The Baptist principle in its application to baptism and the Lord's supper

Front matter

i

JB^Wi 1 "

■ r

Chapter I. The Principle Defined

THE true organizing principle of Baptist churches may be stated in three words : it is Obedience to Christ. An essential part of obedience to Christ consists in persuading to obey him. Christ said, " Be baptized." This, therefore, is one of his commandments. To " be baptized " is, so far, obedience. But Christ said also, " Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." This is another of his commandments. To " teach " to obey is obedience. Obedience in this full sense — that is, to obey and to teach to obey — is the mission of Baptists.

We insist upon baptism, not because it is a rite, but because it is an ordinance. It is not the baptism so much as it is the obedience that concerns us. To have been baptized is, comparatively, nothing ; to have obeyed is, comparatively, all. Not to " be baptized," but to obey in being baptized, is what the Baptist principle requires. The Baptist principle of full obedience to Christ requires this, first, of us ourselves, and then requires us to require it, secondly, of others. The obligation to obey in being baptized ourselves is imperative, but no less imperative is the obligation to obey in teaching others also to obey in being baptized. The duty of teaching obedience is equal with the duty of obeying — is, indeed, identical with it. Our principle of obedience to Christ makes us, first, Baptists ourselves, and then immediately sets us to making Baptists of others. If we cease to seek proselytes, it is because we, so far, cease to be Baptists. We become Baptists and we become propagandists of Baptist views by one and the same almighty creative act of God. The principle of obedience to Christ makes us, simultaneously and inseparably, both the one and the other.

Baptists, therefore, misunderstand their own position, and suffer their position to be misunderstood by others, when they consider themselves or suffer themselves to be considered merely or mainly the champions of immersion for baptism. Immersion for baptism Baptists unwaveringly believe in ; but immersion for baptism is not the Baptists' reason for existing as a distinct denomination of Christians. It is not for baptism according to a particular definition that they stand, so much as it is for obedience in baptism according to some definition. But it is not for obedience in baptism according to any definition, even according to the true definition, that Baptists stand. What Baptists stand for is obedience to Christ in everything — in baptism, certainly ; but in all other points not less. Their organizing principle is the principle of universal obedience. This principle includes baptism ; but it does not exhaust itself in baptism. If, just now, baptism seems to be disproportionately prominent in Baptist inculcation, it is because of a reason that is destined, as we trust, to be temporary. There is no reason for our being known by the name " Baptists" except that so many Christians still fail of obedience to Christ in baptism. I do not care to say fail of being baptized, or, more exactly, of having been baptized ; but fail of obedience in baptism. Our name " Baptists " is a provisional one. We accept it for the time from our brethren. When our brethren accept from us — or, better, from our Lord (both theirs and ours) — the principle of obedience to Christ, they and we together may be contented with the simple common name of " Christians."

" But how," it may be asked, " does this Baptist principle of obedience to Christ apply to the Baptist practice of restricted communion ? There is no commandment — is there ? — of Christ that forbids Baptists to sit down at the Lord's Supper with Paedobaptists." Certainly, I answer, there is no such explicit commandment. This is true, on the one hand ; but it is equally true, on the other, that there is no commandment that enjoins the intercommunion in question. On both sides alike explicit commandment is wanting. We are left to infer the will of Christ. To infer the will of Christ, I say ; for we are not left to consult our own will. The principle of obedience forbids that. Now, what is the obviously-implied will of Christ ?

