of that abiding communion of Christ’s death and resurrection through which the life begun in regeneration is sustained and perfected.

Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, 31, 33, says that the
Scripture nowhere speaks of the wine as “poured forth”; and in _1
Cor. 11:24_—“_my body which is broken for you,_” the Revised
Version omits the word “_broken_”; while on the other hand the
Gospel according to John (_19:36_) calls especial attention to the
fact that Christ’s body was _not_ broken. We reply that Jesus, in
giving his disciples the cup, did speak of his blood as “_poured
out_” (_Mark 14:24_); and it was not the body, but “_a bone of
him_,” which was not to be broken. Many ancient manuscripts add
the word “_broken_” in _1 Cor. 11:24_. On the Lord’s Supper in
general, see Weston, in Madison Avenue Lectures, 183‐195; Dagg,
Church Order, 203‐214.

1. The Lord’s Supper an ordinance instituted by Christ.

(_a_) Christ appointed an outward rite to be observed by his disciples in remembrance of his death. It was to be observed after his death; only after his death could it completely fulfil its purpose as a feast of commemoration.

_Luke 22:19_—“_And be took bread, and when he had given thanks, he
brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given
for you: this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner
after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood,
even that which is poured out for you_”; _1 Cor. 11:23‐25_—“_For I
received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that
the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;
and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my
body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like
manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new
covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in
remembrance of me._” Observe that this communion was Christian
communion before Christ’s death, just as John’s baptism was
Christian baptism before Christ’s death.

(_b_) From the apostolic injunction with regard to its celebration in the church until Christ’s second coming, we infer that it was the original intention of our Lord to institute a rite of perpetual and universal obligation.

_1 Cor. 11:26_—“_For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the
cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come_”; _cf._ _Mat.
26:29_—“_But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this
fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in
my Father’s kingdom_”; _Mark 14:25_—“_Verily I say unto you, I
will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I
drink it new in the kingdom of God._” As the paschal supper
continued until Christ came the first time in the flesh, so the
Lord’s Supper is to continue until he comes the second time with
all the power and glory of God.

(_c_) The uniform practice of the N. T. churches, and the celebration of such a rite in subsequent ages by almost all churches professing to be Christian, is best explained upon the supposition that the Lord’s Supper is an ordinance established by Christ himself.

_Acts 2:42_—“_And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’
teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the
prayers_”; _46_—“_And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one
accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their
food with gladness and singleness of heart_”—on the words here
translated “_at home_” (κατ᾽ οἶκον), but meaning, as Jacob
maintains, “from one worship‐room to another,” see page 961. _Acts
20:7_—“_And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered
together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them_”; _1 Cor.
10:16_—“_The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion
of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a
communion of the body of Christ? seeing that we, who art many, are
one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread._”

2. The Mode of administering the Lord’s Supper.

(_a_) The elements are bread and wine.

Although the bread which Jesus broke at the institution of the
ordinance was doubtless the unleavened bread of the Passover,
there is nothing in the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper which
necessitates the Romanist use of the wafer. Although the wine
which Jesus poured out was doubtless the ordinary fermented juice
of the grape, there is nothing in the symbolism of the ordinance
which forbids the use of unfermented juice of the grape,—obedience
to the command “_This do in remembrance of me_” (_Luke 22:19_)
requires only that we should use the “_fruit of the vine_” (_Mat.
26:29_).

Huguenots and Roman Catholics, among Parkman’s Pioneers of France
in the New World, disputed whether the sacramental bread could be
made of the meal of Indian corn. But it is only as food, that the
bread is symbolic. Dried fish is used in Greenland. The bread only
symbolizes Christ’s life and the wine only symbolizes his death.
Any food or drink may do the same. It therefore seems a very
conscientious but unnecessary literalism, when Adoniram Judson
(Life by his Son, 352) writes from Burma: “No wine to be procured
in this place, on which account we are unable to meet with the
other churches this day in partaking of the Lord’s Supper.” For
proof that Bible wines, like all other wines, are fermented, see
Presb. Rev., 1881:80‐114; 1882:78‐108, 394‐399, 586; Hovey, in
Bap. Quar. Rev., April, 1887:152‐180. _Per contra_, see Samson,
Bible Wines. On the Scripture Law of Temperance, see Presb. Rev.,
1882:287‐324.

