rch, and we are tempted to postpone its coming to the day of the
new Jerusalem which is compact together; but the clarion note of this
great text may encourage us to hope, and to labour in our measure for
the fulfilment of the hope, that all, who by one faith have been joined
to the one Lord, may yet know themselves to be one in Him, and present
to the world the fair picture of one body animated by one spirit.

III. One baptism.

Obviously in Paul's mind baptism here means, not the baptism with the
Spirit, but the rite, one and the same for all, by which believers in
Christ enter into the fellowship of the Church. It was then a perpetual
rite administered as a matter of course to all who professed to have
been joined to the one Lord by their one faith. The sequence in the
three clauses of our text is perfectly clear. Baptism is the expression
and consequence of the faith which precedes it. Surely there is here a
most distinct implication that it is a declaration of personal faith.
Without enlarging on the subject, I venture to think that the order of
the Apostle's thought negatives other conceptions of Christian baptism,
such as, that it is a communication of Grace, or an expression of the
feelings and desires of parents, or a declaration of some truth about
redeemed humanity. Paul's order is Christ's when He said, 'He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved.'

It is very remarkable and instructive that whilst thus our text shows
that baptism was a matter of course and universally practised, the
references to it in the epistles are so few. The inference is not that
it was neglected, but that, as being a rite, it could not be as
important as were Christian truths and Christian character. May we, in a
word, suggest the contrast between the frequency and tone of the
Apostolic references to baptism and those which we find in many quarters
to-day?

It is remarkable that here the Lord's Supper is not mentioned, and all
the more so, that in Paul's letter to the Corinthians, the passage which
we have already quoted does put emphasis upon it as a token of Christian
unity. The explanation of the omission may be found in the fact that, in
these early days, the Lord's Supper was not a separate rite, but was
combined with ordinary meals, or perhaps more probably in the
consideration that baptism was what the Lord's Supper was not--an
initial rite which incorporated the possessors of one faith into the one
body.

'T