" Repent and be baptized," says Christ. (I make no discrimination in authority between what Christ says with his own mouth and what he says by the mouth of an apostle.) Every one that " repents " — that is,

IO THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE.

every one that obeys Christ's first commandment; in a single word, every " convert " — is directed next and in immediate sequel to be "baptized." Then follow many other commandments of obligation to be habitually obeyed; among them — or, rather, besides them — one of a ritual nature, to be often (occasionally, perhaps periodically) but not habitually obeyed. This last commandment, being not moral but ceremonial in its quality, and of occasional rather than habitual obligation, is, in reason as in fact, placed subsequent to the command, " Repent." This every one admits. But not less, both in fact and in reason, it is also placed subsequent to the command, " Be baptized." If repenting must precede the Lord's Supper, being baptized likewise must, as well. The command, " Be baptized," precedes the command to partake of the Supper as they occur in Scripture, exactly as does the command, " Repent." So much for the order of Scripture. As for the order of reason, the rite which symbolizes creation, beginning, birth — namely, the rite of baptism — of course precedes the rite which symbolizes sustenance, continuance, nurture. Plainly, therefore, the implied will of Christ is, First baptism, afterward the Supper.

Now, to the spirit of obedience the clearly implied will of Christ is just as binding as his expressed will is. True, there is no distinct commandment, Be baptized before you come to the Supper ; but so there is no distinct commandment, Repent before you come to the Supper. Christ's will, however, is clear as to both points, and no less clear as to the one point than as to the other. The principle of obedience requires us to act accordingly.

But, still further, the principle of obedience requires us to exert our influence to induce others to act accordingly. Now suppose a case. I meet a Christian man that has never obeyed the ordinance, " Be baptized." He may have been sprinkled, he may even have been immersed, in his infancy ; but he has never, in any plain, simple, straightforward sense of the word, obeyed the ordinance, " Be baptized ;" that is to say, being addressed by Christ in the imperative " Be baptized," he has never once met that imperative with the obedient " I will," but has always replied, " I have been." He has, therefore, never obeyed Christ, in that particular command. I, a Baptist, meet such a man. I say to him, " Come, sit with me at the Lord's Table " — that is, I invite him to do what I believe to be inconsistent with the will of Christ. How does that " teach " him to fulfil Christ's will ? How does that comport with my principle of obedience ? But he says to me, " My conscience is satisfied." I am obliged to reply, "The command is not, ' Satisfy your conscience,' but, * Be baptized.' I shall not interfere with your satisfying your conscience — indeed, I shall try to enlighten your conscience, that you may have an enlightened conscience to satisfy ; but, meantime, surely I cannot invite you to do what I believe to be inconsistent with Christ's will — what I should not be conscience-clear in doing myself."

On the other hand, the same man invites me to sit with him at the Lord's Table. My sitting at the

Lord's Table on some suitable occasion is an act of obedience, because I am so commanded. My sitting with him, on his invitation, at the Lord's Table is not an act of obedience, because I am not so commanded. But if my sitting thus with him should signify approval of his disregard of Christ's will, in not having previously obeyed in being baptized, why, I should be guilty of disobedience myself. And if my act did not signify approval of his course, what good result of fellowship or of brotherly love — what good result of any sort — would be gained ?

The fact is that, as Baptists could not conscientiously partake themselves of the Supper without previously obeying the command, " Be baptized," so they cannot, expressly or impliedly, countenance the partaking of it by others without the same previous obedience. They cannot invite another to disregard what they believe to be the will of Christ, any more than they can disregard that will themselves. They cannot accept an invitation to join another in an act which, on that other's part, involves disregard of Christ's will, any more than they could by word of mouth approve the disregard involved. The act itself would virtually approve the disregard unless accompanied by an explanation and a protest. The protest and the explanation, if given, would be drowned and lost in the louder eloquence of the approving act. The only consistent thing for Baptists is evidently to abstain from any implication of themselves in an act which involves disregard of Christ's will. The practice of "restricted communion" is simply such a course of abstinence. " Free communion " could be significant of nothing but withdrawal of protest and silent approbation. " Restricted communion " has in it nothing offensive but the disapproval and protest that it contains. We dare not retract this solemn negative act and signal of fidelity to our Lord and to our brethren. We are sorry to give offence — we like to be liked; but noblesse oblige. Relationship to Christ imposes obligations ; the principle of obedience to Christ makes us as much afraid to countenance disregard of Christ's will on the part of others as to be guilty ourselves of the disregard. We wish to see our brethren obey Christ, precisely as we wish to obey Christ ourselves.

