What is a rite?

Baptism is however a rite, an outward sign. It accomplishes nothing vital, and alas, millions of baptised persons will find themselves in a lost eternity. It points however to that which is vital in the fullest sense, even the Cross, as we shall see.

The rite appointed by God to be a token of the covenant that He made with Abraham and his seed, and also the seal of the righteousness of his faith. Every male in Abraham's house was to be circumcised, and afterwards every male of his seed on the eighth day after birth. It signified the separation of a people from the world to God. During the 40 years in the wilderness this rite was not performed, but on entering God's land all were circumcised at Gilgal, when the reproach of Egypt was rolled away. Joshua 5:2-9. Circumcision became a synonym for Israel, so that they could be spoken of as 'the circumcised,' and the heathen as 'the uncircumcised.' Judges 14:3; Ezek. 31:18; Acts 11:3. Contrary to the design of God, circumcision became a mere formal act, when the covenant itself was disregarded, and God then speaks of Israel as having 'uncircumcised hearts.' Stephen charged the Jewish council with being 'uncircumcised in heart and ears.' Lev. 26:41; Acts 7:51. In Rom. 4. Abraham is shown to be 'the father of circumcision,' that is, of all that believe as the truly separated people of God.

Genesis 17:7 says, “And I will establish My covenant between Me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee”. Circumcision is said to “be a token of the covenant betwixt Me and you” (Verse 11), and this chapter tells us who was involved in the rite of circumcision and when it was to be carried out. It becomes evident that circumcision means that the flesh must be kept in the place of death. The flesh can contribute nothing towards the carrying out of the will of God. “He that is eight days old” was to be circumcised, and the eighth day is significant as referring to a new start entirely. Only a new life within can produce anything for the pleasure of God.

So circumcision became the sign of a covenant relationship between the Israelite and God. What could be referred to as a surgical operation was to be performed on the male child at eight days old in all Jewish families. This began to be carried out very diligently throughout the nation, but its true meaning was soon lost. It became just an outward rite carrying very little inward reality. Its effect on manner of life was non-existent. It was never God's intention that an outward rite should be observed without inward reality. This gives no pleasure to Him.

1882 118 How are we then to define a sacrament, so that the definition may be what a definition should be, viz., adequate, yet devoid of superfluous conditions? A sacrament is an ordinance instituted by Christ Himself, and which exhibits, in a symbolical form, the way, or the meritorious cause, of our salvation. Hence the Anglican body rightly says, there are two sacraments and two only. One of these is subjective, the other objective. Baptism, the subjective, and the initiatory rite of the church, signifies that death and resurrection in and with Christ is the process of salvation. "Know ye not that so many of us as have been baptized unto Jesus Christ have been baptized unto His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him by baptism unto death." (Rom. 6:3-4). "Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him," etc. (Col. 2:12). "For ye have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God." (Col. 3:3.) "Verily, verily I say unto you, He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but is passed from death unto life." (John 5:24.) Death and resurrection is the fundamental principle of the gospel — on the part of Christ it is the meritorious cause of our salvation, on our part it is the necessary process; and of this truth baptism is the symbol. The Lord's Supper is the ordinance in which the sacrificial death of Christ is symbolically presented to us, as forming the subject-matter of the church's communion with the Lord, and with each other, and that in peace with God. The Lord's Supper is particularly connected with the church as the body of Christ "For we being many are one bread (loaf), and one body" (1 Cor. 10:17); but we are baptized into one body, not by water, but by the Holy Ghost.

I learn that the Lord has left two rites, or ordinances, both significative of His death; one initiatory, the other of continual observance in the church of God — baptism and the Lord's supper.17

There are two rites or ordinances in Christianity: (1) Baptism, which puts the baptised person on ground of profession; (2) the Lord's Supper on the line of privilege. The truth of the latter was clearly given to Gentile believers through the Apostle Paul, "I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you" (1 Cor. 11:23), It is primarily a memorial feast, having its inauguration and type in the memorial and ordinance of the Passover. In Exodus 12. we get the type; the slain lamb, unleavened bread and bitter herbs speak of the character of the passover feast; while the girded loins, shoes and staff set forth the pilgrim features of the participators. It would seem that it was the custom of the Jews to "break bread" and "drink of the cup of consolation" for their departed parents (Jer. 16:7; also Deut. 26:14; Job 42:11, and Hosea 9:4). This "mourning feast" would have significance to a godly Jew familiar with the Hebrew scriptures.