(_b_) The communion is of both kinds,—that is, communicants are to partake both of the bread and of the wine.

The Roman Catholic Church withholds the wine from the laity,
although it considers the whole Christ to be present under each of
the forms. Christ, however, says: “_Drink ye all of it_” (_Mat.
26:27_). To withhold the wine from any believer is disobedience to
Christ, and is too easily understood as teaching that the laity
have only a portion of the benefits of Christ’s death. Calvin: “As
to the bread, he simply said ‘_Take, eat_.’ Why does he expressly
bid them _all_ drink? And why does Mark explicitly say that ‘_they
all drank of it_’ (_Mark 14:23_)?” Bengel: Does not this suggest
that, if communion in “one kind alone were sufficient, it is the
cup which should be used? The Scripture thus speaks, foreseeing
what Rome would do.” See Expositor’s Greek Testament on _1 Cor.
11:27_. In the Greek Church the bread and wine are mingled and are
administered to communicants, not to infants only but also to
adults, with a spoon.

(_c_) The partaking of these elements is of a festal nature.

The Passover was festal in its nature. Gloom and sadness are
foreign to the spirit of the Lord’s Supper. The wine is the symbol
of the death of Christ, but of that death by which we live. It
reminds us that he drank the cup of suffering in order that we
might drink the wine of joy. As the bread is broken to sustain our
physical life, so Christ’s body was broken by thorns and nails and
spear to nourish our spiritual life.

_1 Cor. 11:29_—“_For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and
drinketh judgment onto himself, if he discern not the body._” Here
the Authorized Version wrongly had “damnation” instead of
“_judgment_.” Not eternal condemnation, but penal judgment in
general, is meant. He who partakes “_in an unworthy manner_”
(_verse 27_), _i. e._, in hypocrisy, or merely to satisfy bodily
appetites, and not discerning the body of Christ of which the
bread is the symbol (_verse 29_), draws down upon him God’s
judicial sentence. Of this judgment, the frequent sickness and
death in the church at Corinth was a token. See _verses 30‐34_,
and Meyer’s Com.; also Gould, in Am. Com. on _1 Cor.
11:27_—“_unworthily_”—“This is not to be understood as referring
to the unworthiness of the person himself to partake, but to the
unworthy manner of partaking.... The failure to recognize
practically the symbolism of the elements, and hence the treatment
of the Supper as a common meal, is just what the apostle has
pointed out as the fault of the Corinthians, and it is what he
characterizes as an unworthy eating and drinking.” The Christian
therefore should not be deterred from participation in the Lord’s
Supper by any feeling of his personal unworthiness, so long as he
trusts Christ and aims to obey him, for “All the fitness he
requireth Is to feel our need of him.”

(_d_) The communion is a festival of commemoration,—not simply bringing Christ to our remembrance, but making proclamation of his death to the world.

_1 Cor. 11:24, 26_—“_this do in remembrance of me.... For as often
as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s
death till he come._” As the Passover commemorated the deliverance
of Israel from Egypt, and as the Fourth of July commemorates our
birth as a nation, so the Lord’s Supper commemorates the birth of
the church in Christ’s death and resurrection. As a mother might
bid her children meet over her grave and commemorate her, so
Christ bids his people meet and remember him. But subjective
remembrance is not its only aim. It is public proclamation also.
Whether it brings perceptible blessing to us or not, it is to be
observed as a means of confessing Christ, testifying our faith,
and publishing the fact of his death to others.

(_e_) It is to be celebrated by the assembled church. It is not a solitary observance on the part of individuals. No “showing forth” is possible except in company.