The principle of obedience to Christ is the Baptist principle. That principle is at the bottom both of Baptist baptism and of Baptist restriction of the Lord's Supper to the baptized believer; and of the one as much as of the other.

Chapter II. Obedience And The Spirit Of Obedience

OBEDIENCE and the spirit of obedience — I speak in the sphere of relationship to Christ — are sometimes improperly confounded. They are indeed occasionally the same, but not, by any means, always. They demand from us, therefore, now and then the exercise of a thoughtful discrimination. The distinction between them, when a distinction exists, is not seldom of considerable practical importance.

For purposes of useful discrimination, in life as well as in thought, we may properly distinguish two sorts of obedience to Christ. There is, first, the obedience which consists in accepting Christ as Master. This initial and comprehensive act of obedience is what is generally termed conversion. It is the obedience which that saying requires, " Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ" — that is, submit to acknowledge that Jesus is your Lord. As respects this inclusive sense of obedience to Christ, the spirit of obedience and obedience are manifestly the same. Having the spirit to submit is submitting. Within the scope of this meaning of obedience there are, in fact, no two things to be talked about, either for discrimination or for identification ; there is but the one thing, indifferently named now obedience and now spirit of obedience. Here, then, no danger exists of injurious mistake in confounding things that differ : for there are no differing things to confound.

But there is a second sense of the expression, Obedience to Christ. In this second sense obedience consists in actually doing particular things, outward or inward, that Christ has commanded. Christ's commandments, however, never are outward merely : they are sometimes inward merely. But if they are outward in part, they are always, at the same time, in part inward.

Two cases, therefore, arise. One case is that of commands that are wholly inward in their nature ; the other is that of commands that are partly inward and partly outward. These two cases admit of being clearly distinguished. In the case of commands wholly inward, obedience and the spirit of obedience are identical. Take, for instance, the command, " Rejoice." Here, evidently, having the joyful spirit is precisely the thing commanded. To rejoice and to have the spirit of rejoicing are one and the same thing. A second time, accordingly, we find obedience and the spirit of obedience to be mutually convertible terms. In the case, however, of particular commands that are partly inward and partly outward, we are compelled to establish a distinction. Here two quite separable elements enter into the command, and two severally corresponding elements, also quite separable in thought, enter into the obedience. There is a spirit of the command — that is one element; and there is a letter of the command — that is another element. So there is, too, a spirit of obedience — that is one element; and there is the actual obeying — that is another element. For full obedience these two elements of course must co-exist. If I have only the spirit to obey, I meet only the spirit of the command. It is needful, besides, to actually obey, in order to discharge a complete obedience. Take an illustration.

Christ says, through an apostle, " Confess your faults one to another." In these words a specific outward act is commanded, involving implicitly a specific inward spirit. Two elements enter into the command, and two elements must enter into the obedience. I have committed, let us say, a fault against a brother. I conceive and cherish the spirit of obedience as to the commanded act of confession. Now, if this obedient spirit in me is genuine and complete, I have already satisfied the spirit of the command before I actually confess ; but have I obeyed the command ? No, for the command is outward, as well as inward ; and I must comply outwardly, as well as inwardly, in order to perfect obedience. Not till I actually confess shall I have obeyed. Obeying must be added to the spirit of obeying to make up obedience.

