Order of the Ordinances.
By Editor
SOME time since a highly esteemed friend asked our opinion as to whether a believer should be baptized before partaking of the Lord's Supper, or, whether a candidate for baptism may be invited to partake of the supper. For reasons our own, we have hesitated somewhat to answer the question, though we are not in doubt as to how we should answer it. We are decidedly of the opinion that the Lord's Supper is for the members of the church, and that no one is a member of the church before baptism. The question is often asked, Do you not believe that persons may be converted and accepted of God before baptism? Of course we do. Then if so, are they not as children of God entitled to the privileges of the Lord's Supper? It is not difficult to answer that question. We may be permitted to ask in return: Is the church a divine arrangement, or is it not? And, Is the Lord's supper a church ordinance, or does it equally belong to those outside the church? We believe that church relationships were established by the Lord himself; that there is great virtue in associated effort, in Christian union, and that this fact has been recognized by the Lord in many ways. And there is no method more sure of breaking down this arrangement, and of losing its benefit, than that of granting the privileges of church membership to those who are not church members. No matter what our thoughts or feelings may be concerning the conversion of any person, we cannot recognize him, in our capacity as a church, as entitled to the privileges of the church. We may, as individuals in the United States, have the fullest confidence in the integrity of our foreign-born neighbor, and of his devotion to our Government. But in a Governmental capacity we cannot recognize him as possessing any claim to citizenship until he has publicly and in legal form filed his declaration of intention to become a citizen. Any other course tends to subversion of the Government. And so it is in the case of any organization, a church not excepted. We do not believe that Christian perfection is reached at a single bound, or that all the evil tendencies of our natures are eradicated in conversion. Christian life is a warfare, and there is always abundant room for growth in grace; always danger of human nature asserting itself, even in the convert. It is not difficult to imagine many examples where it would be preferable, judging from a selfish stand-point, to remain outside the church, and never become a member, and thus avoid many duties or burdens which are unavoidable in church membership, if all the privileges of the Lord's house may be enjoyed without entering. And if it is the privilege of an unbaptized person, one who is not a church member, to partake of the Lord's Supper, who is to determine the limit of that privilege? or may it be unlimited? If it is the privilege of one, it is the privilege of many, and of all. Thus a person, or any number of persons, may enjoy the privilege of the supper for a lifetime, and never be baptized, and never enter the church. There may not be any immediate danger of the privilege being so far abused. But small innovations have led to great abuses in the past, and they may again. Indeed, the tendency in the direction of such a state of things, at the present time, is by no means weak or small. We never had any confidence in the practice which so largely prevails of inviting "all persons in good standing in sister churches" to partake of the supper. We have known great abuses to grow out of it. Thus, a member of a church becomes a proper subject of discipline, and, as such, he is not entitled to a place at the table until the question of discipline is disposed of. He leaves the church, perhaps in open ill-will to its members, and unites with a neighboring church. Then, as a member of another church, he comes to the Lord's Supper in the church which he left. There it is known that gospel discipline would compel him to remain away, but that discipline they cannot apply because of their loose method of inviting to the supper. It may be said that there is far less danger of such an abuse among Seventh-day Adventists than among most other denominations, which is and will be true as long as we place proper limitations upon our invitations to the supper; but it will not be true if we adopt the same loose methods which are adopted by many other denominations. We do not attach much importance to custom or "general consent." But we notice as a fact that there is scarcely any other point of church belief upon which there is so great uniformity among all professing Christians, of every name, as this, that baptism precedes full church membership. Uniformity of practice is impossible only because of the widely diverse views of baptism. We think the uniformity in belief is owing to the order of statement in the New Testament, which cannot be accidental. Thus, in the commission, Matt. 28, is the following order: 1. Discipling the nations. 2. Baptizing them. 3. Teaching them to observe all things commanded to the disciples. In Acts 2 is found the same order. 1. They gladly received the word. 2. They were baptized. 3. "They continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers." A word in regard to baptism. We have not the least possible faith in the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration," as held, necessarily by those who practice infant baptism, and by some others. But we do believe that, in its proper place and significance, it was held in much higher esteem in the gospel system in the immediate teaching of the apostles, than it is in this age. It was invariably preached, invariably required, and never long delayed after gladly receiving the word. It was plainly stated as one of the conditions of salvation, by Christ himself. It was held equally important by Peter in Acts 2, on that day of pentecost. It was taught by Philip in his first and only sermon to the Ethiopian eunuch. It was given like prominence in the message sent to Cornelius. It was taught by Paul and Silas in that memorable night's instruction to the jailer in Philippi. Paul asserts that it was the method whereby they "put on Christ" before the world. Peter again gives it an important place by likening its benefits to the saving of Noah and his family in the ark. It was made the unvarying badge of acceptance of, and loyalty to, Christ and his gospel. We had no intention of extending our remarks to such length, but perhaps the questioner will be the better satisfied that it is so.