_Acts 20:7_—“_gathered together to break bread_”; _1 Cor. 11:18,
20, 22, 33, 34_—“_when ye come together in the church ... assemble
yourselves together ... have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?
or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have
not? ... when ye come together to eat.... If any man is hungry,
let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto
judgment._”

Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 191‐194, claims that in _Acts
2:46_—“_breaking bread at home_”—where we have οἶκος, not οἶκία,
οἶκος is not a private house, but a “worship‐room,” and that the
phrase should be translated “breaking bread from one worship‐room
to another,” or “in various worship‐rooms.” This meaning seems
very apt in _Acts 5:42_—“_And every day, in the temple and at
home_ [rather, ‘_in various worship‐rooms_’], they ceased not to
teach and to preach Jesus as the Christ”; _8:3_—“_But Saul laid
waste the church, entering into every house_ [rather, ‘_every
worship‐room_’] _and dragging men and women committed them to
prison_”; _Rom. 16:5_—“_salute the church that is in their house_
[rather, ‘_in their worship‐room_’]”; _Titus 1:11_—“_men who
overthrow whole houses_ [rather, ‘_whole worship‐rooms_’],
_teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake._”
_Per contra_, however, see _1 Cor. 11:34_—“_let him eat at home,_”
where οἶκος is contrasted with the place of meeting; so also _1
Cor. 14:35_ and _Acts 20:20_, where οἶκος seems to mean a private
house.

The celebration of the Lord’s Supper in each family by itself is
not recognized in the New Testament. Stanley, in Nineteenth
Century, May, 1878, tells us that as infant communion is forbidden
in the Western Church, and evening communion is forbidden by the
Roman Church, so solitary communion is forbidden by the English
Church, and death‐bed communion by the Scottish Church. E. G.
Robinson: “No single individual in the New Testament ever
celebrates the Lord’s Supper by himself.” Mrs. Browning recognized
the essentially social nature of the ordinance, when she said that
truth was like the bread at the Sacrament—to be passed on. In this
the Supper gives us a type of the proper treatment of all the
goods of life, both temporal and spiritual.

Dr. Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, claims that the Lord’s
Supper is no more an exclusively church ordinance than is singing
or prayer; that the command to observe it was addressed, not to an
organized church, but only to individuals; that every meal in the
home was to be a Lord’s Supper, because Christ was remembered in
it. But we reply that Paul’s letter with regard to the abuses of
the Lord’s Supper was addressed, not to individuals, but to “_the
church of God which is at Corinth._” (_1 Cor. 1:2_). Paul reproves
the Corinthians because in the Lord’s Supper each ate without
thought of others: “_What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink
in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that
have not?_” (_11:22_). Each member having appeased his hunger at
home, the members of the church “_come together to eat_”
(_11:30_), as the spiritual body of Christ. All this shows that
the celebration of the Lord’s Supper was not an appendage to every
ordinary meal.

In _Acts 20:7_—“_upon the first day of the week, when we were
gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them_”—the
natural inference is that the Lord’s Supper was a sacred rite,
observed apart from any ordinary meal, and accompanied by
religious instruction. Dr. Fox would go back of these later
observances to the original command of our Lord. He would
eliminate all that we do not find in Mark, the earliest gospel.
But this would deprive us of the Sermon on the Mount, the parable
of the Prodigal Son, and the discourses of the fourth gospel.
McGiffert gives A. D. 52, as the date of Paul’s first letter to
the Corinthians, and this ante‐dates Mark’s gospel by at least
thirteen years. Paul’s account of the Lord’s Supper at Corinth is
therefore an earlier authority than Mark.

(_f_) The responsibility of seeing that the ordinance is properly administered rests with the church as a body; and the pastor is, in this matter, the proper representative and organ of the church. In cases of extreme exigency, however, as where the church has no pastor and no ordained minister can be secured, it is competent for the church to appoint one from its own number to administer the ordinance.

_1 Cor. 11:2, 23_—“_Now I praise you that ye remember me in all
things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to
you.... For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered
unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was
betrayed took bread._” Here the responsibility of administering
the Lord’s Supper is laid upon the body of believers.

(_g_) The frequency with which the Lord’s Supper is to be administered is not indicated either by the N. T. precept or by uniform N. T. example. We have instances both of its daily and of its weekly observance. With respect to this, as well as with respect to the accessories of the ordinance, the church is to exercise a sound discretion.