Does it follow, then, that in such a case I may perhaps have the spirit of obedience — the undoubtedly genuine spirit of obedience — and, after all, not actually obey ? Under some circumstances I answer, Yes. An impossibility may have intervened. The brother transgressed against is inaccessible to me for some reason — perhaps through death. The spirit of

THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. I?

the command is now all that obliges me; and my obligation is fulfilled if I exercise the spirit of obedience. If I am physically unable to obey literally, I am free from moral blame for not literally obeying. I do not now disobey, though I fail to obey. But that is not because I exercise the spirit of obedience, and the spirit of obedience is the same as actual obedience, or as good ; it is rather because actual obedience is not required of me. Under such circumstances I am not addressed in the outward part of the command. The letter of the command does not speak to me. I am free from disobedience to the letter, not because I have obeyed in the spirit, but because in the letter I was not commanded. Self-evidently, the spirit of obedience does not become obedience by virtue of the fact that obedience is impossible. In short, where a particular act is commanded, the spirit of obedience is never commensurate and identical with obedience. In such a case obedience must always be completed by obeying. If obedience is physically impossible, obedience is not morally required. What is then required is repentance for not having obeyed while obedience was still possible, if it ever was possible ; but of course I cannot claim that I do render obedience in the mere fact of my repenting that I have not obeyed.

Suppose again. I have misunderstood, we will say, or I have entirely overlooked, the command in question. In this new case I do not obey, and, what is more, I cannot even say that I have cherished the spirit of obedience as regards that particular com- 2* B mand. I have neither obeyed nor had the purpose to obey. Where, now, is my obedience ? Evidently, it must be looked for, if anywhere, in my first general act of submitting to Christ as Master. Will this suffice ? Will obedience in the gross dispense me from the obligation to obedience in detail ? If so, why should Christ ever have issued any specific precepts ? The principle that the spirit of obedience in general is sufficient to answer in place of obedience to particular precepts would be Antinomianism pure and simple. No ; obedience to a specific injunction cannot be rendered without actually obeying that specific injunction. And if any specific injunction has been either misunderstood or altogether overlooked, then it cannot be claimed that, with reference to that specific injunction, as intended by its author, even the spirit of obedience has been exercised. As before, in the instance of its having become impossible to obey, so now, in the instance of a command being overlooked or misunderstood, I may be forgiven for non-obedience. But, mark, non-obedience is not converted into obedience by the presence of any such mistake, however excusable. Nothing but obeying completes obedience here. And nothing but the spirit that meets a command with a frank and conscious " I will " is even the spirit of obedience with respect to that particular commandment.

Now for an important application. Christ says, " Be baptized." Here a particular act is enjoined, whether he meant sprinkling or pouring or dipping. Let us suppose it uncertain, but it is some act. Now, with reference to this commandment — no matter, for the moment, whether of dipping or pouring or sprinkling — full obedience is not conceivable except as rendered in an act performed by the person addressed. The person to be baptized is spoken to (no one else) and commanded to perform an act. The act is, being baptized. This act, therefore, must be performed by him, or no obedience is rendered.

But further. Not only has the person commanded not obeyed unless he has performed the commanded act, but he has not even exercised the spirit of obedience as respects this particular commandment — whether of sprinkling or pouring or dipping — unless he has some time, at least, in his life, met the ordinance, " Be baptized," with the conscious answer, "I wilt"

Now let the great mass of my Paedobaptist brethren consider candidly for one moment with themselves what position they occupy to-day with respect to the commandment, " Be baptized." Whether the commandment means "be sprinkled," or whatever it means, they not only have not obeyed it, but they have never exercised toward it even the spirit of obedience. They were baptized (let us suffer the word) when they were infants. Grant it. But certainly they themselves fulfilled no obedience. Nay, they themselves performed no act commanded. The act commanded, on their part, was to submit themselves to baptism, but they did not submit themselves to baptism, much less did they exercise the proper accompanying spirit of obedience. Both the act expressly commanded and the accompanying spirit, commanded by implication, are wanting to their discharge of obedience to the commandment. The commandment, always obligatory until obeyed, confronts them in the New Testament, " Be baptized." Obedience is not impossible to them. The commandment is not overlooked by them — it is not, as we at present will suppose, misunderstood — but it is not obeyed. It is not even met with the spirit of obedience. It never has been. Our Paedobaptist brethren will not claim that they ever once met Christ's words, " Be baptized," with the inward answer, " I will." They have always said, " I have been," as if what Christ wanted of them was the state, on their part, of having been baptized, instead of the very thing commanded ; namely, the act — performed by them in conscious obedience — of being baptized, or, in still other words, the act of intelligently and obediently submitting themselves to baptism ! A ceremony never commanded by Christ is allowed, with them, to supplant an ordinance expressly established by Christ. If infant baptism were only a ceremony added and superfluous ! but it is made a substitute for a rite ordained by Christ.

