IT

may

CHAPTER XII.

PREACHING AND SACRAMENTS.

be well here to notice an objection to the view of the Christian ministry and Sacraments which is set forth in the preceding chapters.

We are reminded that the Apostles, and St. Paul in particular, especially designate themselves as teachers and preachers, and not as priests or administrators of Sacraments; and it is assumed that there is some antagonism between "preaching" and "administering Sacraments," or, at least, that the importance ascribed to preaching necessarily takes from the importance of Sacraments.

Now, unquestionably, preaching or teaching is the first thing in the Kingdom of God, for without it we cannot apprehend that the Kingdom of God is His kingdom, or that Jesus Christ is His Son, or that the Blood of Christ is our Atonement, or indeed any truth of God whatsoever.

But the matter at issue is, do we "preach" as an end or as a means? Do we preach for mere preaching's sake, or do we preach to lead men to something further? We shall be able to ascertain the respective places of preaching and Sacraments, and the folly of instituting any comparison between them, by considering the great Pentecostal sermon and its effects.

This sermon, preached by St. Peter, was followed by the conversion of a large number of persons. It led to those persons asking what they were to do to be saved;

and this led the Apostle to bid them "repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins." So that the first Christians learnt through the preaching of the Apostles that on their repentance they must be grafted into Christ's mystical body.

In telling them this, the Apostle acted strictly on the commission which he had received from his Master, which ran thus: "Preach the Gospel to every creature. that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

He

Again, we read that these converts continued steadfastly in the fellowship of the Apostles (Acts ii. 42). How is it that they did this? Evidently because of the "preaching" of the Apostles. The Apostles, no doubt, taught their converts what their Master had taught them, about His Church or Kingdom; that it was the vine of which He was the stem that He had prayed most earnestly for its unity on His way to the Garden of Gethsemane, and such-like things; and this teaching or preaching led to the continuance of the converts in the "fellowship of the Apostles," i.e., in the unity of the Church, and in all that continuance in such unity involves; and this fact, because of its importance, is duly chronicled by the sacred writer.

Again, these converts are said to have continued steadfastly in the "breaking of bread." This they never would have thought of doing, unless the Apostles had preached to them that Jesus was the "bread from heaven"-that the bread which He gives is His Flesh; and that on the night of His betrayal He had blessed and broken bread, saying, "Take, eat, this is My body."

Their steadfast continuance in the reception of the Eucharist was the consequence of their attending to the "preaching" of the Apostles.

We turn to St. Paul. He was appointed a "preacher, and an Apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles" (2 Tim. i. 2).

But what truth does He assure us that, above all other truths, he was specially commissioned to teach?

He declares that a special dispensation of grace was committed to him to make known a certain mystery, and that this mystery is, that "the Gentiles should be fellowheirs and of the same body;" i.e., the mystical body of Christ (Ephes. iii. 6). From this we learn that, in the eyes of St. Paul, the "truth as it is in Jesus" comprehends all "Church," or "body of Christ" truth: and so the particular Epistle in which the Apostle thus states the nature of the revelation vouchsafed to him is pervaded with Church truth, or the Church aspect of union with Christ.

Now let us turn to his other teaching.

If we have his teaching, or the substance of his teaching, in the Epistle to the Romans, then the doctrine that Baptism is a means of union in Christ's death, in order that we may "walk in newness of life," is a part of St. Paul's teaching and preaching.

If we have his teaching in his first letter to the Corinthians, then, to be consistent, he must have preached that the "bread which we break" in the Eucharist is the "communion of the body of Christ," and that it is the pledge to the believer of his continued incorporation in Christ (1 Cor. x. 16, 17).

His preaching or oral teaching can hardly have differed from his teaching by letter, and that it did not we have a proof in the effect which it produced upon the jailer. In answer to his question, "What shall I do to be saved ?" it was said to him by the Apostle, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house:" and then (it is said) the Apostle and Silas "spake to him the word of the Lord," which "word of the Lord" must have comprehended something to the purpose respecting

Sacraments; for it is immediately added that "he was baptized, he and all his straightway." This could not have taken place so quickly, unless he had been taught that some great benefit from Christ depended upon baptism.

But we are reminded that St. Paul was sent by Christ "not to baptize but to preach the Gospel;" and that he thanked God that he had " baptized none of the Corinthians save Crispus and Gaius."

This place is gravely cited, as if St. Paul meant to disparage his Master's ordinance, and to set himself above the other Apostles, for whereas Christ gave to them a commission to preach and baptize, St. Paul, it is assumed, considered himself called to preach only, i.e., to perform the higher act and not the lower.1

There is no need to adopt an interpretation so inconsistent with St. Paul's regard to the words of his Divine Master, for he himself tells us why he thanked God that he had baptized so few of the Corinthians, which was, "lest any should say that he had baptized in his own name;" lest, that is, he should be thought to have given the least occasion of division in the Corinthian Church.

St. Paul's words and acts are really a testimony to the importance of Baptism, for they teach us that it is the same, and conveys the same benefits, by whomsoever it is administered. He thanks God that he had not baptized simply because the Baptism of any minister produced exactly the same effect as his, Baptism being an act of God rather than of men, and so its effect is independent of the Ecclesiastical position of the administrator.

St. Paul unquestionably looked upon teaching as his

This is actually the inference drawn in Mr. Ryle's tract on "Regeneration."

special province (if I may be allowed to use such a term), because God had given him special gifts to proclaim to the world the mystery respecting the Gentiles being of the same body in Christ (Ephes. iii. 6), and he did not so regard his power to administer Sacraments, because there was nothing in it special to him, for the most obscure administrator of the Holy Communion offered to the faithful all that an Apostle could communicate to them in that Sacrament.

Even supposing that Sacraments are, in some respects, secondary, yet a secondary matter may become of primary consideration if it involves submission to God: and Sacraments involve a twofold act of submission-submission of the whole man to receive the ordinance, and submission of the heart and mind to receive the mystery.

If there be danger from abuse of Sacraments, there is danger also from abuse of preaching. So, at least, the Apostle thinks, when he speaks of the time when men will, after their own lusts, heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears" (2 Tim. iv. 3).

66

I should not however have endeavoured, at such length, to show the absurdity of any comparison between preaching and Sacraments, were it not that I desire to prepare the way for the following question and its answer. How is it that such a comparison has ever been instituted?

It is because preaching has been regarded as an end, not as a means.

They who impugn Sacramental truth do it because they believe that preaching produces the effect which the Apostles ascribe to Sacraments.

They suppose that if a man, under the influence of the preacher, is enabled to exercise an act of faith in the atonement of Christ, that man's union with Christ is there