_Acts 2:46_—“_And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one
accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home_ [or perhaps,
‘_in various worship‐rooms_’]”; _20:7_—“_And upon the first day of
the week, when we were gathered together to break bread._” In
1878, thirty‐nine churches of the Establishment in London held
daily communion; in two churches it was held twice each day. A few
churches of the Baptist faith in England and America celebrate the
Lord’s Supper on each Lord’s day. Carlstadt would celebrate the
Lord’s Supper only in companies of twelve, and held also that
every bishop must marry. Reclining on couches, and meeting in the
evening, are not commanded; and both, by their inconvenience,
might in modern times counteract the design of the ordinance.

3. The Symbolism of the Lord’s Supper.

The Lord’s Supper sets forth, in general, the death of Christ as the sustaining power of the believer’s life.

A. Expansion of this statement.

(_a_) It symbolizes the death of Christ for our sins.

_1 Cor. 11:26_—“_For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the
cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come_”; _cf._ _Mark
14:24_—“_This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for
many_”—the blood upon which the covenant between God and Christ,
and so between God and us who are one with Christ, from eternity
past was based. The Lord’s Supper reminds us of the covenant which
ensures our salvation, and of the atonement upon which the
covenant was based; _cf._ _Heb. 13:20_—“_blood of an eternal
covenant._”

Alex. McLaren: “The suggestion of a violent death, implied in the
_doubling_ of the symbols, by which the body is separated from
that of the blood, and still further implied in the _breaking_ of
the bread, is made prominent in the words in reference to the cup.
It symbolizes the blood of Jesus which is ‘shed.’ That shed blood
is covenant blood. By it the New Covenant, of which Jeremiah had
prophesied, one article of which was, ‘Their sins and iniquities I
will remember no more,’ is sealed and ratified, not for Israel
only but for an indefinite ‘many,’ which is really equivalent to
all. Could words more plainly declare that Christ’s death was a
sacrifice? Can we understand it, according to his own
interpretation of it, unless we see in his words here a reference
to his previous words (_Mat. 20:28_) and recognize that in
shedding his blood ‘for many,’ he ‘gave his life a ransom for
many’? The Lord’s Supper is the standing witness, voiced by Jesus
himself, that he regarded his death as the very centre of his
work, and that he regarded it not merely as a martyrdom, but as a
sacrifice by which he put away sins forever. Those who reject that
view of that death are sorely puzzled what to make of the Lord’s
Supper.”

(_b_) It symbolizes our personal appropriation of the benefits of that death.

_1 Cor. 11:24_—“_This is my body, which is for you_”; _cf._ _1
Cor. 5:7_—“_Christ our passover is sacrificed for us_”; or R.
V.—“_our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ_”; here
it is evident not only that the showing forth of the Lord’s death
is the primary meaning of the ordinance, but that our partaking of
the benefits of that death is as clearly taught as the Israelites’
deliverance was symbolized in the paschal supper.

(_c_) It symbolizes the method of this appropriation, through union with Christ himself.

_1 Cor. 10:16_—“_The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a
communion of_ [marg.: ‘_participation in_’] _the blood of Christ?
The bread which we break, is it not a communion of_ [marg.:
‘_participation in_’] _the body of Christ?_” Here “_is it not a
participation_” = “does it not symbolize the participation?” So
_Mat. 26:26_—“_this is my body_” = “this symbolizes my body.”

(_d_) It symbolizes the continuous dependence of the believer for all spiritual life upon the once crucified, now living, Savior, to whom he is thus united.

_Cf._ _John 6:53_—“_Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat
the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life
in yourselves_”—here is a statement, not with regard to the Lord’s
Supper, but with regard to spiritual union with Christ, which the
Lord’s Supper only symbolizes; see page 965, (_a_). Like Baptism,
the Lord’s Supper presupposes and implies evangelical faith,
especially faith in the Deity of Christ; not that all who partake
of it realize its full meaning, but that this participation
logically implies the five great truths of Christ’s preëxistence,
his supernatural birth, his vicarious atonement, his literal
resurrection, and his living presence with his followers. Because
Ralph Waldo Emerson perceived that the Lord’s Supper implied
Christ’s omnipresence and deity, he would no longer celebrate it,
and so broke with his church and with the ministry.