I would earnestly ask my Paedobaptist brethren to ponder with themselves what that meaneth : " Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your

TRADITION."

Chapter III

WHICH ? THE FACT OR THE ACT ?— THAT IS, RITUALISM OR OBEDIENCE?

IT is no doubt often matter of perfectly sincere — and, it must be owned, not unnatural — surprise to Paedobaptists that their Baptist brethren should insist so strongly as they do upon their own distinctive view of the true relation between baptism and repentance. "You Baptists" — this, probably, would reflect the general Paedobaptist state of mind upon the point — " you Baptists say obedience is the great thing. We heartily agree with you. Obedience to Christ you claim to be the Baptist principle. We claim obedience to Christ for our own principle, at the same time that we do not deny it to be yours. We desire, we Paedobaptists, to obey Christ as much as do you. Christ says, 'Be baptized;' and we are baptized. Christ says, ' Repent ;' and we have repented. Do we not meet Christ's will ? Are we not obedient ?"

But I need not have constructed a conjectural statement. A Paedobaptist writer of no mean influence, undertaking to speak on behalf of his Paedobaptist brethren, expressed himself publicly, not long since, upon this very point, in the following words :

" Those baptized in infancy suppose they have obeyed the command to 'be baptized.' They know they have exercised the spirit of obedience to it. When the command says, ' Do/ they reply, in filial obedience, ' I do.' When the command says, ' Be,' they reply, in an equally obedient spirit, ' Yea, Lord, I am.' "

This brings the issue between Baptists and Psedobaptists to a point.

Two important mistakes are, as I think, involved in the sentences quoted — one, a mistake respecting the true nature of obedience in general ; the other, a mistake respecting the true nature of a certain particular command to be obeyed. Let us consider these mistakes in order.

First, then, I venture to maintain that in the foregoing quotation the spirit of obedience is not truly interpreted. The spirit of obedience does not reply, " I do," or, " I am." It replies, " I will." " I will " is the invariable reply of the spirit of obedience. The spirit of obedience does not know how to reply to a command in any other tense than the future. When the command comes with the word " Be," the full reply of the spirit of obedience is, " I will be." When the command comes with the word " Do," the full reply of the spirit of obedience is, " I will do."

To reply to the command " Be," " I am," or to the command " Do," " I do," is to affirm one or the other of the two following things, neither of which belongs to the language of the spirit of obedience — namely, either " This command was not necessary, for I had anticipated it," or else " This command is not obligatory, for I have obeyed it." But, as already said, neither the one nor the other of these two affirmations is the language of the spirit of obedience. To say, " This command was not necessary, for I had anticipated it," is, supposing the command addressed to you, irreverent. It is the language of pride, of self-righteousness. To say, " This command is not obligatory, for I have obeyed it," is right or it is wrong according as to say so is true or false — according, observe, as to say so is true or false, but by no means, necessarily, according as you think it to be true or false. If to say so is false, it is wrong, whether you think it true or not, though, of course, less wrong if you think it true. On the other hand, if it is true that you have, indeed, once obeyed — once, and for all, the command being of a nature to require but a single obedience — why, then your language is simply the language of sane recollection and of proper self-justification. But, though entirely right language for the case supposed, it yet is not at all the language of the spirit of obedience. The spir' of obedience, I repeat, has but one language. That language can be nothing different : it is for ever, " I will." And unless this language — the consenting " I will " — has, at some moment, been spoken in response to the command, whether to " Be " or to " Do," the command has not yet been obeyed.