For baptism the Lord gave a formula of words, not as "consecrating" the water, but as giving validity to the rite as performed in His name, and by His authority. No such fixed formula of words, but giving of thanks, attends the celebration of the Lord's Supper; for 1 Cor. 11:24, 1 Cor. 14:16-17, compared with Matt. 26:26, and with 1 Cor. 10:16, prove that eulogeo = eucharisteo and that, eulogia=eucharistia, i.e. to bless means in this case to give thanks. To quote the words of a very able writer: "The term eucharistia is used metonymically, resembling in all respects the phrase poterion eulogias, ho eulogoumen, in St. Paul=ho eucharistetheis artos kai oinos, in Justin Martyr — the bread and wine over which the prayer of thanksgiving has been pronounced. The latter says expressly that, immediately after the president of the church has pronounced this prayer of thanksgiving over the bread and wine, and the church joined in it with their amen, the sacramental elements were distributed. He mentions no other consecration." We quote this, simply as confirming what we have just stated as the teaching of Scripture, not as regarding the "Fathers" to be any authority whatever. On the contrary, it is to the Fathers we must go to find the basis of that systematic perversion of Scripture, and of that traditional and corrupted Christianity, which has existed (though with increasing departure from the truth) from the time the apostles were removed from this world; who oven, in their later writings, endeavoured to combat the tide of corruption, both of doctrine and in practice, which was then commencing to invade, as it soon overflowed, the church, to its ruin as a testimony in the world for God.

It can scarcely be necessary to observe that circumcision and the passover were types, whilst baptism and the Lord's Supper are symbols; and symbols only. The type looks forward, and is prophetic; the symbol, as it were, looks back, and is figuratively expressive of a known truth, i.e., is historical. The two sacraments, viz., baptism and the Lord's Supper, are of similar import to circumcision (which signified the cutting off of the flesh), and the passover (which was typical of the expiatory death of Christ); but, the atonement having taken place, Christians commemorate the Lord's Supper in the blessing of accomplished redemption, and hence it has to them the character of the peace-offering. But the sacraments are not operative and efficacious in themselves. Whilst in the Lord's Sapper we have communion with the Lord as to His death, and its value to us, nevertheless one main object of the sacrament is to mark off and separate the Christian profession from non-Christianity, and that by signs significative of Christ's death.

The common factor of these two signs is that they both speak of death. Baptism reminds us of the death of Jesus Christ for us, with which we are identified. The Breaking of Bread also reminds us of the Lord’s death every first day of the week. He gave His life for us, so that we can pass from death unto life. Another thing that both signs have in common is that they have neither a secret nor a mystical power. The actions themselves are and remain outward actions. They do not effect any change in our inner person. We do not become different persons either through baptism or by participating in the Breaking of Bread. No-one will enter heaven simply on the ground of his having been baptized or having taken part in the Breaking of Bread. Both signs are outward signs; however, they have a profound spiritual significance.

The reason was, they were external things, that stood only in meats and drinks and divers washings. An Israelite had to be very careful about what kind of food he ate. The law prescribed as to everything he ate or drank; all had to be clean, or else he was defiled. But these things were all external things — meats, drinks, and divers washings; or, as the word really is (we saw it in the sixth chapter), divers baptisms. There was a washing at the laver, the sprinkling of blood to sanctify the unclean, upon the brazen altar too, sometimes upon the horns of the altar of incense, and once a year upon the mercy-seat. These could not make the conscience perfect, or give real peace; they were carnal, or fleshly, ordinances; having to do with the outward man, with a relationship to God which was purely external. A man might thus be a good Israelite, might be ceremonially clean, and yet be an utter stranger to peace with God or a sense of His love, or access into His holy presence. We are told here these things were laid upon them as a yoke — a yoke, in fact, as Peter says, "which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear" — until the time of reformation: that is, the time when all would be put on a right foundation, a right basis. These things were of a purely temporary character, but full of meaning for us, as types.

But these ritualistic performances, while they were based on divine authority transmitted through the mediator, Moses, were imposed for a limited period only. Types and shadows of deep moral and spiritual realities, they con stituted as a system "a parable for the present time," looking forward in their typical scope and application unto the time when the promised Christ should come. As ceremonies of divine origin, they were insufficient to perfect the conscience of the worshipper, the entire scheme, with its "meats and drinks and divers washings" being but ordinances of the flesh, imposed until the time of rectification (Heb. 9:9-10). And even the Psalms and the Prophets united to teach how inefficient were the ceremonies apart from the inward change of the worshipper (Ps. 51:16-17).

There had arisen, however, at the time of our Lord, a foreign accretion upon this body of Mosaic rites. It was now enjoined (but not through angels, by the hand of an appointed mediator, as the law at Sinai was) that men must wash before eating after visiting the marketplaces, and that cups and pots, and brazen vessels must be ceremonially cleansed.