(_e_) It symbolizes the sanctification of the Christian through a spiritual reproduction in him of the death and resurrection of the Lord.

_Rom. 8:10_—“_And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of
sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness_”; _Phil.
3:10_—“_that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection,
and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed unto his
death; if by any means I may attain unto the resurrection from the
dead._” The bread of life nourishes; but it transforms me, not I
it.

(_f_) It symbolizes the consequent union of Christians in Christ, their head.

_1 Cor. 10:17_—“_seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one
body: for we all partake of the one bread._” The Roman Catholic
says that bread is the unity of many kernels, the wine the unity
of many berries, and all are changed into the body of Christ. We
can adopt the former part of the statement, without taking the
latter. By being united to Christ, we become united to one
another; and the Lord’s Supper, as it symbolizes our common
partaking of Christ, symbolizes also the consequent oneness of all
in whom Christ dwells. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, IX—“As
this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, and being
gathered together became one, so may thy church be gathered
together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom.”

(_g_) It symbolizes the coming joy and perfection of the kingdom of God.

_Luke 22:18_—“_for I say unto you, I shall not drink from
henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God
shall come_”; _Mark 14:25_—“_Verily I say unto you, I will no more
drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new
in the kingdom of God_”; _Mat. 26:29_—“_But I say unto you, I
shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that
day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom._”

Like Baptism, which points forward to the resurrection, the Lord’s
Supper is anticipatory also. It brings before us, not simply
death, but life; not simply past sacrifice, but future glory. It
points forward to the great festival, “_the marriage supper of the
Lamb_” (_Rev. 19:9_). Dorner: “Then Christ will keep the Supper
anew with us, and the hours of highest solemnity in this life are
but a weak foretaste of the powers of the world to come.” See
Madison Avenue Lectures, 176‐216; The Lord’s Supper, a Clerical
Symposium, by Pressensé, Luthardt, and English Divines.

B. Inferences from this statement.

(_a_) The connection between the Lord’s Supper and Baptism consists in this, that they both and equally are symbols of the death of Christ. In Baptism, we show forth the death of Christ as the procuring cause of our new birth into the kingdom of God. In the Lord’s Supper, we show forth the death of Christ as the sustaining power of our spiritual life after it has once begun. In the one, we honor the sanctifying power of the death of Christ, as in the other we honor its regenerating power. Thus both are parts of one whole,—setting before us Christ’s death for men in its two great purposes and results.

If baptism symbolized purification only, there would be no point
of connection between the two ordinances. Their common reference
to the death of Christ binds the two together.

(_b_) The Lord’s Supper is to be often repeated,—as symbolizing Christ’s constant nourishment of the soul, whose new birth was signified in Baptism.

Yet too frequent repetition may induce superstitious confidence in
the value of communion as a mere outward form.

(_c_) The Lord’s Supper, like Baptism, is the symbol of a previous state of grace. It has in itself no regenerating and no sanctifying power, but is the symbol by which the relation of the believer to Christ, his sanctifier, is vividly expressed and strongly confirmed.

We derive more help from the Lord’s Supper than from private
prayer, simply because it is an _external_ rite, impressing the
sense as well as the intellect, celebrated in company with other
believers whose faith and devotion help our own, and bringing
before us the profoundest truths of Christianity—the death of
Christ, and our union with Christ in that death.

(_d_) The blessing received from participation is therefore dependent upon, and proportioned to, the faith of the communicant.

In observing the Lord’s Supper, we need to discern the body of the
Lord (_1 Cor. 11:29_)—that is, to recognize the spiritual meaning
of the ordinance, and the presence of Christ, who through his
deputed representatives gives to us the emblems, and who nourishes
and quickens our souls as these material things nourish and
quicken the body. The faith which thus discerns Christ is the gift
of the Holy Spirit.

(_e_) The Lord’s Supper expresses primarily the fellowship of the believer, not with his brethren, but with Christ, his Lord.