It is not arrogance for me, a Baptist, to say this. It is certainly far from " contempt." Contempt does not seek to convince : contempt is content with its sneer. And to say this is no claim for myself of omniscience. It is simply a denial to some of my Christian brethren of the attribute of omniscience, even with reference to themselves — denial implied in a loyal and respectful endeavor on my part to show them that what they have, undoubtedly in good faith, thought to be obedience is not obedience ; that what they have honestly believed to be, with themselves, the true spirit of obedience is, in reality, not the spirit of obedience, but something else. I speak to the spirit of obedience in general, assumed to be in the heart of my brethren. I seek to convince that brotherly, that willing, that intelligent, spirit that in one certain particular it has failed to exercise itself. My very attempt implies respect and affection. I should have nothing to say on the point on which I am saying so much if I did not believe that at heart my brethren desired to obey. Let us have the mind of Christ, whatever it is. But we need the mind of Christ to find the mind of Christ. How helpless we are ! But how rich in help !

In the second place, as to the true nature of the particular command. Does the command, " Be baptized," require something done, merely — an opus operatum — or, rather, the doing of something ? Which is it, the fact or the act? Does the command mean, " Make sure that you be in the condition of one who at some time in the past has been baptized," " Secure the fact of having been baptized ;" or does it mean, " Become baptized," " Have yourself baptized," " Submit yourself to baptism," " Perform the act of being baptized " ? This is the alternative. According as we choose here, we decide absolutely whether persons baptized in their infancy may be said thus to have met the will of Christ. If Christ's will is simply that the state of having once been baptized shall be enjoyed by every Christian somehow, but not necessarily through the voluntary procurement of the subject, why, then the person baptized unawares in his infancy may be said to meet Christ's will. If, however, Christ's will be that every Christian shall consciously and purposely perform an act in his own baptism, why, evidently the person baptized in helpless infancy has not therein met Christ's will ; and he does not meet it until he deliberately has himself baptized. The question admits of no other alternative. Let us see. (It is constantly to be borne in mind that there is no point raised here as to what true baptism is, whether immersion or sprinkling. The present argument would stand just the same if the command read " Be sprinkled," instead of " Be baptized.")

Happily, the Greek language is less liable than is our own to any ambiguity here. Our expression " Be baptized " (or " sprinkled ") of course most naturally means " Have yourself baptized " (or " sprinkled "). But, then, it conceivably might mean, " Be, or remain, in a condition of having been baptized." This sense, no doubt, is somewhat violent. But it is not absolutely excluded. If a command were issued in English in the terms " Be baptized," there would, let us acknowledge, be just a possible chance for the doubt whether one who had at some time involuntarily been baptized might not fulfil the command by simply remaining of consent (as he, however, could, indeed, not help remaining), in that sense, a baptized person. But the Greek imperative employed for the command "Be baptized" does not allow an alternative. It means one thing — one thing only — and can mean nothing else. The question now is, What is that thing ?

To express the very unlikely, the wellnigh solecistic, idea, " Be a baptized person," the Greek would appropriate a peculiar form of the verb. It would use an imperative of the perfect tense, either in its simple form, or, perhaps more naturally, in a compound form of it, made up of two parts, one part a perfect passive participle meaning " having been baptized," and the other part the simple imperative of the verb " be." The expression, in whichever form, would therefore exactly say, " Be having been baptized," " Have been baptized," or " Be a baptized person." Is it probable that such a command as this ever proceeded from God ? Still, to this command, supposed real, a person who had been baptized in infancy might claim that he is obedient in virtue of agreeing now, in his will, to what happened once without his will. If there were any such divine command as the one supposed, I grant that to such a command the spirit of obedience might almost, by exception, adopt a foreign, a non-vernacular, language, and return for answer, " I am," instead of her vernacular " I will."